The Instigator
hardikcr7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

A common man is a silent instigator under the cloak of a mute spectator

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2012 Category: Arts
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,382 times Debate No: 25105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

hardikcr7

Pro

How does a common man act as an instigator?
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent is Pro and so needs to show that "a common man a silent instigator under the cloak of a mute spectator."

To prevent semantics, "a common man" refers to the average common man, not any singular common man.

I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
hardikcr7

Pro

if u kno sumthing about the topic so plzz give yur vies otherwise plzz dont participate
Ore_Ele

Con

As instigator, it is your duty to provide the opening argument, or state in your R1 that you are expecting your opponent to lead this dance. However, I shall go ahead and attempt to argue against something that has not been argued for yet (which is technically a strawman).

I contend that the common man is not a silent instigator, but a verbal one and a loud one at that. Down on the quanta level, people interact day in and day out. During those interactions, there is the occasional disagreement or argument between two people. This disagreements are often not mute, but can involve shouting or even violence when shouting doesn't work [see video]. Now, many confrontations of disagreement do not escalate this far, but one thing that they have in common is that they usually involve communication of some kind. While there likely is some degree of disagreement between mimes and mutes (many mutes view mimes in the same way that blacks view whites in blackface), these are few and far enough between to understand that they are not the average man.

I'll limit at this so that my opponent has at least a little to work off of and they can now post an argument.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
hardikcr7

Pro

Have you listened about Jasmine Movement in Egypt
in this country there was dictatorship for around 4 decades
but when the circumstances in the country became worse people started unloading and texting on the internet
and within two months dictatorship was removed
so aren't people here acting as silent instigator!!!!!!!!!!1
Ore_Ele

Con

Ummm.... no.

They didn't over throw the government by "texting on the internet." They over threw the government with physical protests. From the video you can see and hear that the protesters were anything but mute.

I would normally say that these people are not "common men" but regardless, your arguments do not hold. If you don't want to watch the entire 10:21 video, just go to 1:01 to 1:14.

My opponent's case has been negated.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by haert09 4 years ago
haert09
Hello My Dear,
I am well pleased to contact you after viewing your profile today through my mail contact mail address is
hamisikipkalye(at)yahoo(dot)com) give me your mail for easy contact send it directly to my mail box now and i will add you ok
God bless you.
Yours friend.
hamisi
Posted by mark.marrocco 5 years ago
mark.marrocco
I'm not exactly sure what Pro was trying to argue for, as I don't think that the topic resolution is even stating a proposition than can be logically proven or disproven, as much as some kind of ambiguous slogan.

Aside from that, Pro wasted two rounds by not even posting a recognizable argument in either one, and in his only argument he fails to demonstrate that he people involved were "common," or that they were spectators. Also, Pro simply loses the argument that they were silent to direct evidence to the contrary.

My final point is that even if Pro had somehow proven his "proposition" held in this one instance, then he would have had to still had to do a lot more to prove that it was true more generally. Unless of course, he made some kind of semantic argument regarding his own use of the indefinite article "A" in the topic resolution, but I'm assuming at this point that was more accidental than intentional.

P.S. I've tried to pretty lenient about spelling and grammar in my earlier votes, but in this case the grammar made the communication from Pro practically non-existent, and the spellings "kno," "u," and "plzz?" Please.
Posted by logicalrobot 5 years ago
logicalrobot
I am a bit confused. Exactly what is the resolution asking of me?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
hardikcr7Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't present a case. Pro failed to make a clear and coherent resolution.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
hardikcr7Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. Imabench said it all :s
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
hardikcr7Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grammar in R2 made me want to slam my head into my keyboard (the result would likely look the same as his arguments), He never actually made an argument untill round 3, which Con promptly refuted, and Con actually used sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
hardikcr7Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Unconvincing arguments, horrific grammar, and no use of sources by the pro. Con clearly won the debate
Vote Placed by mark.marrocco 5 years ago
mark.marrocco
hardikcr7Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.