The Instigator
consultium
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Alternatives to simple debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 69143
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

consultium

Pro

I would like to see politians state in detail their position, without interruption allowing for a response on a subject of their choosing so that I can review multiple positions and decide for myself which is the position I go for.
Zarroette

Con

As per DDO customs, I will make my first round acceptance. I await Pro's opening round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
consultium

Pro

consultium forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

My opponent's very brief argument is that: "I would like to see politians state in detail their position, without interruption allowing for a response on a subject of their choosing so that I can review multiple positions and decide for myself which is the position I go for".

On the basis of this, my opponent would prefer an alternative to "simple debate", so my side needs to negate the idea that simple debate is not to be preferred over politicians stating their position in detail.



Negative Case


P1: Representative Democracy


The implied political structure is a Representative Democracy: "A representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them. A representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them" [1].


In other words, officials are elected to office by the people in order to represent the people.



A1: The informed should steer the ship


As the great philosopher Plato made his analogy involving politics in The Republic, politics is much like a ship [2, 169-170]. A problem with Democracy is that the average voter knows little or even cares little about politics. Would you trust the average sailor (voter), who knows very little about navigation (politics) to steer the ship (make correct political decisions)? I think that no reasonable human would think so, hence it would be unwise for the ignorant to be given so much impact in politcal matters.


Now, in the case of my opponent's argument, implied is that the voter is listening to the ideas of the politician in great detail. But do you see the folly in that? Why is the person, who has never held office or been involved in politics, making decisions on whether a certain political decision is sound? Do you hire a plumber only to tell him how to do his job? Or do you pay this plumber to have the expertise and knowledge to do the job without your imput?


Let the informed steer the ship, or else we will capsize or wreck. Voters should choose who they best think will lead, not on intricate details of politics of which they have no experience to relate. The best way to see who is more competent a leader is to see how he/she handles fierce opposition in a simple debate against another trained professional.



A2: Save time


To state a position in detail would take much time. A simple Google scholar search on "Gay marriage" returns "About 457,000 results" [4]. There are simply so many facets and intricacies on every political topic that to learn about these, the voter would require an enormous amount of time in order to be informed. Remember that this is only one issue! Imagine how much you would have to know about politics in order to be competent in deciding political decisions!


Also, to listen to hours, upon hours of detail that is required to have a firm idea of an issue is simply not possible. According to a Stauffer, Frost, & Rybolt (1983), "on average, viewers who just watched and listened to the evening news could only recall 17.2% of the content when not cued" [3]. Clearly, information would have to be repeated several times in order for the listener to understand, and I am not even taking into consideration the more complex topics that require higher I.Q. to process quickly.


My opponent's suggestion of voters listening in detail to politicians, in order to decide if their policy is desirable, would take an enormous amount of time, due to not only the scale of information required to be known, but due to human inefficiencies in absorbing the information.



Conclusion


So, allowing debate to occur saves us the problem of having incompetent people try to decide whether the politician understands the issue. Or, in the event that a voter wants to learn about the issue, save an enormous amount of time educating the voter to a reasonable extent. Let the people decide who should lead based on his/her character and/or track record via a simple debate. The resolution is negated.


References:

[1] http://education-portal.com...
[2] http://www2.hn.psu.edu...
[3] http://d1025403.site.myhosting.com...
[4] https://scholar.google.com.au...=
Debate Round No. 2
consultium

Pro

consultium forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Vote for me =)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NNEye 2 years ago
NNEye
This is the wrong place. A forum would be more suitable.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
consultiumZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds in this debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro's opening argument was soundly defeated by Con in R2. Following that, Con then presented several challenges/arguments to Pro which remained unrebutted for the remainder of the debate. Due to Con left standing unchallenged, arguments go to her. Sources - Con. Pro failed to present any sources in this debate whereas Con did.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
consultiumZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: gg
Vote Placed by PapaNolan 2 years ago
PapaNolan
consultiumZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: ff