The Instigator
simplex
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
lr4n6champion
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,757 times Debate No: 4956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (18)

 

simplex

Pro

The total costs of Beijing's 2008 Olympics will be the most expensive in history. This will include spending towards infrastructure, technology, architecture, security, employment, and upkeep during the time of the Olympics.

The spending (that goes directly towards the Olympics event) is estimated to be at $65 Billion USD. [1]

The spending towards infrastructure, energy, supplies, and water account for roughly $40.9 Billion USD

Compared to it's previous host, Athens spent roughly $11.2 Billion USD in 2004.

Sources:

1 http://epiac1216.wordpress.com...
lr4n6champion

Con

The will be refers to the future and we can't definately say this will be the most costly olypmics of all future history so this assumption is not plausible
Debate Round No. 1
simplex

Pro

As mentioned in the comments, when one states "will be...in history", it's usually expected that the context of comparison is against it's predecessors. Language is not always literal, and when I say "such and such is fantastic", I don't mean it is imagined, but rather excellent to the point of almost fantastical. In any case, if I was talking about of all time rather than in recorded history so far, I would probably have used "of all time", wouldn't I?

I apologize, I assumed that my opponent would have understood underlining implications behind common language. But of course, English is not the first language for all of us, as such, I will try to be more clear by rephrasing the debate topic to better suit my Opponent's needs.

"Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly from the time of it's preperation in 2001 to the end of the event's completion later this year in comparison to that of similiar Olympic events in the past (discluding the original sporting events participated by the Greeks, Romans, or such as they were not 'Olympic Games' as proper defined now), taking into account of inflation, economic growth, population growth, while ignoring such unrelated issues of political struggle. The term "costly" refers to financial spending, rather than the cost in terms of human laborers, time and energy, or in terms of how many specific cows were slaughtered for the preparation of Olympics. When considering financial amounts, using $USD as ONLY a form of standardization rather than specifically that (for example) China has spent 3 billion in Chinese Yuan and 2 billion in US Dollars. China in the case of this debate is limited to the country of China established by common international laws to include Hong Kong. It does not include Taiwan as it is still under scrutiny whether its political boundaries are correct. 'China' also suggest the inclusion of Tibet, the topic of which is not under discussion here. In the unlikely case that there is confusion, 2008 is suggested to be 2008 A.D. of our current calendar, as is commonly perceived to be this current year."

I hope this new and improved debate topic will be more appropriate for my opponent's needs, and look forward to debating him on facts, not semantics.
lr4n6champion

Con

I am glad my opponent cleared up his grammar error and admitted that his orginal statement predicting the future was absurd. The term "will be" was not clearly defined to a certain end point and therefore the term applies to all of the future.

My opponenet argues that ruels of common English would make his statement true but I am sorry to say that whatever common English he/she is studying doesn't seem to match real English meaning. Will be is the future and unless you put an ending statement, the term goes on for all the future. A statemtent like i.e. "will be the most costly in history at the time of its conclusion." would be fine but since my opponent gives no direct time for which we compare these olympics to all history, his resolution is as he says himself, "absurd"

In a debate we debate the resolution on the resolution that we start out with... In this case "Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympics will be the most costly in history." is the resolution we go by, not what my opponent conjured up in the second round.

When debating we have to look at every word in the resolution and every possible meaning. For my opponent to make a resolution with flawed grammar and then pass it off as me no understanding the English language is quite sloppy.

Disregarding the nonsensical nature of the resolution, my opponent goes on to defend himself saying the a statement like "such and such is fantastic" follows his common english theorem, but alas no real debate would have a resolution with such and such fantastic (and don't try to start one just to prove me wrong, because it is quite clear that a statement like such and such is fantastic would never make it into even a high school debate.) My opponent also writes that he would have used "of all time" if he meant comparison to the future, but judging on the implictaion of the resolution he wrote he might as well had.

Just to wrap this up: A) We stick to the original resolution, not the new one my opopnent wrote in his second round by the basic rules of any debate B) His grammar "will be...in history" leads to comparisons of all future since he didn't add a phrase like "will be...in history at the time of its conclusion" C)This means that this resolution would have to be true forever and that is not possible to predict D) My opponent's "common english" that I apparently don't know would not even be used in a high school debate (let alone something higher) because of its vagueness

Looking at all that I have put through, it is clear that the resolution my opponent started this debate with and the only resolution we go by is false in its implications.

Therefore, to all who understand English, I urge a vote of negation
Debate Round No. 2
simplex

Pro

Sigh... another example of public education failure.

Times Online:
"Bush's second inauguration will be the most expensive in history."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

ABC News:
"In fact, the Red Cross has said the Hurricane Katrina relief effort will be the most costly in history."
http://abcnews.go.com...

London free press:
"The Olympic village is the best in history and I expect the ceremonies to be the best in history"
http://lfpress.ca...

People's Daily Online:
"The Olympic Games of Beijing 2008 will be the best in history, said the President of the Uruguayan Olympic Committee Julio C. Maglione. "
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Asian Games Press:
"The opening ceremony tomorrow will be the best in history."
http://asiangamesdoha2006.blogspot.com...

New York Times:
"The executives who market Hollywood's movies are confident that this summer will be the best in history"
http://query.nytimes.com...

Time Magazine:
"This year's election will be the most expensive in history."
http://www.time.com...

But by all means, explain how your version of English is obviously more accurate than the rest of the English speaking world. In the meantime, if someone wishes to participate in a debate about the listed topic instead of inventing English usage, I'll be happy to accept a challenge.
lr4n6champion

Con

Well what I fail to see in your list is a debate topic. Newspaper articles and magazine titles don't have to use perfect English because people aren't debating the resolution. Articles are simply trying to get a point across and people aren't going to sue them for having incorrect grammatical meanings. If someone talks to you saying gas prices will be the most costly in history, it is fine because you understand them, but when it comes to debating a resolution, you have to make sure every piece of the wording makes sense when you take it apart piece by piece. You interpret a random sentence in Time magazine piece by piece, but that is how you examine resolutions

You failed to give me any evidence of debate topics in which something like will be... in history would work fine without a comparison afterwards.

Let me put it concisely.

History- a systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time

Will- about or going to

Be- to take place; happen; occur

Source: Dictionary.com

Combining this, will be in history means it is "about to take plsce in s systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time. Pretty much, since there is no comparison put in, we can't truly argue something that seeks to predict time itself
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by lr4n6champion 9 years ago
lr4n6champion
Yeah, the topic was good and I wasn't actually going to debate but then I guessed this would be the right resolution to try something different
Posted by simplex 9 years ago
simplex
Good effort, I honestly have never seen the "Normal English is different from Debate English" argument before. Thanks for the debate, I'll repost it in hopes someone will actually debate the topic, I still think it's an interesting one.
Posted by Armstrong 9 years ago
Armstrong
Considering only Pro argued the actual debate while Con just tried to negate using pretty weak logic in grammar, this is an easy vote.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
"But by all means, explain how your version of English is obviously more accurate than the rest of the English speaking world."

"Incidently, if anyone else is grammatically confused"

Not us.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu...
Posted by lr4n6champion 9 years ago
lr4n6champion
In case anyone doesn't get what I wrote about te will be let me explain down here where all the cool people are.

Will be is an open-ended expression of the future.

History as my opponent said is reference to the past and that is history.

Will be...in hisory refers to a reference to past events made from anypoint in the future.

With this type of wording my opponent's resolution would have to be true throughout the whole future and as said in the comments by my opomentnt there is "no point" in that.

By the way I really am touched Simplex, that you wrote that whole new resolution just for me knowing it can't be counted in a real debate.
Posted by simplex 9 years ago
simplex
Incidently, if anyone else is grammatically confused, I'd like to point out that "will be" refers to the completion of the 2008 Summer Olympics.
Posted by simplex 9 years ago
simplex
Usually the structure "will be... in history" suggests something that is yet complete, in comparison to it's predecessors. In this case, since the Olympics just began, I'm suggesting that when completed it will have become the most costly.

Obviously there's no point arguing a hypothetical about what's yet to come.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
depends how you want to define history... of course the definition that would contradict you, Puck, would also contradict the terms "will be :D"
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
"will be will be the most costly in history"

Which would include the entirety of future olympics. :P Judging by the upwards trend then, the next olympics costs will supersede the currents.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lr4n6champion 9 years ago
lr4n6champion
simplexlr4n6championTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by thenewguy3 9 years ago
thenewguy3
simplexlr4n6championTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by dudedabbles 9 years ago
dudedabbles
simplexlr4n6championTied
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 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
simplexlr4n6championTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pokemon31 9 years ago
Pokemon31
simplexlr4n6championTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by RedLighter 9 years ago
RedLighter
simplexlr4n6championTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
simplexlr4n6championTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ronde 9 years ago
Ronde
simplexlr4n6championTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by sammy22 9 years ago
sammy22
simplexlr4n6championTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
simplexlr4n6championTied
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