Brad Stine as a Comedian
Debate Rounds (4)
As stated. My stance, Brad Stine is a terrible comedian, along with being Incredibly biased, Bigoted, Sexist, Obnoxious, and rude.
No part of being a comedian means satisfying people's expectations of social justice and wants, so as long as he is successful, Brad Stine is a good comedian.
What it means to be a good comedian is to be able to provide humor and to attract audiences. Bigger audiences and larger numbers of good reviews means a comedian is doing pretty good.
Brad Stine has made appearances in many shows, which means these shows thinks he's netting enough ratings to deserve all those appearances. Those ratings means that people thinks he's good.
And since good is based on opinion, people thinking he's good automatically makes him good. And since he's still around according to his website BradStine.com, enough people think he's a good comedian to keep his career going.
Which means that the people who thinks that he is a bad comedian aren't enough to override the people who thinks he's a good comedian. So that means Brad Stine has more of a net 'good comedian' opinion to his name than 'bad comedian'.
The better he is, the more of an audience he gets. Audiences are evidence of his being a good comedian.
So that proves that Brad Stine is a good comedian.
biased; Unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something
Quotes from His Shows will be taken to Justify.
"But that's what I'm saying about America, we are not perfect, we are not going to do everything right, but at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing that at least we're not France(2)"
That's a Questionable and edgy statement to make, but let us hear his justification.
"Is there a Western Nation, that went from technology and science and literature and art to become one of the stinking Poster child's of Wussification! They Stand for nothing now, they run away from everywhere now, Heck, look at the sport they invented, Bicycle Racing!"(2)
Oh Brad, Your Ignorant and Biased standpoint of other Nations is so commendable.
"Heck, we send our old Texas boy Lance Armstrong down there and he wins the stinking Tour De France 7 times in a row and they freaked out. *Commence Racist French accent* Oh, this isn't possible, this isn't possible! This could not happen! We must check him for Drugs! He must be on Drugs!*De-activate Accent* He Never had any Drugs and they continue to slander him!"
First Off, Kudos to him for the Amazing Impression of a Frenchman, and secondly Lance Armstrong was Acquitted of Doping, He was tested positive, and admitted it.(3) More Bias.
CONTENTION 2. Brad Stine is Sexist
Sexist;relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behaviour toward someone based on the person's gender.(4)
Let's Sit down and allow Brad Stine to tell us about Pregnancy.
"Of all the things Woman can do, I'll tell you what's the most amazing. They can have a Baby. That blows my mind! I will never in my life now what it's like to have a human being inside of Me. It's Amazing! Something happens to a Woman's head when she's pregnant though*this is the Joke*. Those things that used to be called Rationality and Common sense kinda just go Biiiiiiiing. She just starts making stuff up, and acting crazy."(5)
He doesn't specifically relate these statements to his wife, which would be more acceptable, because it's personal. He simply Generalizes the whole of Woman globally.
"I'm Sorry, you can Call me a Sexist, but they're some things men shouldn't do. Men should not be Cheer Leaders".(6)
I'm actually really curious towards why you think so, Brad.
"Woman Should be Cheerleaders, they're better at it! They can do all the Great moves, they can do tricks, they can do flips, and splits, all the Great moves, guys got one move. Hold the girl, by the rear end."(6)
Many Male individuals at my institution of education do Dance, School plays, and are on the school Acrobatics team, and are pretty good! I hope I didn't need to tell ya.
CONTENTION 3. Brad Stine is Obnoxious and Rude
This one video Contains enough of the statements said above to fill a Stephen King novel, but We are going to do some major trimming.
Through this entire Video(7), He Screams, Yells, complains, and Berates a 17 Year old for 4 minutes. Sounds like Comedy and intelligence.
"LET ME TELL YOU WHY I LOVE CONSERVATIVES. YOU BELIEVE IN THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FAITH VALUES THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS STOOD ON, TO MAKE THIS GREAT NATION LET ME TELL YOU WHAT ELSE I LOVE ABOUT CHA YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE GREATEST NATION THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT ELSE I LOVE ABOUT CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE YOU HUNT, YOU FISH, AND YOU DON'T APOLOGIZE, AND THAT'S WHAT I LOVE ABOUT CONSERVATIVES."*All Caps because he's yelling*(7)
This is funny and ironic in many aspects. Brad Stine is a Christian Conservative, and expresses how he believes all conservatives are Christians....which isn't correct. Something I didn't know that Brad let me in on, They all Hunt, they all fish, and they all don't apologize. Because not apologizing is a worthy virtue.
"THATS AMERICA, YOU SHOOT IT EAT IT AND THEN PUT IT ON YOUR WALL".(7)*all caps because he's yelling*
God, My liberal Grand Mother is Rolling in her Grave.
"IT'S THE WUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA THAT'S KILLING US!".(7)*all caps because he's yelling*
I have no clue to what "Wussification" means to Brad, but apparently it's Happening to America.
"ITS CALLED COURAGE MY FRIENDS, AND SPEAKING THE TRUTH. I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'M CHRISTIAN, I'M A CONSERVATIVE, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH AND BECAUSE OF THOSE THREE BELIEF SYSTEMS, WHEN I DIE*which is hope is quickly and painfully* I'LL BE STUFF AND MOUNTED IN THE SMITHSONIAN UNDER THE "WHY HE NEVER GOT HIS OWN SIT COM" DISPLAY" *all caps because he's yelling*
Whoooo boy. Christians all speak the truth? I'm agnostic, so that can justify my disbelief. Conservatives all tell the Truth?
*cough cough* Fox News *cough cough*
Is the US really still the greatest country on earth Brad? Maybe, but that spot may be taking by other quickly growing countries with a Large Middle class and a demand for consumerism. China has been taking that place over that past few decades.(8)
Brad, If you ever did get stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian, It would be under a display of "Winners of the Darwin Award". You didn't get your own sit com because Ignorant, Biased, Sexist, Rude, and Discriminatory individuals like yourself would rather waste there time punching themselves or jumping off Bridges. Remember that part I said about him berating that Teenager? Watch 8:28-11:47. Please Do, I tell me Why Brad Stine is a "Good" Comedian.
I like how during the whole show people are seen leaving. Good on them. Kudos to Mr.Stine.
Everything I've provided is true, said by Brad Stine, and relevant. You can't refute empirical data, Pro.
I will Address one of Pro's Statements.
"What it means to be a good comedian is to be able to provide humor and to attract audiences. Bigger audiences and larger numbers of good reviews means a comedian is doing pretty good."
Being a Good Comedian Implies one is Actually funny.
Back to you, Pro.
Comedians often make fun of caricatures in order to be funny. Gabriel Iglesias makes comedy with Mexican stereotypes. Bill Burr makes remarks that can be deemed sexist out of context. George Carlin swears and can be considered rude or obnoxious. If my opponent's measures are anything to go by, then there's no such thing as a good comedian, which just shows how ridiculous my opponent's methods of measuring comedians are.
Comedy is nothing without measuring delivery, flow, speech, rhythm, etc. My opponent quotes from Stine's routines out of context without regard to these important elements. Since these quotes ignore many key elements, my opponent's quotes are inadequate in proving whether or not Stine is a good comedian. Again, being a good comedian does not in any way entail satisfying expectations of social justice. A good comedian satisfies audiences with humor.
Being funny is the only thing that matters, and my opponent verifies as much near the end of his round: "Being a Good Comedian implies one is Actually funny."
Since my opponent didn't negate my standard of measurement, it is considered dropped. Since funny is the only thing that actually matters, rudeness (opinion), obnoxiousness(opinion), socially unequal dialogue (debatable) etc. Every single one of my opponent's contentions are negated.
Neither does my opponent address my argument which is that Comedian's goodness are measured by their success. If a comedian is good, then the comedian will have enough of an audience to sustain his career. Stine has that. An audience means that people think Stine is funny, which means Stine is funny. If Stine is funny, then he's a good comedian.
Therefore Stine is a good comedian.
Types of Comedy
Louis C.K.-Observational, Political, and personal Humour from experiences.
Dave Chappelle-Political, Cultural, ethnic, and observational comedy from personal experience.
George Carlin-Political and Religious satire from personal experience and observation.
Russell Peters-Ethnic and cultural humour from personal experience and family.
Brad Stine-Political, religious, and observational Humour.
Louis C.K.-Moderate Paced Speech, Mild vocal Tone, Volume level elevates and changes at times.
George Carlin-Fast Paced Speech, Higher Vocal Tone, Volume level elevates and changes at times
Dave Chappelle-Slower paced speech, Mellow vocal Tone, Volume level usually more quiet and relaxed.
Russell Peters-Moderate paced speech, Mild vocal tone, Volume level can elevate and changes at times.
Brad Stine- Moderate to Fast Paced Speech, Mild, scruffy Tone, Volume level Erratic, Yells Frequently to emphasize.
Louis C.K.- Smooth, and easy to Follow
George Carlin, Fast, but easy to follow
Dave Chappelle, Slow, and easy to follow
Russell Peters, Moderate, and easy to follow
Brad Stine, Erratic, and Sometimes unintelligible(not easy to follow). This link(1). Nuff Said.
Basically what I've said for each one above. Pro wanted me to explain this however.
Pro, That makes no sense, this isn't music. Rhythm literally means "Strong, repeated, Pattern of Movement or Sound"(2)
"My opponent quotes from Stine's routines out of context without regard to these important elements."
That's awfully bold for you to say, Having stated your self you have never listened to Brad Stine in the first round. Having owned his DVD, "Wussification", I think I have a little more say In my opinion. Having listened and went to performances of Louis C.K. and Russell Peters, I can compare. Brad Stine is not a Good comedian.
"Being funny is the only thing that matters, and my opponent verifies as much near the end of his round: "Being a Good Comedian implies one is Actually funny.""
That's Correct, I do believe he's not funny. Instead of asking to prove why he's not, participate in this debate and show me why he Is.
"Neither does my opponent address my argument which is that Comedian's goodness are measured by their success. If a comedian is good, then the comedian will have enough of an audience to sustain his career. Stine has that. An audience means that people think Stine is funny, which means Stine is funny. If Stine is funny, then he's a good comedian.
Therefore Stine is a good comedian."
If success is any indication of actual Talent, Why don't we look at various individuals in our Times.
People who inherited Millions, if not Billions from Family. There fairly Rich and Successful, I suppose There amazing in their respective fields? No. Pro makes a Blanket statement and attempts to generalize that Success=Talent. I does not.
"If a comedian is good, then the comedian will have enough of an audience to sustain his career. Stine has that."
......Really? Basic psychology and behavioural test here, listen Carefully.
Lets Say there are 100 typical adolescent Males, ranging in the age if 12-16. Let's assume many are immature and still growing up. If I told Penis and Sex Jokes, and 100% laughed, that would be a large percentage of the audience, therefore meaning I'm funny Because All laughed.
Why is that statement incorrect, Pro? You tell me.
CONTENTION 1. Appeal
A person is inclined to enjoy or approve something if they Think like it, share views, or act the same, am I wrong, Pro?
Brad Stine is Conservative, and Christian, I would assume that his style of "Comedy" Attracts that audience, is that wrong to assume?
CONTENTION.2 Comparison to other Comedians
I compared, and Revealed the discrepancies. Brad Stine has different Styles, modes, and Types of "Comedy" he utilizes in performance. These are the things that set him apart, and make him bad.
I've Continually provided overwhelming support and evidence for my Claim, which is Brad Stine is all I labelled him.
Pro attempts to create a Straw man Argument by stating he's a "Good Comedian", but that's not what the debate was about, it was about what I labelled him as. Even then I've proved that Brad Stine is an awful Comedian.
Thanks to Pro, and try to Know a subject Thoroughly before Throwing Personal Attacks and Defending something with little prior experience. I think there's a word for that, But I'm tired of telling you The Sky is Blue.
My case is based on a criteria for what it means to be a good comedian. This would be the criteria of 'funny' that we both more or less agree to. My case is based on this criteria, and this criteria for the affirmative case is certainly valid. You haven't provided a valid critique to my criteria, and even went so far as to agree to it. Calling it a strawman is not consistent with your dialogue up to this point. Even if you didn't agree to the 'funny' criteria, I would have argued that the 'funny' criteria is the best criteria.
My case is based on the criteria. If Stine is funny, then he is a good comedian.
I showed that Stine is funny by noting his continued occupational success as a comedian. It's all very well that you're comparing Stine to Louis C.K., Dave Chappelle and George Carlin, but what are you using to measure the elements of flow, speech, humor, etc.? You're using your own personal opinion. And who are you to claim that you are the best and most valid source to gauge Brad Stine's performance?
My argument on the other hand uses the audience to his routine to prove that he is funny. That Brad Stine is a successful comedian with enough of an audience to make him a successful comedian is a hard empirical measure. Thousands of people pay to have Stine entertain them. They wouldn't do so if they didn't believe that he was worth their money. No comedian is perfect. Haters are always going to hate. Even the most popular, spectacular videos have a few dislikes. Obviously the non-haters are more significant than the haters because Stine is still a successful comedian.
The mass of audience that exists and supports Stine have thousands of times more collective credibility than you do. Your opinion is an opinion of one. Even if you can cite other people's displeasure at Stine's routines, your citation only number a few.
I'm even going to go so far to say that success is what makes a good comedian. Stine is definitely successful. His success proves that enough people think him funny to allow him to continue succeeding. And therefore Stine is a good comedian.
All of what I've said so far is my case. You do not disprove my case, and complaining about little things and attaching fancy names like 'strawman' to what I say does not fundamentally negate that my case solidly proves that Stine is a good comedian. Proving Stine to be a good comedian is my Burden of Proof, as some of you call it, and I satisfy it.
Now not only do I satisfy my Burden of Proof, my case shows that your case, which is based entirely on your single opinion, doesn't hold up. My criteria of funny negates your criteria of social equality and attitude. Whatever you perceive of Stine is only your opinion anyway. It's fine that you don't like Stine as a comedian, but you aren't an objective source to proving that Stine is a bad comedian. Stine's occupational success is on the other hand an objective measure. Stine's having enough of an audience to allow him to succeed is an objective measure. My evidence is many many times better than your evidence. By this, your comparison to other comedians - your opinion - don't work. Since you agree that the criteria of funny is all that matters, you've pretty much agreed that none of your cases in your first round matter to this debate.
If my case is true, then your case fails. And my case has been proven so far to be accurate since you don't give any real rebuttal to my points.
Your overwhelming support is ultimately just your opinion. It is nothing compared to the empirical evidence that I provide.
Even if I don't know Stine, I don't have to. I usually don't resort to my opinions for a debate, and I'm not going to start now.
Thanks to Con, and Nah.
StalinIncarnate forfeited this round.
Allenn forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.