The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,269 times Debate No: 15966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)




Round 1 is for rule clarifications only.
Please look over the rules and make sure you agree with them all before accepting this debate. If you find any problems, let me know so I can change them, before accepting.

1. No semantics.

Both debaters will be respectful and argue the known meaning of this debate.

For clarification, we will not focus on the world play of "Right or wrong" as a definition of morality, when it is obviously intended to identify whether or not certain actions have better results, thus making the political decision more 'correct then the other, etc.
Both debaters should be respectful of this rule, and recognize if the opponent violates this rule. Violation of any of these rules should help the voters reflect on their decision during the voting period of this debate.

2. Both debaters will be courteous.

While both debaters should put in a harsh effort, a debate is always more fun when proper conduct is upheld.
No insults, or arguments intending to be rude or harmful, will be made.

3. This is a video debate!

All rounds (excluding the acceptance round) will need to be in video format.
Argument titles, and sources and can be written out to help the viewers follow along. But the actual arguments must be in video format.

4. Limits

Each video will be no longer than ten minutes long, and no less then three minutes long in length. Failure to meet this requirement, should act as a forfeit for the member who fails to meet this rule.

Judging criteria: I would like to ask the voters to judge on validity arguments, and fluidity of speech.

One last clarification: I will be arguing that there is no right or wrong answer to political discussions, as I am pro. To go along with the semantics rule, let's make sure this isn't kept one sided, meaning obviously big political discussions, such as Dem's and Repub's. I wouldn't like to see some silly arguments from a really minor group saying something like "Well this political opinion believes that we should kill everyone who doesn't have blue eyes and blonde hair."

Let's keep this debate fair and fun for everyone, and allow the viewers a great video debate, and an entangling challenge for both CiRrk and I.

Looking forward to a great debate!


I agree to all the rules.

However I'll provide the definitions as a way to further clarify the resolution:

1 Right: most desirable or preferable - this links to his statement about desirability and not simply vague notions of morality

2. Or: conjunction seperating two ideas

3. Wrong: opposite of right

4. Any: part of a spectrum ranging from a specific to the entirety within a totality

5. Political: referring to aspects of a polity

6. Debate: referring to opposing sides within a polity over issues, policies, societal actions or governmental actions.

[Judging Criteria]

1. Topicality: arguments are prferable if they are closest in-line with the grammer of the resoution.

2. Impact Analysis: weighing the desability of competing claims

+ the ones outlined by TUF

Debate Round No. 1


Contention 1: Effectiveness proves whether a political dis-agreement is working, beneficial, etc.

contention 2: Long disputes prove that they will probably always be contoversial.

Contention 3: There is overwhelming support on both sides of a debate.








1. "Any" Burden

2. No locational contextualization

3. "or" Burden

C1: Consequentialism

- Thought Experiment Analysis

- Harries 99

- Dworkin 77

C2: Ind. Scenarios

A) Genocide


B) Child Labor


C) Sex Trade


D) Racism


E) Exp. of Women


F) Forms of Death Penalty


G) War Rape


C3: Fiscal Responsibility

- Summers 2000

- Foster 2009
Debate Round No. 2




Child Labor

Sex trade

Racism (not political decision)

Exploitation of women
No source needed, as I asked my opponent not to bring up religous prospects as political arguments.

War rape (also not political decision)


*In my last round i had 2 videos. The first one is my case, the NC, and the second one is my rebuttal against the AC* So watch both if you didnt


Extensional Drops


1. Ob. 1 - Minimum burden from term "any"

2. Ob. 2 - No locational contextualization

3. Ob. 3 - Rightness vs wrongness


C1: Consequentialism

1. Thought experiment analysis

2. Harries Evidence

3. Dworkin Evidence

C3: Fiscal Responsibility

1. Summers Evidence

2. Foster Evidence

*My opponent dropped/conceded all of these points in his last speech, dont let him bring them up in his last*


Extensional Drops

C1: Effectiveness

1. Unknown results dont negate the future result

C2: Long Disputes

1. Global Warming Analysis

2. Economic Debate Analysis
Debate Round No. 3


INTR: Poor conduct of the con.


OB1: -Lack of convincing argumentation enough disprove the resolution.

OB2: -Already agreed to locational context, again non argumentation.

OB3: -Opponent has yet to prove x/y statement.

C1: Consequentialism

1. Thought experiment analysis, fails as prove right/right, rather the right wrong, thus irrelevant.

2. Harries Evidence- Contradictory, as its impossible to treat everyone with difference of opinion in their own minds best interests.

3. Dworkes Evidence- maximizing utilitarianism takes a moral stand point, not an underlying point in right vs wrongness in context to the debate.

C2: Individual scenarios

Sub A-Z (sum up with video, basically grouping all saying they are irrelevant to the resolution, and uses manipulation.)

C3: Fiscal responsibility

Totally non-relevant and self defeating.


C1: Effectiveness: Opponent attempts to confuse the audience, while not actually making an argument. Extension.

C2: Mutual benefits on both side dis-prove un-mutuality.

C3: Universal claims and comparative claims are the same.

Judging criteria begs a pro vote.


*Refer to text of Rd. 2 for the arguments he dropped. Some of which he brought up in his last speech*


1. Consequentialism - government has an obligation to treat everyone equally within a polity and thus the right answer is the one which will produce the most desirable result.

2. Ind. Scenarios - Cleanly extended Subpints C,D,E,F,G. And also Sub-A Genocide. - These violate the notion that everyone is equal, which comes out of consequentilaism. As such this notion determines rightness or wrongness.

3. Extended C3 - Fiscal Responsbility
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
CiRrK, Yes, it sounds like we were doing some precursor to Policy. If my recollection is correct, it would have been 40 minutes per debate rather than the current 90 minutes.

It's interesting that votes are coming in slow for the present video debate. I think they are harder to judge than a written debate because to judge one probably has to either take notes or watch the videos over again to follow individual contentions.

The record for fast-talking English is close to 10 words per second, that would be equivalent to about 42,000 characters per 10 minutes. Normal English is spoken at about 230 syllables per minute, the equivalent of about 7000 characters. So I'm guessing a 10 minute video at debate speed could have the equivalent of 20,000 characters.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
This is really tough. I'll have to watch some things again tomorrow.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
oh and 2 more CXs after the 2AC and 2NC
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
your format seems like a less developed form of policy. And yours was probably much slower too. Policy now is: 1AC, CX, 1NC, CX, 2AC, 2NC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR. Each round lasts an hour and half
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
@TUF Way back when I debated in school, neither LD nor policy formats had been invented, to my knowledge. I don't know what the format we used was called. The debate sequence was Aff, Neg, Neg, Aff, Neg, Aff. The first two speeches were 10 min and the rest 5 min as I recall. What I know of LD I don't like much; it seems to encourage baloney and discourage evidence. Still, many of the basic debate rules are preserved. Maybe policy is closer to what we did. As one forum wit put it, "In those days we had to walk three miles in the snow just to debate, uphill both ways."

I was nitpicking a bit in my RFD because it was a tournament debate and you both put a lot of effort into it.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
I did LD n highschool and I do policy now (college policy)
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
Thanks Roy for the big rfd it was helpful! And I'm guessing you do LD or policy?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
haha yeah my last video was pretty bad. When I get pressure under time to make a certain amount of arguments I sway back and forth. I picked that habit up from High school debate xD
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
Inspiration for video debates.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
As presented, Con only had to establish one example of a political issue with a clear right and wrong. He did so, and thus won arguments.

Had this been a regular debate, I would have given S&G (i.e., presentation) and Arguments to Con and conduct to Pro. Sources didn't play an important role in the debate, so tied.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: am not voting on any serious debates to avoid controversy that follows EVERY one of my votes...
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really good debate overall, and I really wish I could split the points. Honestly, after each speech I changed sides, I think TUF had some really good arguments about there being support to both sides; but CiRrK's arguments about suiting the needs of the people really won me over. In theory Pro is always right in the realm of this debate; but in actuality the stance who provides the most good for society is the better stance. Thus I vote Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments. This is a tournament debate, so I'm obliged to give all points to one side.