The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Government should subsidize my poetic life

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 63668
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




I believe the government should subsidize me with a monthly stipend so I can write poems all day.

My poems are benefitting the nation. Art is important to culture. Without art --- and the poetic arts in particular --- the nation has no hope. Why did we defeat the Russians? Because of our poetry and culture.

I should get at least $2,000 a month, tax free, along with food-stamps, free medical care, and help with the electric bill, so long as I can crank out five to ten poems a month.

Here is a poem I wrote about my cat:

Oh fuzzy faced one,
thou art worthy of canned chicken this day
and I shall open it with can opener
plop it out into your bowl
and leave you to eat it
while I go watch more anime.


I want to thank Pro for starting this interesting debate. As a poet myself, I certainly feel qualified to argue from a poet's perspective without the need for the government to subsidize me with a monthly stipend for poetry writing.

I will begin with rebuttals, then provide a poem I wrote about my own cat. At this point, I see no reason to raise my own arguments as most of them are encaptured in my rebuttals.


I. Your poems are not benefiting the nation.

My opponent starts off with the claim that his poems benefit the nation. His justification is that art is important to culture and that - without art - the nation has no hope.

I find this to be an indirect justification and an informal fallacy known as 'Appeal to Consequences' [1] which is when an argument concludes a hypotheses to be true due to the undesirable consequences.


To win this line of argumentation, my opponent would first need to provide proper justification for the base premise that "without art... the nation has no hope". As it stands now, neither I, nor the audience, have any reason to believe that this is indeed the case or that the nation would have no hope without art.

My opponent would further need to show how his poems, in particular, benefit the nation.

II. Poetry and Culture did not defeat the Russians.

My opponent ends his opening paragraph with the claim that we (U.S.) defeated the Russians with poetry and culture. When exactly did this happen?

I don't believe the Cold War was won by utilizing those means. My opponent, in order to win this line of argumentation, needs to show how it was poetry and culture that defeated Russia (while also showing when exactly this took place).

III. 5-10 poems per month =/= $2,000 + Benefits from government.

It seems generally unreasonable to demand that the government provide Pro with $2,000 a month, tax free, along with food-stamps, free medical care, and help with the electric bills for a mere 5-10 poems a month.

I am not too aware of many poets being gifted with such pleasantries. Since this goes against the status quo, my opponent needs to show why exactly he deserves such things. Both I and the audience need to be shown the standards used to determine the worth of each of these poems and then see how that worth equals the type of payment you are demanding.

According to current welfare statistics, the government currently spends around $131.9 billion on welfare alone (alone meaning that food stamps and unemployment are not included in that figure). [2]


With those statistics in mind, I don't find it unreasonable for me to say that this debate boils down to whether Pro's poetry is really worth the added burden placed on the government to fund his 5-10 poems a month. I don't believe they are, and it is up to Pro to provide justification or proof that his poems are worth the addition burden to us, the taxpayer.

**Poem about my cat**

As the clock strikes midnight, I notice her paws tremble
quick jolts of motion, leaving a faint sound as her claw catches cloth
is she having a dream?
A perfect being, soothing is her low hum as she purrs to unknown images
her teeth clicking slightly as she nibbles on the warm summer air
her smooth black coat shimmers with luminance under the tempered light
full-moon tonight, perhaps in her dream she is a wild beast
still clawing the surrounding oak wood trees, marking her place in the jungle
or perhaps she is pawing the sand, as she sits at the edge of a stream
a stream of consciousness,
fleeting thoughts, she jumps suddenly as if stirred by a fierce wind
her eyelids open quick;y, pupils large - yet slanted
unlike any other mammal, her eyes are that of a lizard
yet the warmth of my hand quickly assures her
everything is as it should be
the scent of my skin is acutely noticed, she sniffs with intent
accepting, she nudges her face against my lap
conforming to my curves, she catches my eye and meows
a low, yet quick hello, acknowledging her fellow beast
and just as sudden as she rose, she fell back into slumber
the clocks strikes half past midnight,
I wonder... is she having a dream?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank the Con for accepting this debate and treating it with the seriousness the topic deserves.

Now I reply:

1. The Con writes, "Your poems are not benefiting the nation" and says my contention is based upon an "informal fallacy known as 'Appeal to Consequences' which is when an argument concludes a hypotheses to be true due to the undesirable consequences."
I reply that when we are speaking of national security, the consequences of not allowing my poems to benefit the nation are vital to the validity of the contention. I am arguing that, from a practical perspective, national security and the future of the United States is inversely proportional to my cat poems, and, therefore, you may say that my contention itself is odd, but you must admit that the consequences do matter here, and are not fallacious. I would like the Con to concede this point.
The Con also takes issue with my assertion that "without art. . . the nation has no hope." Yet my Con cannot show a single nation that has hope but has no great art. In a similary vein, the Con may argue that handsome men without handlebar mustaches exist, but until the Con can show us a man who is:

a. Handsome
b. has no handlebar mustache

we can then reasonably conclude that handsomeness is inversely proportional to having a handle-bar mustache.
The Con must concede this point for the sake of intellectual integrity.

2. The Con also does not seem to realize the vital role American culture played in defeating the Soviet Union. My dear Con has apparently not read this article:

I quote:

"Elvis was the king of rock and roll and the star of 33 Hollywood films, and he"s also America"s most famous Cold War veteran. In 1958"60, he served in Germany in a tank unit during the Berlin Crisis. The East Germans regarded Elvis as a problem they had to counter; the U.S. military regarded him as an opportunity they could exploit. Elvis mattered"a lot"to both sides in the Cold War. . . During those years, Elvis loomed large in official East German thinking about the Cold War. The East German leaders described him as a threat"the country"s defense minister, Willi Stoph, declared that Elvis"s rock and roll was 'a means of seduction to make the youth ripe for atomic war.' In April 1959, East German Communist Party leader Walter Ulbricht told a cultural conference that it was 'not enough to reject the capitalist decadence with words, to ... speak out against the ecstatic "singing" of someone like Presley. We have to offer something better."

Clearly, culture had much to do with winning the war against Russia. If the Russians saw Elvis as a threat, he was a threat. Similarly, my cat poems are a threat to tyranny everywhere, and they will help America loom large on the international stage.

3. The Con then seems to imply --- to my chagrin --- that my cat poems are not worth $2,000 a month, and that $2,000 is an "unreasonable demand."

Here is my monthly budget --- you tell me if it is unreasonable, considering (all numbers rounded up):

$550 = Rent.
$20 = Car insurance
$30-60 = Electric
$70 = Internet
$10-40 = Gas
$15 = Phone
$14 = Netflix
$10 = Amazon Kindle unlimited
$30 = Health insurance
$310 = Groceries
$150 = Cat food
$90 = Cat toys
$230 = Cat fashion (sweaters, mittens, hats, scarfs, little bells to go on tail)
$120 = Anime
$90 = Paperback and hardback books
$10 = Gas for car
$220 = Vitamins, herbal supplements
$60 = Coffee

By my calculations, this is clearly over $3,000. I am asking that the Government simply give me enough for me and my cats to starve to death. I will make up the extra money by playing banjo outside of the mall. Now, is that really unreasonable? Of course not?

Let's look at the defense budget - from 2009 to 2010, it was 683.7 BILLION DOLLARS.

And you mean to tell me they can't give me $2,000 a month --- and a few extras --- considering the great benefits my poetry will give the US government?

Now, I will admit that I like your cat poem very much and after I was done enjoying it, my heart quickly turned to jealousy. But, that was petty of me. The smooth, vivid lines, and the measured yet elegant word-choices were enough to make my own poem seem like a cat-box biscuit, in comparison. Yet, just because your cat poems are worth atleast $10,000 a month stipend does not mean my own poems are not worth $2,000. The Con should concede this point out of the benefit for all humanity.

Now, I would like my Con to addres this 4th point:

4. The Ottoman Empire paid stipends to its poets, and was able to last from 1299-1923. That is over a thousand years.

Let me quote Brittanica:

"Throughout the Ottoman Empire"s early history, either official patronage or a good position in the bureaucracy"or both"were available (and often attained) by poets who were from provincial cities or otherwise outside the inner circles of Ottoman rulers. . . The simplest form of patronage was the annual stipend. During the 15th and 16th centuries the sultan Bayezid II granted an annual stipend to each of more than 30 poets. . . he entry of Rustem Pasha into the office of grand vizier in 1555 ushered in a new period of fiscal austerity and antiliterary sentiment in which new poets had a much slimmer chance of patronage. The real and apparently inexorable decline in state patronage for poetry set in with the accession of Murad III as sultan in 1574."

Note, the Ottoman Empire began to decline exactly as around the time it ceased giving stipends to its Turkish cat-poets.

So, in summation, you may argue that my poems are not good enough to help the United States, but that is not the issue: if they are not good enough today, it is because I need to struggle and slave as a pan-handler and couch-surfer. If the government gives me the tools I need to increase my poetry then, like Elvis during the Cold War, I will be a threat to nations who are against us, and my poems will inspire the youth of these nations to rise up and become Democracies.

However, my poetry is improving quite a bit since my initial post. Look at this new one I wrote --- holy crapola its good:

O ye of confused visage,
Charlie, the stink cat,
thou runnest across the carpet
but art chased by nothing.
Thou once piddled on the couch,
yet I forgave thee.
Do it again, and, I swear it, by my troth,*
I shall have thee declawed.

* a common Norse Viking phrase meaning "by my faith"


I. Your poems are not benefiting the nation.

My opponent has asked me to concede the point that his poems are vital to national security. I never concede, nor will I now. Until Pro shows just how his poems are literally beneficial to nation security, this line of argumentation stands negated. The reason it is negated is simple: Pro lacks proof. As Pro, he has the full Burden of Proof and has, so far, failed to offer any.

Pro goes on to claim that both national security and the future of the U.S. is inversely proportional to his cat poems. Yet, he lacks any and all proof to justify such a claim. I can say that my poems are even more beneficial since they are of a greater quality - but without proof the argument fails completely and leaves the claim as nothing more than a misguided opinion.

Furthermore, I still have issue with Pro's claim that "without art... the nation has no hope."

Hope, which is defined as: A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen, [1] is not dependent on art for existence. This is evident in the definition alone where it says 'desire for a certain thing to happen', I do not see the connection between this and art being the sole reason Hope exists in a country.


Unless Pro can show that 'Hope' is fully dependent on Art, this line of argumentation also stands negated. I will remind Pro, it is not my duty to show a country that has hope without art, since I don't have the BOP as Con - it is actually Pro's job to show how 'hope' is wholly dependent on art and nothing else. Until he does that, his arguments fail to hold any validity and are nothing more than unjustified opinions.

This last portion of his argument regarding mustaches is nothing more than Pro committing his second fallacy - 'shifting the Burden of Proof'. [2] It's a very cheap tactic in debating and I would ask the audience to please consider taking away his conduct points for the continuous use of fallacies and shifting the burden when there is no grounds for doing so. Either Pro misunderstands what it means to "Affirm" his position - or he's purposely shifting the burden due to a last ditch effort. Either way, every single argument he's made in this section stands unproven and unjustified as I've clearly shown.


II. Elvis did not defeat the Russians/Poetry & Culture did not defeat the Russians.

First my opponent claims art is what won the cold war for America. Then he shares an article about how Elvis ended the cold war. There are several issues with this:

1) East Germany IS NOT Russia. My opponent has failed to provide any evidence that Art defeated Russians, and in the meantime attempted to prove so by showing how Elvis annoyed the officials of East Germany. This is not only a False Analogy fallacy [3] - but also the fallacy known as Hasty Generalization [4]. Both fallacies fall under the category of fallacies known as False Generalization.


After sharing an article which surmounted to nothing but more fallacies committed by Pro, he goes on to say: "Clearly, culture had much to do with winning the war against Russia. If the Russians saw Elvis as a threat, he was a threat."

My response is that the article didn't even focus on Russia, it was in relation to East Germany. So, my opponent has done nothing with that article except commit more fallacies and show that East Germany disliked Elvis.

Furthermore, Elvis was a rock n roll star/actor, not a poet. So even if the article was valid in relation to this debate, it's still not applicable since poetry is not the same as rock n roll or acting. Both are two completely different forms of art. This point is thus moot since it fails to connect to the type of art my opponent is attempting to argue for - poetry.

"Similarly, my cat poems are a threat to tyranny everywhere, and they will help America loom large on the international stage."

Prove it! Pro is continuously presenting claims that lack any and all proof. I would ask Pro to please stop wasting both mine and the audiences time with such nonsense. I've yet to be shown how Pro's cat poems are a "threat to tyranny everywhere" which in itself is an absolute claim and ultimately unproven. My opponent is merely wasting our time with such nonsense as he himself can't even prove such a thing.

III. Pro's poems are not worth $2,000 a month + Benefits.

In response to this challenge I raised last round, Pro has listed his budget and costs of living. I was going to go through each but seeing costs like:

$90 a month for cat toys
$230 a month for cat fashion
$120 a month for anime

among others are just nonsense costs. I don't even believe Pro is being honest, and thus challenge his honesty by asking for proof of such costs. If he can't provide such proof, neither I or the audience have any reason to accept your claims as truthful. Keep in mind, I have two cats that have plenty of toys and food, yet I'm not having a monthly recurring cost for toys or food like that. You can go to Costco or any wholesale outlet and get 50 pounds of cat food for $29.99, which I would be happy to prove with receipts that I have on my kitchen counter as we speak.

Also, showing your budget has nothing to do with the reasonableness of your desired monthly allowance provided by the government. You still haven't shown how your poems justify the allowance you are demanding from the govt. Everyone has costs of living and monthly budgets, but to expect the government to give you money for those things by simply listing them off is ludicrous at best. Nor is it the system currently in practice, thus my opponent is going against the status quo and fully needs to prove why that system should change.

IV. Defense Budget

The amount of the Defense Budget means nothing in relation to this debate. It is a moot point and holds no ground in relation to the resolution at hand. That spending is, for the most part, justified and traceable to the reasons for such a cost. Pro has still not done two of those things - justify the cost of funding his lifestyle and tracing the benefits of that cost when put into application. I will also not concede that even though mine are worthy of $10,000, Pro's should be worthy of $2,000. He hasn't shown how me conceding would benefit all of humanity - nor has he shown how his poems would benefit all of humanity.

V. The Ottomans

First off, 1299-1923 is not "lasting over a thousand years".

1932 - 1299 = 633. The empire lasted 633 years, not over a thousand. This argument is completely misguided right from the start.

Secondly, The Ottoman Empire clearly couldn't make it into the Modern Era, so my opponent is attempting to use an outdated and conquered nation as a means of proving the value of his own lifestyle. This is incredibly weak and misguided in terms of justification.

Lastly, my opponent thinks that the Ottomans decline is contributed to the cease of "giving stipends to Turkish cat-poets". My opponent hasn't proven that ALL Turkish poets at the time were cat-poets, but also is committing yet another fallacy known as the 'Fallacy of the Single Cause'. [5] This is due to him attempting to connect the ceasing of monthly stipends to the decline of the Ottoman empire, when in reality there were several contributing factors.


In Conclusion,

My opponent has committed FIVE different fallacies throughout his previous round. I am beginning to think that due to the consistent lack of proof and justification for his numerous misguided arguments that he is doing nothing more than trolling. This should be an automatic loss of Conduct as he is purposely providing unproven claims and unrelated evidence as seen in the Elvis article.

I know return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


I think I have made my case quite accurately. It is now in the hands of the voters to judge. I thank my opponent for a spirited and timely debate, and I wish them well in all their practical and impractical endeavors.

To correct a few factual errors my opponent made, however:

1. Elvis was not only a "rock and roll" and "actor". He sang blues, Gospel, bepop, lounge, country Western and other genres.

2. Just because my opponent is a cheap-skate when it comes to their cats doesn't justify me being a cheap-skate and ungenerous miser when it comes to mine. Also, I am agoraphobic so I need to have all my cat toys shipped to me, if possible. My opponent did not consider shipping costs. True, I get free shipping on orders of $49 or more, but that means, at the very least, I must spend $49 a month which, with tax, quickly comes to $55. I will admit though that my budget was slightly over-inflated as I am anticipating procuring a new Exotic Persian Shorthair in the ensuing months.

3. My opponent may not appreciate cat fashion, but he should not ad hominem against those who do. And before they accuse me of laundering money, they should do some reserch on what actual cat fashion costs:

The "Blue Princess Cat Dress" alone costs $23.99. Add that to the $36.99 "Cleopatra Cat Costume", the $20.99 "Cutie Patootie Hoodie" and the $29.99 "Pink Zebra Pajamas" --- well, Google calculator can tell you how soon this all adds up. I dislike the fact my opponent accused me of criminal activity and he should be docked points for his asseriton.

3. While it is true there is some decent anime on Netflix and I do watch it regularly, the selection of anime on Netflix is DWARFED IN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE by the real breadth of available anime --- even when we consider that which is dubbed (blegh!) and subtitled in English. When you consider what is available in Japanese only, as well as the upstart South Korean, Taiwanese and mainland Chinese anime markets, your head veritably spins in excitement!

Now, I seriously question how my opponent is getting anywhere near enough anime for under $120 a month. Perhaps torrent downloading? See, I don't do that sort of thing and I think the opponent should have points docked. When you acquire anime by means such as this, it takes money out of the hands of the anime producers and, if everyone did that, we wouldn't have ANY good anime.

Considder the current Amazon price for the first 100 episodes of Spongebob Squarepants on DVD: $52.49! That is almost half of my monthly budget, and it only provides 66 hours of watching. If I watch 4 hours a day, that is only 16 days --- half a month, roughly. Clearly, my opponent has failed to think this one through.

In conclusion, I may have made a few points which could've been stated better. Keep in mind that I only barely completed high school. I would have dropped out but my mom wouldn't let me, and since I lived with her I sort of had to stay. Some kindness and consideration should be taken for my lack of education and wisdom in these matters --- but I will say this, I never accused my opponent of laundering money, nor did I ever ad hominem at my opponent or say he should be docked points for supposed "issues of character."

Now to close with another cat poem:

My cat Charlie lays upon the lofty bean-bag
like a big white wedding cake.
He snores malignantly --- his snore disturbs me.
I shuffle over, like a daydream, and wake him up, saying,
"Quit snoring! Charlie! I can't hear my anime!"
He looks at me with cold boredom, cold disdain
then lays down his head between his declawed paws
and commences to snore again. . .


I'll provide quick rebuttals in the same format that my opponent presented them:

1. It doesn't matter what type of music he sang, it does nothing to negate my point that his form of art was different from the form you wish to support. It's still subject to the fallacies I've shared in my previous round and ultimately stands remaining as a poor example to use and one that does nothing to affirm your position in support of the resolution at hand.

2. I resent that my opponent is relying on Ad Hominem attacks [1] in an attempt to fool the audience into supporting his outlandish and unproven spending budget. Calling me a cheap-skate when there is no justification for such an accusation is offensive at worst, and a moot point which holds no ground in this debate at best.


I'd also like to point out to the audience that this latest personal attack brings his total amount of fallacies committed in this debate to seven. I've yet to see any rebuttals for each of those fallacies either. My opponent continuously fails to understand the errors within his own argument as evidenced by this latest dependence on yet another fallacy. I highly suspect my opponent is doing nothing more than trolling at this point.

3. My opponent claims that I committed the Ad Hominem fallacy right after he commits it himself. Clearly he fails to understand what Ad Hom really is - which is defined above in the link I cited. He accused me of an Ad Hom attack in regards to cat fashion. The problem with his accusation is that I never personally attacked him over such a thing. I merely said that such a cost is unreasonable, which is clear to anyone who wishes to scroll back to the previous round, and for him to prove that he actually spends money on that. Nowhere is there an Ad Hom attack committed by me, and I hope the audience will realize that after seeing this line of argumentation and checking for themselves by scrolling back to my previous round.

Furthermore, I never accused Pro of "money laundering" so this entire line of argumentation is moot and holds no bearing in this debate whatsoever. My opponent states he "dislikes the fact that I accused him of criminal activity" yet I never did such a thing. I believe, again, that this is a case of Pro trolling. Anyone can scroll up to my previous round and see that I never made such an accusation.

4. My opponent had two #3's, so I've corrected my response to the second #3 by changing it to the proper number which is 4.

My opponent spends this line of argumentation attempting to justify the cost of $120 a month on Anime. He accuses me of using torrents due to there being no real avenues to get alot of Anime aside from some form of method he uses which costs that much.

Here are some problems with this, for starters - he still hasn't said exactly how it costs so much. He did attempt to justify it by quoting the price for the first 100 episodes of SpongeBob Squarepants which is $52.49 (although he does not cite any reference thus we can't know for sure that this is the actual price) but fails to realize that SBSP is not anime, but actually a cartoon. The difference mostly lies in the country of origin that the animated series is from. Anime is very different in visual presentation than SBSP.

Secondly, there is a video app known as Crunchyroll [2] which goes for the same price as Netflix - $7 a month, and has over 200 anime shows all streaming and updated in real time with new episodes as of the summer of 2011. One can only imagine how many more shows it has on it now. I am also a current subscriber of the service and can personally attest that it has more than enough anime and for a very decent price. It is quite literally the Netflix of Anime.


Of course, this entire line of argumentation does nothing for Pro in regards to the actual resolution. He is merely presenting rebuttals for the most minor points of the entire debate due to his inability to overcome the other challenges I've presented.

5. My opponent closes this round by asking for leniency due to his "barely graduating" high-school equivalent in terms of knowledge. This is unacceptable. Not only has Pro trolled a majority of this debate, but he has also left countless challenges unanswered or without rebuttals. He has committed 7 different fallacies, while falsely accusing me of accusations that I never made in the first place!

I find it most amusing how my opponent asks for leniency but then continues trolling right afterwards. It's an offensive display of conduct on his part and something which I hope the audience takes into consideration.

In closing,

My opponent has dropped several of my challenges raised in previous rounds, concedes that he could have presented his arguments better, committed more than 5 fallacies while failing to acknowledge any of them in later rounds, and spent a majority of our time with trolling arguments and accusations. Due to Pro's inability to overcome my challenges, I believe it is evident that he failed to maintain his burden of proof and thus loses this debate. I only hope the audience also sees it this way.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Well, hopefully spaceking knows I'm kidding. :)
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
No Mod would kick anyone off DDO without justified reasons. Spaceking, and even your buddy for that matter, have done nothing ban-worthy. If anything, the Mod would just ask your friend to expand on that one point he gave you since it lacks justification.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Spaceking, you just changed your vote because you don't want the mods to kick you off DDO.

If this was the titanic, you'd be jumping ship about now. I'm a true ship-guy, though (I don't know what a ship-guy is called --- a pirate?). I will sink with my arguments, if that is what the universe so desires. I make no apologies.

Here is a cat poem for you:

Five cats look to spaceking
then turn their heads away
in utter disappointment!
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Hmmm. I notice that the first two single word lines begin with S, followed by B, then D. There's something going on, but I can't really tell, structurally. At least not yet. I like it though. :)

Poor pug. :(
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Okay, but this format is a new type of poetry that is the first of its kind in the world. If you can figure out the structure - let me know.

A brisk autumn wind slowly blows against his face
shivering from anxiety, cover is found beneath the porch
as he ponders on a recent series of unfortunate events
His short snout, a genetic flaw, resembles nothing of his ancestors
perhaps this is why they came, those who are
creatures of such ferocity, why would they target me
he thinks quickly as he hears a faint rustle arriving from
such walls, they cannot hold off forever
the fated "meow" is heard, the first arrives
howling and snarling, now this is a real
once known as the king of the jungle
suddenly destroying any hope for life
is his only option
if only he wasn't a pug
but rather a fire-breathing
who would still be able to
enjoy the brisk autumn breeze
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Heck yeah. Let's have some more cat poetry!

And if you have any pug poems, that would be cool too.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Would you like to see some more of my cat poetry?
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
"I will admit that I like your cat poem very much.. my heart quickly turned to jealousy. The smooth, vivid lines, and the measured yet elegant word-choices were enough to make my own poem seem like a cat-box biscuit, in comparison."

I never thanked you for the compliment.

I also think this should counter my cussing, for the highschoolers, by giving them the chance to see the difference between bad poetry and poetry that is so good it makes opponents jealous.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Here is a cat Haiku I wrote for the MOD:

The little orange tabby cat
stares longingly at the fridge
dreaming of bagels

And a pug Haiku

The little gray pug
stares longingly at the television
dreaming of being on Dancing with the Stars
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
I wonder if the MOD will look at the debate as a humorous but intellectually beneficial exercise in trying to defend an indefensible and absurd position, or if they will side with me on the political advantages of cat poetry, especially considering the dual threat of the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan that our nation now faces.

I normally try to keep swearing out of the equation, though --- even fake swearing. There's a lot of high school kids on the board and it sets a bad example. I know that they can watch Val Kilmer on the movies swear up a storm, but he's getting fat, anyway. It's been a long time since he's been in a good movie. The last few ones were total garbage.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 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 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: This debate was heavily biased against pro due to the amount of evidence against his side, yet he fought until the end. I am laughing and crying at this debate during the same time. Pro could not prove his poems overall good to the nation. Simply that was enough for good reason why the gov shouldn't subsidize his poetic life. Countering Jingle's random point for "for style and rhetorical eloquence." Bladey had far more of both of those.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to prove that his poetic life benefits the nation. But Pro does earn a point for style and rhetorical eloquence.