The Instigator
charlesdarwood
Con (against)
Tied
12 Points
The Contender
gamemaster
Pro (for)
Tied
12 Points

I'm new. I'll debate anything.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,993 times Debate No: 12198
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

charlesdarwood

Con

I don't agree with you at all.
gamemaster

Pro

"I don't agree with you at all." This is the only thing , except the title, that my debate partner wrote. Now I'm supposed to write something. I only accepted the "challange" , but this is not really a challange because we have nothing to debate.

However, I think that his opening statement is unfounded. Since he can't possibly know what are my oppinions on all subjects and topics, he can't know for sure that he actually does not agree with me on some of them. He says that he's into bananas at his profile, and I like bananas so I guess we agree on bananas. Another possibility is that his statement is a paradox.. but I'll give him a chance to elaborate on the issue he wants to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
charlesdarwood

Con

I'll admit that I mistook the Round 1 entry form for something else. A perfect storm of donkey laxatives and the slash-dot effect blunted my normal acuity for deft web navigation.

However, my adversary squandered any opportunity to take advantage of this mistake, electing instead to dash off a discursive and pointless discussion of bananas. charmingly adorned with arbitrary quotation marks. So it is only due to my gentle decency and the pity I feel toward victims of the punctuation burglar that I hereby suggest a forfeiture of round 1. Instead, I propose to direct my argument to my adversary's claim that television "is a tool for indictrination."

I am going to take the liberty in assuming--on the basis of some recent evidence--that you intended to describe television as a tool for "indoctrination." (I also take it that your hatred of television was not balanced by a love of books.)

At any rate, I feel confident in inferring that your strident condemnation of televisions is not motivated by the ethical failings of an electronic device, but by a desire to come across as detached from the banality of convention. After all, television ownership doesn't require your allegiance to the cult of low-culture.

I'm not a big fan of TV either, but sometimes I want to watch a Vice-Presidential debate or a documentary about bobcats. And even if nothing on television ever appeals to you--which is a reasonable position--you shouldn't adopt a presumtive contempt for those that do watch TV. In my experience, people who feel the need to identify themselves only in extremes, by, say, suggesting that television and sports are social pathologies, end up identifying only their pretentiousness.

Yet all of this would be less annoying if you 1. exhibited any erudition--something one might expect from a man who wastes no time in idle leisure--and 2. did not write on your profile, in the middle of many declarations of belief, the following sentence: "My belief is that people should keep their beliefs private." This linguistic masterpiece is not only refuted by everything else on your profile, but it actually manages to refute itself. I must confess that the logic deployed therein does not suggest an author of wily debate-mastery, but I hope nevertheless that your rebuttal proves me wrong.
gamemaster

Pro

INTRO.

I think I will debunk your statements a little bit before talking about your main arguments. First of all quotation marks are not arbitrary, they are used for emphasis of certain words or phrases, because the alterative, CAPS, may be taken as "shouting" at the person you're talking to.

Debate partner (DP) said "My adversary squandered any opportunity to take advantage of this mistake"
Why, but more importantly , how could I even take advantage of the fact that this was an empty debate?! Can you give an example?

DP says I "dashed off a discursive and pointless discussion of bananas". Actually I only took the liberty to look at your profile , so that I can see if you wrote something there, or left it blank, like your first round in this debate. And until you argue why it is pointless, it is just as pointless as your try to win this debate by countering my profile statements.
--------------------------------
Argument about Television. I will first debunk your statements, then I'll argue that television is indeed a tool for indoctrination.

First of all, you make stupid assumptions about me. "(I also take it that your hatred of television was not balanced by a love of books.)"

I don't "hate" television, just like I don't "hate" may other things that I don't like or disagree with. This is similar to Christians often saying that atheists hate God... And for my love of books , you have no idea what books I read or like. What I choose to write at my profile is my business and a reasonable and logical person wouldn't imply such nonsense like you are implying.

"And even if nothing on television ever appeals to you--which is a reasonable position--you shouldn't adopt a presumtive contempt for those that do watch TV."

Christians say that I should not adopt a presumptive contempt for those who pray to God , just because I don't love God. No, thanks, I think I'll have my way about everything. I don't need anybody to tell my what I should or shouldn't do. Sheeple are sheeple and I show no mercy for sheeple.

Debate partener quotes my belief summary from my profile and comments: " "My belief is that people should keep their beliefs private." This linguistic masterpiece is not only refuted by everything else on your profile, but it actually manages to refute itself. I must confess that the logic deployed therein does not suggest an author of wily debate-mastery, but I hope nevertheless that your rebuttal proves me wrong"

This "linguistic masterpiece" as you call it, is the way I chose to represent a part of my way of thinking concerning "Beliefs" at my profile. As such it can't be refuted because it is not even a subject of debate or refutation. This still stands if I had said that my belief is that stupid people should kill themselves. I see that you're really trying, but try to concentrate on more consistent and relevant issues. Who knows, you may even have interesting things to say if you do that.

--------------------------

-TV is amongst other things, redundant. You can watch what programs you like on the computer. But of course at the computer you are left with so many choices, and many people have no idea of what to do if left alone. Clearly TV is sucessful because of the sheer numbers of sheeple. This is how they became sheeple in the first place. Losing your little time to watch tv turns your brain into a pile of s**t . About 99.99 of what is transmitted on TV is useless information or boring entertainment for the masses.

I don't want to add anything more, I think I took this "debate" a little too serious already for what it's worth.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
it was a compliment, that was really funny :D hahaha
Posted by Chronos 7 years ago
Chronos
m93samman i don't know if that was a compliment or an insult but thanks

Gamemaster no i don't watch a lot of TV, in fact i only watch around 3 hours of TV a week. But only because they are good shows, The mentalist, The big bang theory, south park etc. I also acknowledge that most TV shows are crap, (masterchef im looking at you, seriously if i wanted to watch someone make delicious food I'd go to a high quality restaurant and have the pleasure of eating it myself)
I even feel bad for insulting you, but degrading the people who are interested in something like TV is the sign of a bully. It's like talking smack to a guy who listens to suicidal screamo metal, fair enough if it doesn't appeal to you, but it does appeal to him. You shouldn't take it as personally as you do, it'll only end up turning into an obsession and make you very angry. All good?
Posted by gamemaster 7 years ago
gamemaster
You watch a lot of TV i guess...
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
LOL CHRONOS!!! Hahaha if you made me laugh at my laptop on debate.org, you know you've done well (which you did)
Posted by Chronos 7 years ago
Chronos
"About 99.99 of what is transmitted on TV is useless information or boring entertainment for the masses."
I love how you try to identify yourself as an individual and showcase your lack of conformity. You're also a hypocrite, boring is the contrast to entertaining, saying "TV is boring entertainment" is like saying "My ice is hot", when read properly it sounds logically stupid.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
1) Greek Mythology is also superstition and mysticism, but they still teach it in schools because it has good moral lessons and is one of the first forms of literature. There's a lot to learn from it. Voodoo is an excellent way to learn about a distinctly remote culture that few have heard of. I doubt discovery wants to make its viewers participate in voodoo. And I also doubt that they're working in collaboration with Hobby Lobby or Walmart to sell needles and dolls and accessories.

2) "Outweighsed enough by the superstion it promotes" --superstition**

Still, I'm pointing out that your "99.99%" deal in the debate was false. I'm sure there's more than one sincerely valuable literary or scientific show in every 10,000 that are aired.
Posted by gamemaster 7 years ago
gamemaster
It's not about what is your problem and what things I want to learn about. Vodoo is superstition and mysticism and so is haunted houses and there is nothing to learn about. These are shows that indoctrinate people into a mystical mindset. Considering how evil and destructive this thing is, any good program might actually be even on Discovery from time to time, it is outweighted enough by the superstion it promotes.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
and its my problem that 1) you got unlucky, and 2) you don't want to learn about voodoo and haunted houses?
Posted by gamemaster 7 years ago
gamemaster
You're joking, right? Discovery is crap. I watched a few times just out of pure curiosity and there were shows about vodoo or haunted houses. I am pretty sure there are plenty indoctrination programs there too.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
pro all the stuff you said at the bottom is unwarranted, uncited, and unreasonable. "99.99% of whats on tv is worthless and boring entertainment" (to paraphrase you). That is really false. I can easily just say "discovery channel" and we find a virtual school on tv that is unindoctrinating by any standard. It's just a good teacher. Meanwhile, I'm not gonna vote because this was a really good debate, and I personally agree with pro's position. I may vote pro later... remind me =]
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by SukiWater 7 years ago
SukiWater
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
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 Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by burnbird14 7 years ago
burnbird14
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by NewBoy 7 years ago
NewBoy
charlesdarwoodgamemasterTied
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:70