The Instigator
twsurber
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logician
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Impromptu 7

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...
Logician
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,118 times Debate No: 12193
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

twsurber

Pro

Round 1, opponent will choose one of the below to present either side in Round 2. Opponent will leave me 3 choices as well (to be presented in Round 2).

Judges will decide who presented the better case.

OPPONENT"s CHOICES:
1) Baseball players should be required to sign autographs.
2) John 3:18 is correct.
3) When people get a parking ticket, they should rejoice that the system is working.

Good luck and thanks in advance! Thomas
Logician

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for three very good impromptu topics. I choose the CON side of number 3, and so will argue in the next round that people should not, when they get a parking ticket, rejoice that the system is working.

The three choices that I give my opponent in return are:

1) The Pope, and everyone elected to the papacy after him, should be assassinated.
2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport.
3) Apart from those mentally incapable of doing so, everyone should try and learn a second (or third) language.
Debate Round No. 1
twsurber

Pro

2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport.

Concur.

I accept the PRO side of this topic.

C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular.
According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com...

C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days.
According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org...

C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events.
This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love.

CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity?

Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...

Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one!

P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.
Logician

Con

Fortune cookie? Really? Well, I never did like them... :p

CON side of: When people get a parking ticket, they should rejoice that the system is working.

C-1) Losing money feels bad.

This one should hopefully be fairly self-explanatory. Parking fines result in money being lost to the government/taxman/whomever. That money is money that could have been spent elsewhere - on rent, food, drink, or luxuries. Either way, that money has now been lost to the system. Why should one rejoice when one loses money?

C-2) The point of the system is precisely that people SHOULDN'T rejoice when they breach it.

The attitude shown in C-1) is precisely the point of the system. The very idea of having parking fines is that one feels downhearted and upset that one is losing money, and it is thus supposed to act both as a deterrent against breaking the rules in the first place, and an incentive against breaking the rules again in the future. So not even the system expects / wants you to rejoice when you get a parking fine.

C-3) The system may be excessive.

There may well be considerations in certain cases of parking fines that show the system to be excessive and overly-bureaucratic. For example: you're allowed free parking for 2 hours, come back 2 hours and 5 minutes later, only to find a parking ticket from the omnipresent ticket warden. Or maybe you're supposed to put the pay-and-display ticket on your windscreen/windshield, but instead put it inside the car; for not following the rules, you get a parking ticket from the overzealous warden.

Are we to rejoice in these cases that the system is working? Surely not - for even though the rules were being correctly applied, justice demands that they be applied sympathetically to the circumstances. In both of the examples given, the person given the ticket had perfectly good intentions regarding the rules, but was only unlucky that they be the victim of the Vogon-esque http://en.wikipedia.org... warden on duty at the time. They should not rejoice; they should rebel.

CONCLUSION: it is no-one's best interests to rejoice that the system works, when receiving such a penalty. The person themselves has just lost money, and will justifiably feel upset at this downturn; the system itself wants the person to feel downhearted for the deterrent to have any effect; and we should be ever-vigilant against potential breaches of the spirit of the rules - and instead of simply rejoicing that the rules are working, we should examine the circumstances to see whether the letter of the law should have triumphed in that instance over the spirit of the law. For all of these reasons, the motion should be negated.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
A debate without rebuttals isn't really a debate, nor as interesting as a real debate. Nonetheless, I'll play along and use the standard of "how good a prima facia case was made" Pro didn't give very good reasons why MMA should be an Olympic sport as distinguished from other sports that are not now Olympic sports. I think the gladiator comparison was the best, because that implied something about classic tradition that could have been developed in a full debate about it's being "Olympic." Con made a better case, especially with the argument that parking tickets are designed not to be objects of joy.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Hello Mongeese, Yes, you choose which side you want to argue from any of the listed options. Additionally, you leave me 3 choices. Like impromptu, there is little to no time to prepare, and there is no rebuttal.

The shorter the time, the more fun it is to genuinely shoot from the hip, providing both participants are online. Considering the UK folks are 6-8 hours ahead of the USA, a longer time limit helps prevent forfeits in an open challenge.

Impromptu is my very favorite event, let me know if you would like to try it. Thomas
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Hold on,so if I want to argue Resolution 1 as Con, can I? And what's with this "3 more choices"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
twsurberLogicianTied
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 Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
twsurberLogicianTied
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