Debate Rounds (2)
We're going to attempt a new debate format called 'Impromptu', so please consider that we only have ten minutes to post when judging for errors or discrepancies in spelling. We each have two arguments; the first will introduce the topic and greet the opponent. The second will create an -in-depth argument on the topic. We would have five or ten minutes to argue in round two.
The exhilarating part would be that we don't debate the same topic. We requested of two others to create three topics (three for him and three for me). Then we each picked one and argue upon our own without rebutting the opponent. The most outstanding, solitary, five/ten minute argument wins.
Marauder gave me these three topics, "1) Lay Ministers (aka local pasturs) should be requried to commit to the same amount of training and education as ordained pastures or have them removed from ministry if they dont.
2) If they were the only two canidates, Bobby Jindal would beat Tim Pawlenty in the GOP presidentail primaries for 2012.
3) Had Napoleon waged war against the US (leaving Britain alone) he would have won.
this gives you a variaty of catagories to choose from, politics, religon, alternative history."
And I have decided to choose number 3, "Had Napoleon waged war against the US (leaving Britain alone) he would have won." I will argue that he could have indubitably emerged victorious.
Good luck, Brian, and may L not choose the most difficult topics that she can spontaneously think of.
At short notice, TheLwerd very kindly proposed the following topics:
1. War in Afghanistan
2. Tobacco Rights
I have decided to argue in favour of tobacco rights.
May the battle commence and the best man win.
All right, as I have previously stated, I am going to argue that if Napoleon had decided not to sell the Louisiana Territory and thus fought the United States in a conflict while disengaging from conflict with England, he would have won.
Let us briefly analyze the War of 1812. At this time, the US Army had a regular force of perhaps 36,000. It had an untrained, illprepared and poorly equipped militia of about 450,000. Napoleon, in contrast, had a vast professional Grande Armee of 750,000 at the peak of France's Glory.
France's Naval Fleet could have easily crushed the American scattering of ships, as England's did.
Napoleon was a brilliant military commander. He defeated professional armies in European nations for ten years. In contrast, the American armies weren't any renowned strategists. Napoleon's army had resources far beyond that of the Americans (such as modern heavy cannon, mortars and howitzers).
I'll briefly consider also that England never had a force of over 40,000 regulars available in the american Theatre, yet they sacked Washington and prevailed.
Hence, even if Napoleon was forced to fight a war across the sea, like England, he would have prevailed with a victory.
Here's my argument in support of tobacco rights:
Tobacco plants have rights, just like other plants, but sadly they are all too often ignored.
How would you like it if you were taken in the prime of your life, left out in the burning sun until you were almost completely dehydrated and then wrapped up in paper and set light to?
Those dirty, selfish smokers don't care – of course – but surely someone else should step in to protect these poor plants from the serial and widespread abuse they suffer on a wholesale basis?
Where is Royal Society for the Protection of Plants in their hour of need?
Oh, just a moment…PM from theLWerd…that's not what she meant apparently…
Okay, I'll try again.
They don't stop the obese from going into fast food restaurants and gorging themselves even though it might kill them so why ban smoking in pubs for the same reason?
It's pure prejudice and if the non-smoking bar staff object, they should find another job.
After all, a Jew or a Muslim wouldn't apply for a job in a bacon factory, would they?
It's the same principle.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.