The Instigator
1stLordofTheVenerability
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Impromptu Debate

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 7 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,892 times Debate No: 13840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

Greetings all,

This is an Impromptu Debate.
Each participant has ten minutes to post, so please keep that in mind when judging for errors or discrepancies in spelling.

There are three rounds in this debate, but only the third round will be utilized for the actual debate. In the first round, my opponent will join and merely post formalities.

In the second round, I will post three different topics that my opponent can debate. My opponent will do the same. In the third round, each will select one topic and argue for or against it.

Do not attempt to refute the opponent, as this is based upon who is the most professional when under time restrictions.

Also, it is generally considered sportsmanlike if the opponent does no research or outline planning about the topic during the ten minutes that I post. Of course, this 'rule' only works if both parties concur and abide by, "The Honour System"

Good luck and have fun!
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for what is sure to be a stimulating debate that requires lightning fast thought processing.

Seeing as impromptu and debate are difficult to put together, I'd like to point out that this debate is going to be sloppy, relatively speaking- organization will be minimized and, as my opponent pointed out, spelling and grammar are likely to be dealt a heavy blow from the rather insufficient amount of time provided.

Before we begin, I'd just like to ask for some clarification: it seems as if my opponent will be taking one of my topics and arguing for or against it, and I'll be arguing for or against one of his. Basically, these are two independent "speeches", is the assumption I'm making. If that's correct, there is no need to address this.

I thank the readers for their time, and apologize ahead of time for any informalities or "unsportsmanlike" behaviors on my part and my opponents, and request that they be dismissed as the effects of pressure.

With that, I'll send the debate back over to Pro, in anticipation of a few debate topics that are sure to spark anyone's interest.
Debate Round No. 1
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

Thanks for accepting, Sam.

Indeed, that is how this "Debate" will work.

Your three choices are as follows:

1. Should Cannabis be legalized?
2. Immigrants should not be entitled to welfare or social security programs after residing in Canada for just six years.
3. Violence, profanity, nudity and intoxication should be banned from video games, as they influence the children in a negative fashion.

Remember, you do not debate them in Round 2, but merely proffer some topics for me.

That's a diverse selection.

Have a great debate! Enjoy!
m93samman

Con

I appreciate your timely response, I guess you were forced to. But either way, thanks for welcoming me.

Your three topics are:

1. Should intellectual property be banned?
2. Do China and Russia pose any threats to the US, physical or cyber?
3. Barack Obama has been, on balance, a relatively good President.

I wish you the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 2
1stLordofTheVenerability

Pro

I will select number 2.

China and Russia have recently signed an economical and militaristic agreement in the face of "US Aggression." (http://www.en.rian.ru...) This does seem to indicate that the United States should feel somewhat threatened by these two powerhouse nations.

The Republic of China has evicted the former Nationalist Government to Taiwan, but since that time in the post Civil War period, Taiwan has been a nuisance to them (only recently has the USA even acknowledged the Communist Republic of China as official government). As a result, China wishes to conquer the tiny island, which is a USA protectorate. China also has the means to completely debilitate the United States' Pacific force in Japan. China has the only land to sea ballistic missile in the world, and it is designed to destroy naval craft - such as the US Carrier docked in Japan.

China has been accused of cyber attacks already; Asian hackers have been accused breaking into important databases. It is not far fetched that China will continue; in fact, if China were to attack the United States, then cyber assaults would commence their assault.

One must consider that over 70% of China's economy exists due to piracy and fraudulence. Such a volatile society shouldn't be trusted; it damages the Unites States and International trade.

Thence, it is not far fetched whatsoever. I'm out of time. Thanks!
m93samman

Con

=== Intro ===

Video games have long been an issue of controversy as there are so many variable factors, from content all the way to parental intervention. My position will be clarified at the end of this round, after I provide the sufficient framework and evidence necessary to formulate an opinion.

=== The Case for Banning Explicit Content from Video Games ===

To begin, we will define children as the plural of child, which is "a young person of either sex" [1].

First, we will look to studies of what children desire. Brad Bushman of the University of Michigan and Elly Konijn of VU University Amsterdam conducted a study that took into account the opinions of 310 Dutch school children; their findings seemed to be consistent with our expectations [2]. They found that, in the majority of cases, the more "objectionable" the material in a game title, the more the children would want to play it.

This leads me to more relevant statistics. In a study Walsh [[3]- article found in [6]] it was found that most teens who played video games had parents that did NOT set time limits. What is the effect of this? Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh [[4]- article also in [6]] found that it led to several detrimental effects. For the sake of debate, we will stick to just two.

1.They become more aggressive
---> a.Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers
---> b.May engage in fights with their peers

2.They found a decline in academic performance [[5]- article, yet again, in [6]]

So, we come to a syllogism.

Given:
(1)Children want video games with graphic content
(2)Parents don't monitor gaming time enough

We get:
(3)Children play a lot of violent video games (found to range from 5 to 13 hours weekly, on average)

The effect:
(4)An increase in violence and aggression
(5)A decrease in overall academic performance

Therefore:

I advocate that graphic and objectionable content be removed from the video-gaming sphere allowed for children

I thank Pro for this wonderful debate, and shall now return to study for my midterms. If I might add, this was the first meaningful distraction I've had in a while.

=== Sources ===

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[2] http://kotaku.com...

[3] Walsh (2000)

[4] Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh (2004, p.6)

[5] (Gentile et al, 2004).

[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adealornodeal 5 years ago
adealornodeal
This was an amazing idea and a really impressive "impromptu debate".

RFD: I only found it fair to vote on "convincing arguments" and "reliable sources" as both debaters had good conduct and spelling/grammar. I gave both "convincing arguments" and "reliable sources" to the Con-- the con's organization was much better and the impacts were very clearly linked to the resolution. He also had actual citations to back up his case.

That being said, this was legit for both sides. Props to the Pro for thinking up an idea like this.
Posted by Captain_Ronnie 6 years ago
Captain_Ronnie
This was pretty interesting, I've never done an "impromptu debate" before...
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Bluesteel, Impromptu is an actual "Forensics" debate format. Each candidate is given three option cards and then two minutes to prepare and five/ten minutes to argue for the selected topic. Since there can be anything from two to ten competitors in a limited time span with varying topics, rebuttals are quite impossible.

I think for Parliamentary type debate to work, a single topic would have to be discussed. It's an interesting proposition, and I'd be willing to try a format like that when I return in two weeks, if you're game. :D
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
I have to give Samman credit; his organization and the length that he managed in ten minutes was astounding. I enjoyed your arguments. Though your academic performance argument seemed dependent more on limiting the time played rather than the actual content, which was the topic in question.

Wish I remembered the name of that Carrier, but it only came to me afterwards - it's the USS George Washington serving in the Far East. The Popular Mechanics article, "China's Secret War Plan" was most interesting. I recommend it.

Yeah, Gavin, I would have PMed you, but you're blocking all communications. Maybe next time!
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

Both sides did a really great job. Con was more coherent, better organized, and had higher quality sources, so I vote convincing and sources point to him.

It's hard to judge these debates because there's no clash, so it's simply based off who is better organized and has a better writing style. If this were live, speaking skill would also really matter.
________

Is there a reason for no clash? I would think an impromptu debate on this site would be like a parliamentary debate round in competitive debate.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Gavin: I saw your comment on the other one; I'll be honest, it's a LOT of fun. You should do one, I'd definitely recommend it.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Thanks guys, that was fun to read, and m93samman, very impressive sentiments(with sources) on such short notice. Both of you made outstanding arguments, considering time restrictions. Thanks again!
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Indeed! Most enjoyable. I also must resume my studies. Cheers!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
A lot of fun! Really enjoyed it, very stimulating.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Forgot to mention China's economical ties with North Korea... Oh well.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zabcheckmate 5 years ago
Zabcheckmate
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 5 years ago
adealornodeal
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Captain_Ronnie 6 years ago
Captain_Ronnie
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
1stLordofTheVenerabilitym93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02