The Instigator
untitled_entity
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Xer
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

In a battle between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan would win.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
untitled_entity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2009 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,013 times Debate No: 8995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (8)

 

untitled_entity

Con

I will defer to AFF for constructive.

The Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan refer to the respective political analysts/news personalities.
Xer

Pro

I thank untitled_entity for the chance to debate, and wish her good luck.

battle - a combat between two persons
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Keith Olbermann - is host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Pat Buchanan - has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
http://buchanan.org...

win - a: to gain in or as if in battle or contest b: to be the victor in
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent did not set forth the conditions of the battle. So I will do so now:

1) The battle is a death match.
2) The battle takes place in a 10 feet by 10 feet room. The room is enclosed on all 4 sides. There is nothing in the room besides the two men.
3) Both men have no clothes on with nothing in either of their bodily cavities other than what is natural.
4) Keith Olbermann starts the battle off hogtied lying on the floor. Hogtied means that his limbs are tied together rendering him immobile and helpless. He is also gagged and blindfolded. He is not wearing protection or clothing of any kind.
4) Pat Buchanan starts the battle off standing upright with nothing on him at all. He is holding a fully loaded, fully operational standard 9 mm handgun ready to be fired. It is held in his right hand, his strong hand.

*Note that my opponent never stated that the battle would be fair. She never even stated any conditions of the battle.

Pat Buchanan would clearly win this battle against Keith Olbermann. A person with a gun can kill a hogtied, gagged, and blindfolded person easily. This is not even a close battle. Keith Olbermann could die either from getting shot multiple times or getting pistol whipped multiple times. Pat Buchanan lives, Keith Olbermann dies. So, Pat Buchanan wins the battle. Thus, the resolution is affirmed.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
untitled_entity

Con

Thanks to Nags for accepting, and for a very interesting opening argument. I apologize for being online and not posting an argument when my opponent wanted me to, I do have a life and though I do come on this site, I don't sit here for hours unless I actually plan on posting my argument.

However, I must point out that there is no way that Buchanan could have a gun as my opponent stated that there was nothing in the room but the two men. He also states Buchanan starts the battle off standing upright with nothing on him at all, therefore there is no way he could possess the gun. In addition, Pat Buchanan has pretty bad, reactive arthritis (3) therefore it would be hard to find his "strong" hand.

On to the claim that Mr. Olbermann is hogtied, gagged and blindfolded. I will concede that he could be gagged and blindfolded. However, he could not be hogtied at the limbs. Keith Olbermann is a sufferer of RLS (1) [restless leg syndrome] and therefore would have put up such a heinous fight not to be hogtied that Pat Buchanan would give up the entire hog - tying process. If this warrant is not satisfactory to my opponent, he should know that sometimes patients with RLS sometimes suffer the urge to jerk violently (2) in order to combat the odd sensations of RLS which means that Mr. Olbermann could effectively kick Buchanan in the face.

After doing so, Keith could untie the blindfold, the gag doesn't much matter.

If we really want to go rules for rules, I will supply my own set of rules some in accordance with my opponent's.

"1) The battle is a death match.
2) The battle takes place in a 10 feet by 10 feet room. The room is enclosed on all 4 sides. There is nothing in the room besides the two men.
3) Both men have no clothes on with nothing in either of their bodily cavities other than what is natural.
4) Keith Olbermann starts the battle off hogtied lying on the floor. Hogtied means that his limbs are tied together rendering him immobile and helpless. He is also gagged and blindfolded. He is not wearing protection or clothing of any kind.
4) Pat Buchanan starts the battle off standing upright with nothing on him at all. He is holding a fully loaded, fully operational standard 9 mm handgun ready to be fired. It is held in his right hand, his strong hand."
I will allows all of these, just keep in mind that there is no way of having a pistol.

My own rules:
1: Pat Buchanan has had a heart attack at the sight of a naked Keith Olbermann and is circling the drain.

My arguments:
1) Keith Olbermann is a full twenty years younger than Pat Buchanan which would work to his advantage. It is scientific fact that as people get older they deteriorate, Pat Buchanan would be no exception. Seeing as he was diagnosed with arthritis at a rather young age it can only be expected that his joints have dealt with some problems regarding the disease. Therefore it would be expected that Keith had more agility and physical strength than Pat Buchanan allowing him to endure more.

2) Pat Buchanan is already dying from a massive coronary heart attack. Therefore all Keith Olbermann really has to do is wait and his opponent will die. However one can assume that due to the fact that this is a death match, Olbermann will leave nothing to chance and will unleash a serious attack against the dying body of one Patrick J. Buchanan.

Sources:
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) - http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Eagerly awaiting another set of ridiculous rules.
Xer

Pro

"Eagerly awaiting another set of ridiculous rules."
---I hope you enjoy them.

"However, I must point out that there is no way that Buchanan could have a gun as my opponent stated that there was nothing in the room but the two men."
---You found a crucial flaw in my argument, well done, well done indeed.

"On to the claim that Mr. Olbermann is hogtied, gagged and blindfolded. I will concede that he could be gagged and blindfolded. However, he could not be hogtied at the limbs."
---Well, your rebuttal isn't really necesarry here, seeing as how nothing is in the room.

"My own rules:
1: Pat Buchanan has had a heart attack at the sight of a naked Keith Olbermann and is circling the drain."
---Touch´┐Ż. I would no doubt do the same if I even saw Keith Olbermann in person.

====================

"Eagerly awaiting another set of ridiculous rules."
---I hope you enjoy them.

My new conditions of battle:
1) Keith Olbermann ran 26 7/32 miles to get to the room in which the battle takes place in 3 hours time.
2) Once Keith got within 10 feet of the room, he was brutally attacked by 69 thugs. All his limbs were ripped off, as were his eyeballs. He was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs. He was then thrown in the room.
3) Pat Buchanan walked in the room fully intact with no injuries (internal of external) whatsoever. He walked in the room strikingly similar to the condition in the YouTube video. (((Pat Buchanan is the man on the right.)))

Although I do commend Keith for running a marathon distance in great time, he was met with a not so warm welcome. Although Pat did suffer a massive heart attack, Keith was in a much worse condition. A person who suffered a heart attack would undoubtedly die slower than a person who was exhauasted, shot, stabbed, and had their limbs, eyes, heart, brain, and other internal organ ripped out/off. Pat Buchanan is the clear winner in this not so glorious battle.

Once again, I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
untitled_entity

Con

My opponent's first set of rules do not coincide with his second. I conceded to most of the rules in his first post so therefore I assumed they still applied. Keith Olbermann cannot both be tied at the limbs and have no limbs. That would be impossible. In addition, the battle is between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan not between other miscellaneous groups of people. Hence the reason Buchanan had the heart attack on sight of Olbermann not by some sight of a random group of people.

In addition, if Keith Olbermann had to run there, so did Buchanan since my opponent did not specify otherwise. A 70 year old man would not make it 26 7/32 miles at a gentle jog let alone a run. Therefore one could expect that Pat Buchanan would have died mid journey. Therefore Keith Olbermann getting his limbs ripped off would have been obsolete nonetheless.

Pat Buchanan has a history of being owned - see videos. That starry eyed look that Buchanan has in most of them is the look that he most surely had when my next set of rules was enacted.

1. Pat Buchanan died before Keith Olbermann. After suffering a heart attack in the ten foot by ten foot room Pat Buchanan died a slow death due to the fact that he could not be saved as there was nothing in the room but the two men.

2. Keith Olbermann [even if he did sustain the injuries my opponent claims he did; which is rather impossible.] died after Pat Buchanan. Keith Olbermann died in 2024 after a pistol duel with Ann Coulter that left them both bloodied and grave.

3. Pat Buchanan's heart attack was a massive coronary therefore there was no way he could die after Keith Olbermann.

4. It is impossible for Keith Olbermann to die after Pat Buchanan therefore Keith Olbermann ultimately wins the battle.

5. Pat Buchanan automatically loses the battle, he dies first, just because. However one could include the following reasons: for being anti semitic and racist, as well as for just being Pat Buchanan.

My opponent ignored my age argument which I am now sure he will bring up in his final argument. I thank my opponent for a very odd, arbitrary, ridiculous rules based debate, but a fun one. Through my rules and one point, it is obvious to see that Keith Olbermann would outlive Pat Buchanan ultimately winning the battle that is the "death match".
Thank you, and I urge a vote for CON.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com...
Xer

Pro

"My opponent's first set of rules do not coincide with his second. I conceded to most of the rules in his first post so therefore I assumed they still applied."
---They do still apply.

"Keith Olbermann cannot both be tied at the limbs and have no limbs. That would be impossible."
---True. Keith can have his limbs I guess.

"In addition, the battle is between Keith Olbermann and Pat Buchanan not between other miscellaneous groups of people. Hence the reason Buchanan had the heart attack on sight of Olbermann not by some sight of a random group of people."
---You never said that there could not be a battle beforehand. And you did not say the battle had to be fair. Unfortunately, Keith ran into some bad fellas and had to pay the price.

"In addition, if Keith Olbermann had to run there, so did Buchanan since my opponent did not specify otherwise. A 70 year old man would not make it 26 7/32 miles at a gentle jog let alone a run. Therefore one could expect that Pat Buchanan would have died mid journey. Therefore Keith Olbermann getting his limbs ripped off would have been obsolete nonetheless."
---No. I said: "Pat Buchanan walked in the room fully intact with no injuries (internal of external) whatsoever. He walked in the room strikingly similar to the condition in the YouTube video."

"Pat Buchanan has a history of being owned - see videos. That starry eyed look that Buchanan has in most of them is the look that he most surely had when my next set of rules was enacted."
---Both men in those videos were great debaters. However, debating does not have much to do with a death match.

"My opponent ignored my age argument which I am now sure he will bring up in his final argument."
---Yeah, he is older, but age doesn't really play a factor after you get shot, stabbed, and your vital organs are ripped out.

In response to all 5 of my opponent's points:
---I demonstrated that is fully possible for Keith to suffer the injuries he suffered from the 69 thugs. There is no rule that battles could not have taken place beforehand. "He was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs. He was then thrown in the room."

In conclusion:
---This battle is a death match. A death match in which Keith Olbermann "...was shot and stabbed multiple times. His heart and brain were ripped out, as were other vital internal organs." Pat Buchanan only suffered a heart attack. Keith's injuried would obviously kill him in much shorter time than in Pat's injuries. Since Pat lives longer, he wins the battle/death match.

Voters-- Thank you for reading. Please vote fairly. Do not vote bomb and do not vote seven points either way for no reason. Please post RFDs.

untitled_entity-- Thank you for the opportunity to debate. It was fun and interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I think you seriously overestimate political pundits and their follows in either of the major parties. No one is guiltless when it comes to fanatical fervor, esp. on television.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
alto, On this site Christians will sometimes vote reflexively on the pro-God side of a debate, regardless of the merits of the arguments actually made in the debate. On TV Olbermann/Maddow seriously consider opposing views about as often as Pat Robertson seriously considers atheism. It is religious fervor. Even hard-over conservatives like Hannity and Beck are not in that category.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
The same can be said for conservatism, just not on this website :| That's the problem with partisan politics.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
Hahah, thanks Roy.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
It's easy to explain how you lost. Liberalism is a religion and Keith Olbermann is a saint in that religion. You can tell because he speaks in tongues. You lost because you are a blasphemous infidel. Happens all the time on this site.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
How the f*ck did I lose this? And it wasn't even close. 20 points?

*sighs and nods head*
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I agree with Roy; deferring to aff for a constructive is one thing, but as the instigator, it's still up to you to clarify the intentions of the debate and at least offer some kind of definitive open statement; Pro was a bit silly at times, and shifted his position, admitting flaws in his arguments, but this is only because Con allowed him to get away with it; Pro not only wins, but gets a cleverness point.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
Yeah. Pat Buchanan would wreck Keith Olbermann in a debate. I've never seen Olbermann debate once and every time Pat is on TV he is debating.

Also- how is u_e winning? Post RFDs.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Con foolishly failed to state what the resolution was about and gave no opening argument that would implicitly have clarified it. Con should have posed it as Pro and made a case. As it stands, it clearly goes to Pro.

Olbermann doesn't debate, he preaches. Olbermann faces opposition so rarely, he wouldn't know what to do with it. Buchanan would easily win a debate with Olbermann, even though, in my view, Buchanan is often wrong. Buchanan knows how to build a case. Olbermann does not.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
What do ownages have to do with death matches... seriously?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by thepianist 8 years ago
thepianist
untitled_entityXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
untitled_entityXerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by SKEPTICISM 8 years ago
SKEPTICISM
untitled_entityXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
untitled_entityXerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by methodicalmadness00 8 years ago
methodicalmadness00
untitled_entityXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
untitled_entityXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
untitled_entityXerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
untitled_entityXerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60