The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
James.ticknor
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

It's time to bring back public duels

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,098 times Debate No: 8146
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

If you have ever watched daytime TV, you will surely have encountered programmes such as the Jeremy Kyle Show (1) and the Jerry Springer Show (2).

If you haven't seen one of these programmes, essentially what happens is that some scumbags who are involved in a tawdry domestic dispute are invited on to wash their dirty linen live on air.

A typical example would be a woman tells the man from next door that he is the father of her child. Meanwhile the woman's boyfriend is being wound up into a state of epileptic fury backstage before being released onto the set in front of a jeering audience. The presenter and the crowd then try to goad the two men into escalating the dispute into a violent conflict, at which point security guards are brought on to break up the fight.

It's an enormously successful format on both sides of the Atlantic and could well be the key to revitalising depressed town centres.

You see, over the years, people have increasingly opted to shop in out-of-town shopping malls, thus leaving once bustling town centres deserted, which is a shame.

However, if public duels were were once more permitted, town centres could attract shoppers back by offering them the spectacle of two men fighting it out to the death.

The format of the performances would be similar to the TV shows, at least to the point where violence is about to ensue. At this juncture though, the host would suggest to one of the aggrieved parties that he should challenge the other to s duel. If both of the men agree, they would be lead to the middle of the market square where they would be invited to choose their weapons.

Firearms would not be permitted as stray bullets would present a health and safety risk to the crowd, and also mean that the action would probably be over too quickly. Instead, the combatants would be asked to choose from:

1 - A motorbike chain
2 - A cricket bat with rusty nails hammered through it
3 - A sock with a snooker ball in it
4 - A drug addict's AIDS-contaminated syringe
5 - A broken vodka bottle

You can imagine what sort of wonderful performances these fights would be, especially if the girlfriend was thrown in to shout "stop it Kev, he's not worth it" or whatever.

These live shows would mean that people will be able to combine their weekly shopping with free entertainment and traditional town centre shops such as butchers, bakers and greengrocers will, once again, be able to prosper.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.itv.com...

(2) http://www.jerryspringertv.com...
James.ticknor

Con

Wow, as...what's the word?....malfunctioned as my opponent sounds, I will entertain his idea, because I too have the same malfunction (e.g. Entertainment in pain and suffering)

My opponent has the burdon of proof and his only point was that it would bring entertainment to shopping malls. This can (even without guns) harm the public. For this reason alone it should remain banned. Also, think about the children (espically little goody-two-shoes Christian family children) they would all be sooo scarred.

Duels are used to settle feuds. With all of the fueds in America, I have no doubt that it would be a massacre. If this was passed, I could imagine the family game show "Family Fued" quiet differently.

I have demolished my opponents case and don't know what to do with 7,216 charctors left. So I will babbly on about my fish and my dead schoolmate.

My fish was dying. He was some sort of Tiger fish and was swimming striaght up, but he was struggling. After 2 weeks of this, it annoyed me so I flushed him, causing his death (actually, I couldn't stand to see him in pain...poor fishy)

A classmate of mine (well, he went to our Votec at Huntington High) died. He had heart issues and had some sort of heart attack in his sleep and died....(no laugh, but I kinda wanna. Sick no?)

Okay, now I have 6,680 chars left...Sigh, I'll just quit.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Firstly, I should like to extend my thanks to opponent for accepting this challenge, who began his rebuttal by writing:

"My opponent has the burdon of proof and his only point was that it would bring entertainment to shopping malls."

Actually, I was hoping to reinvigorate town centres (central business districts) by attracting shoppers away from suburban malls by putting on some live entertainment, but anyway, here's my proof that my scheme will work:

Tabloid talk shows like Jerry Springer are hugely popular, right? Sports such as boxing and wrestling are hugely popular as well, aren't they? And films and video games that feature extreme violence are also hugely popular. In short, people really, really like heated conflicts - and if they feature blood and guts, so much the better.

This is the case today just as it was in the days of the gladiator pits in ancient Rome. It's human nature.

True, some Christians might prefer to avert their eyes to marketplace brawls, but not many. After all, the Bible is packed full of acts of extreme violence which, presumably, is one of the reasons it is the world's best-selling book!

Now, as far as the fights causing injury to the audience, this, I suppose is possible but life is full of risks. After all, when you see a fight outside a pub, do you cross the street just in case you might get hit by a shard of glass or a splinter from a broken pool cue? Of course not! You go over and join the crowd who are baying for blood. I mean, how many people would watch a cricket match or a baseball game on TV rather than go and see it live - just in case they get hit by a loose ball?

I have never heard of the game show "Family Feud" that my opponent referred to, so I Googled it. What a rip-off! There's no action in it all! No wonder I'd never heard of it. I mean, what's that "face-off" nonsense at the beginning all about? "I'll rip your ugly face off, you fat slag" would be better. And If I were the show's producer I'd replace the "Lollipop Tree" with a gun-rack to spice it up a bit more as well.

Finally, as I am a sensitive sort of person with a deep appreciation for the delicacy of other people's feelings, I won't comment on my opponent's closing points as they are clearly personal matters.

Thank you.
James.ticknor

Con

My opponent stated, "After all, the Bible is packed full of acts of extreme violence which, presumably, is one of the reasons it is the world's best-selling book!"

Actually, the Bible isn't the best selling book because it's 'packed full of acts of extreme violence'. It's the best selling book because a lot of people are Christians. So that point no longer flows through, because it is blocked. (Rejected!!! Oh, what?!)

Anywho, you also said "some Christians might prefer to avert their eyes to marketplace brawls, but not many." You can't prove that. Even if you can, you didn't say anything about a reliable source saying that. So that point is also blocked. (Rejected!! Oh, what?!)

You stated Jerry Springer and stuff if popular. Well let's look at why it is popular. It is so popular because it makes people like me, and possibly you, feel better about their lives. And it's funny to see people with low IQ's argue and use 'nonsense' words.

Well, there are other ways to get live entertainment that DO NOT endanger the public. Like opera, or stupid people arguing about secret love triangles. You acknowledged that it endagers the public. The government is duty bound to protect the people, so the government would ban this regardless, unless you can think of a way to make it more safe.

Actually, the stories weren't points, they were nonpoints. I find it hard to believe that you are sensitive (actually I don't, but just roll with it) because you want to allow people to kill each other. You might not want to hurt their feelings, but if they no longer have feelings (Cause they are dead) then you're cool with it? Hehe!
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by James.ticknor 8 years ago
James.ticknor
WOW, I thought for sure I would have won by a landslide....I sense conspiracy!
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I'm sure Zell Miller would love this debate! :D
Posted by James.ticknor 8 years ago
James.ticknor
Thanks for the debate!
Posted by James.ticknor 8 years ago
James.ticknor
Heh, thanks! I like it quick...erm...yea...
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Wow, that was my quickest reply ever. I got the acceptance and response within about ten minutes! Not bad going Con!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 7 years ago
Pyromaniac
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by NewBoy 7 years ago
NewBoy
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by TheWikidFool 8 years ago
TheWikidFool
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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 fanusc101 8 years ago
fanusc101
brian_egglestonJames.ticknorTied
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