The Instigator
Cleveland-Cannibal
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Hound
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

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 4 votes the winner is...
Hound
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 13758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Cleveland-Cannibal

Pro

Resolved: Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination.

Definitions:
Lincoln-Douglas: Lincoln-Douglas debate as defined by the National Forensic League.

Cross-Examination: Cross-Examination debate as defined by the National Forensic League.

Better: more advantageous or effective.

CONTENTION 1: Value of Lincoln-Douglas.
It is a common held fact that Lincoln-Douglas debate is one of the more mentally engaging and thought provoking forms of debate. This is mainly because it is a one person debate, and thus, the one debater must carry the weight of their case on their own. It is also a philosophical debate which forces a debater to think independently instead of relying on a load of evidence and others to do the work of their cases for them. In Lincoln-Douglas you are free to think and argue in whatever way you wish with or without the shackles of evidence.

CONTENTION 2: Disadvantages of Cross-Examination.
Cross-Examination debate is dangerous! Legend tells that once, a CX-er was stabbed with a pen in a round by an opponent. And as they gasped for breath and tried to stop the flow of blood, the kid kept debating! Surely this is not a safe environment. Also notice that ALL CX-ers carry around big tubs of stuff; does anybody know what this stuff is? No. For all we know it could be filled with more pens for stabbing. Obviously this logic shows you that Cross-Examination debate and CX-ers in general are dangerous. And the longer we wait, the more they breed.

I hope I have clearly shown you why Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination. I look forward to an opponents response.
Hound

Con

Alright, I'll bite.

My opponent has failed to cite sources for the disadvantages of Cross-Examination, therefore until he does, I will surmise this as hearsay.

My opponent's opening statement is riddled with bias and rather than representing what the advantages and disadvantages of each form of debate are, my opponent instead capitalized on this fallacy of Cross-Examination. Clearly my opponent is not serious about this debate if they go on about an alleged event yet failed to back it up with actual facts and sources.

In addition, my opponent says the following: Obviously this logic shows you that Cross-Examination debate and CX-ers in general are dangerous. And the longer we wait, the more they breed.

Stereotyping and a complete deviation from his actual thesis are present here.

I await my opponent's defense before delving further.
Debate Round No. 1
Cleveland-Cannibal

Pro

My opponent claims that my second contentions; the dangers of CX is invalid because of it's lack of evidence. I must ask my opponent; have you ever seen CX-er? They are frightening creatures. In fact you can tell who in a room is a CX-er because he/she will be the person in the corner. If a CX-er walks into a room and all four corners are taken, they will make a new corner. Which leads me to my next point; loneliness. In debate prep CX-ers often spend hours f not days n front of a computer looking up evidence; while LD-ers are allowed to use their time more freely either practice debating, thinking about or discussing the resolution with others and having a good time. LD-ers are not confined to the shackles of evidence that CX-ers and CX debate are.

But to back up my claims with evidence I offer the following; http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...

And let me ask you; when has anything good ever come out of a CX debate? On the contrary many good things have come from LD, like hmmmmmmm... let me think; the Abraham Lincoln presidency!!

Next my opponent claims that I stereotype CX-ers. Yes. Yes I do. And I stereotype them pretty darn good thank you very much!

Now back to Lincoln-Douglas, my opponent never responded to any of my first contention, so I look forward to my opponent's future rebuttal of it. But as it has so far not been touched, we can only assume that means my opponent agrees with my entire first contention.

And thus I am forced to make the logical conclusion that LD debate is simply better than CX. Thank for letting me ramble. I am a grumpy 70 year old man stuck in a teenagers body.
Hound

Con

I thank my opponent for their blatant honesty.

I'll first state that the reason I never responded to the first contention was due to the fact that there were (still are) so many holes in your argument.

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent states that the procedure of Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross Examination due to the fact that the stereotype of CX debaters apparently make them lose credibility. This is a large fallacy, not to mention illogical. How is the form of debate weakened if the type of people who practice the form of debate are "misfit?"

Secondly, my opponent claims that he indeed stereotypes against CX-ers and is therefore biased. Of course there's nothing wrong with bias, but this shows that instead of giving logical reasons why LD is better than CX, my opponent instead focuses on apparent cataclysms that have occurred with CX debaters.

The link my opponent provided me with is not a credible source (lol, look at the title). Therefore, my opponent's former claim of an incident with a CX debater is hearsay and is discredited.

Just because CX debaters have a different form of debate research does not make them eligible for discontinuation.

Nothing good has come out of a CX debate? I'd like proper evidence rather than a blog with a title "trollin the internet."
Debate Round No. 2
Cleveland-Cannibal

Pro

I wold like to start my last post by saying the website I cited earlier is incredibly credible because I say it is.

I have won this debate because my entire first contention stands; my opponent never adressed it besides saying, "the fact that there were (still are) so many holes in your argument." this is not an argument and as my opponent never elaborated on this, this contention stands.

My opponent then never stated a single reason why LD isn't better than CX, my opponent merely tried to disprove my disliking of CX; thus my opponent never had a single argument showing that LD is not in fact better than CX.

Next I would like to say that my stereotypes on CX-ers are completely true (I am one, just made the debate for the laughs), and thus I have first hand eyewitness accounts of how terrible CX-ers can be. Therefore we can conclude that LD (with all the benifits that I stated in contention 1), is superior to CX. My opponent then goes on to say, "Just because CX debaters have a different form of debate research does not make them eligible for discontinuation." I never stated or infered that CX should be discontinued, if it were I'd be out of a job; I mearly said LD is superior.

Now lets talk about research; in LD (as I stated previously) you have very little evidence based research, instead your time is spent thinking, learning and philosophicating. These methods have been scientifically proven to make people smarter and more critically thinking human beings while in CX debate; you spend your time slaving over a computer screen trying to find any evidence you can and then dump it in buckets. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Surely this is not a healthy or beneficially way of spending debate research time.

And for those reasons I urge a strong vote for the AFF. Thanks for listening.
Hound

Con

Thank you.

The website is not credible because you say so; it must have some sort of merit along with its claims (which, it doesn't.) This essentially collapses Pro's statement of the alleged CX incident is null.

Secondly, to humor you I'll argue my case. It was hard to when there were/are so many holes in your arguments. First of all, CX debate involves loads of research (you've bashed CX for this reason.) Think about it, the more research you've done, the more you know about what the debate is all about. You know exactly what to say, how to say it, what to expect, and you're well-immersed with the case. Essentially, the research pays off. In addition, CX debates tend to be more in-depth than most because of this reason.

If your environment is what you say it's like in the CX community, I'll have to take your word for it. I'll leave that point off with saying "you can't judge CX debaters as a whole because of what you see around you." That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of 9/11.

You've defeated your case here. You say LD involves little research. Instead, it involves thinking on the spot and you say it "makes you smarter." How? You're using information you've heard and are simply arguing it. Indeed you get some sort of intellectual stimulation, however moreso than CX? Nah. I'd like proof saying LD-ers are smarter than CX-ers.

To conclude, I'd like to say CX involves research, which in turn makes you more involved with your debate. Instead of spending time thinking about what to say, you'll know what to talk about and how to talk about it. Essentially, CX debates are more in-depth.

My opponent also has shown carelessness in regards to this debate, and I've done my duty of showing that LD is not superior to CX (I achieved this somewhat due to my opponent's lack of adequate sources and his unwillingness.) Due to this, I encourage a vote for Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
The reason I did so was because it was evident my opponent was not serious from the beginning, and in turn I figured I'd dismember his argument and present a few points of my own.

Thanks for the vote.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
I gave 4 points to con mostly for round 3. A lot of that was new analysis, but not new arguments. In fact, he just took pro's points and showed the flawed logic in them.

Con got conduct as well because pro didn't seem to take it too seriously.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Really just took this for the lulz :P
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I was actually going to take this until I clicked onto this page and read Contention 2.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
Cleveland-CannibalHoundTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by GavinAurion 6 years ago
GavinAurion
Cleveland-CannibalHoundTied
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 Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
Cleveland-CannibalHoundTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
Cleveland-CannibalHoundTied
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:05