The Instigator
Chrysippus
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Chrysippus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,655 times Debate No: 15764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Chrysippus

Pro

Something ought to be done. There ought to be a law. No taxation without representation.

Or, something like that.

There is a group of dedicated selfless people in our country who sadly, are entirely without a voice in our public affairs. Shamefully, while almost all other minorities, miners, and minors have their own lobbyists and Congressmen bought and paid for, there is a small group of law-abiding Americans who have absolutely no say in what gets done in politics.

I am speaking, ladies and gentlemen, of the American Mime.

These inoffensive and mild-mannered people have been the subjects of the most grievous discrimination possible. While all manner of racist jokes are prohibited from our halls of higher learning, and the sexist joke has been shunned for years, every philosophy class in our nation still uses the old saw: "If a tree falls on a mime in a forest, does he make a noise?" Mimes are even prevented from teaching these classes because of this soundist discrimination. Apparently, body language isn't good enough for the old-boy bigots running our country.

This social discrimination is only the background for this debate, however. I address today the soundist discrimination that prevents our friends and brothers, the Mimes, from having an equal voice in Congress.

==========

Definitions:
Mime: http://dictionary.reference.com...
also, for a concrete example, see video:

Soundist: Discrimination based on speech

Congress: corrupt; also, this: http://dictionary.reference.com...

=======

I will introduce my opening arguments briefly, and then turn the debate over to my opponent.

1. Mimes are human.

Self evident. If you doubt this, find a passing mime and check. Then, run before they an get you with the invisible ropes.

2. Humans have equal rights.

I would hope this could be safely assumed. If not, we will have a lot of fun with this debate. I refer you first to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

3. Mimes have no voice in Congress.

...or anywhere else, for that matter.

4. Some humans have greater representation in Congress than Mimes.

Follows from 3, assuming some humans do have a voice in Congress. I think I can establish that.

Conclusion: Mimes should be given representation in Congress.

With that, I (once again) turn this debate over to my worthy opponent, whomever he might be. I look forward to tangling wits with you.

C.
TUF

Con

I stand in the con position dis-agreeing that mimes ought to have a voice in congress for the following reasons.

1. Mimes have no need for a spot in congress!

Given my opponents definition of mime, a mime fully expresses them self through the use of expression, gestures and movements. Anything a mime wants, can be created through the use of their actions and movements. A mime has no need to have a place in congress, because what could congress possibly offer a mime that he or she didn't already have? Also mimes want different things then those of the members of congress. For example, a congressman may want to put a ban on sexting, while a mime may just want an invisible glass case to trap you in. The difference is that the congressman wants something currently not available to him, while the mime can have what they want by creating it through imaginative means. Thus mimes have no purpose in congress.

2. Mimes are a minority!

Mimes are but a small group of people. Why should they get a voice when so many others don't? You know what? I think bikers deserve a voice on congress then! If mimes earn a place in congress the opposite minority will be offended and want equal voice rights as well! If we give mimes rights in congress it will start an uproar from the sound maniacs such as bikers!

See video.

http://m.youtube.com...

We can cross apply this to my opponents first and second point. If mimes are Human then they must have an equal voice in congress. However why doesn't every other group of minority get a voice in congress as well?!

3. And finally, mimes probably don't want a voice in congress.
Mimes are simple group of people intent on enjoying the small things in life such as entertaining people or causing them mild enjoyment through the use of their antics. A mime would have no reason to want to have a spot in congress. While some mimes may experience discrimination from "soundists", discrimination simply is something that may never be solved. Some people (like the biker) may even take offense to the mimes quiet lifestyle, feeling it is discriminative of those who prefer to be loud! Discrimination as such that you point out is only relevant to those being offended.

For all these reasons, I implore you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Pro

My opponent's response does not question any of my premises, nor does he show any flaw in my logic; he instead offers three points of his own to show why mimes ought to be content without a voice in Congress. Considering his lack of opposition to my logic, the voters may consider it correct for the purposes of this debate.

That logic I will summarize here briefly:

1. Mimes are human,

2. Humans have equal rights,

3. Mimes have no representation in Congress,

4. Some humans have representation in Congress,

:. Either a) No humans should have representation or b) Mimes should have representation in Congress.

A is obviously intolerable. The obvious conclusion is B.

As this logic has gone unchallenged, the resolution has been upheld.

======

Furthermore, my opponent's points are faulty.

1. Mimes have exactly the same needs for representation in Congress that everyone else has, plus their special status as a persecuted minority. Clearly there needs to be some advocate for those strong, silent chaps who stand suffering on our street corners. Protection from injustice, that is what they need; and it is attitudes like those showcased by my opponent that have repressed mimes and their like into the sideshows of life, baring them from the center stage. I ask the voters, is this fair? Is this just?

2. Of course they are a minority. Most Americans have such faulty communication skills that they cannot be kept from talking, whether or not they have anything to say; public radio is the proof of this. So mime are uncommon; so what? This does not limit their legal rights, nor does it alleviate the injustice of their being forced to have no say in what goes down on Capitol Hill.

My opponent, in a classical elitist twist, argues that we cannot let mimes into the government because then we would have to let all the minorities in. I am sorry that he does not feel that bikers, birdwatchers, grandmothers, Polynesians, and mimes are fit to govern; the petty focus that would exclude these people from Congress is exactly what I m arguing against.

3 is both irrelevant and unfounded. There is no evidence that they do not want representation, nor is there any reason to let their tastes in this matter influence our logic. The point is, they OUGHT to have a voice in Congress; whether they WANT one or would use it if they had it is a matter of personal choices. We cannot let a principle of human rights be decided on the transitory preferences of the victims; I invoke the Stockholm Syndrome as a classic example. Just because the victims decided they like their kidnappers by the end of their captivity doesn't make the kidnapping any more excusable, nor can anyone use that incident to argue that laws against kidnapping should be abolished.

In short, all three of my opponent's points are empty, or even work against his case; whereas my original reasoning remains unchallenged. The resolution is upheld.

C.
TUF

Con

I would like the audience to please not look to my opponents "Faulty 4" Judgments, supposedly justifying mimes to have a voice in congress, as none of them give significant reason to give them one.

Let's find these 4 fallacies shall we?

1. Mimes are human.

Agreed, quite the obvious statement in fact. However, the statement doesn't actually provide any underlying argument, and could have been surmised plainly if tied in properly with two. The extra "point" was perhaps useless, in providing "information" already known unto the audience.
Thus the first fallacy.

2. Humans have equal rights.

Exactly. And a mime choosing not to voice one's opinions in a congress session or to even be included in that session would be his/her own choice. A mime, being a free American citizen has every available option unto him, including that of speech if he/she chooses. If a mime were to include his/herself in congress, they would have the same available equal rights as any other human. We are simply not violating their human rights. Also as far as I know, there isn't any actual law forbidding the use of hand gestures in congress. Even so mimes can permit other ways of communication outside of body movements, and sound. This 'argument' really holds no weight.

3. Mimes have no representation in congress.

Mimes have not been openly refused a place in congress though either, so what counter-claim is being made here? By saying mimes have no representation in congress, you are in a sense claiming that some congressman is out their actively dis-allowing mimes a spot in congress? Again mimes have the same human rights, which led in to my point of "if mimes really wanted a spot in congress what would lead you to believe they couldn't get one?". Which then concludes that over-all, mimes do not want a spot in congress. You say I need proof? The proof is in plain sight. Do you see any mimes pro-testing lack of freedom?

4. Some humans have representation in congress.

And some humans don't. This doesn't mean they are granted the same available opportunities at a spot in congress however. This is probably the biggest of the faulty fours fallacies.
Those who wish representation in congress, take the neccesary steps to achieve this goal. Those who don't, cannot complain their rights are being violated, as they have not attempted to achieve representation in congress.

Given all of the faulty "logic" my opponent has provided, I would like you (the audience) to please drop any and all "arguments" made from the pro position. The resolution has not been upheld.

Going on to my own arguments.

1. My opponents attack on my first argument suggests that mimes are a suffering diverse people. Do you intend to speak for all mimes? A mimes way of life style is chosen by the mime themselves. What other rights are supposedly granted to other people that is withdrawn from the presence of a mime? There is obviously no answer for this because mimes already get the same exact rights as everyone else. To place them in a different class, is discrimination from my opponent, in and of itself!
Mimes have no need for a spot in congress, else they would choose not to be mimes.

2. My opponent, I'm afraid, is vastly confused as to the implications behind my second point. My opponent assumes that I am saying no minority should have a right in congress, when I am in fact saying, why just mimes? What makes a mime more important than a biker, and his rights?

Mimes of course have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else, but why is soundist discrimination upheld by my opponent over all other discrimination's? Really how much hate does it hold over any other discrimination?

Again, if mimes should get a spot in congress so should everyone else.

3. I have already mentioned a good deal about three above, but allow me to re-iterate. If a mime wanted representation in congress bad enough, he/she would have it already. The fact that a mime has not issued him/herself in congress, obviously proves that it is not in a mimes intentions, or agenda to include themselves in congress. We absolutely need to keep in mind that mimes have not been openly discriminated against by any congress. My opponent is presenting a rather faulty indiscrmination do to the fact that mimes are un-noticed by congress. This however doesn't mean the are dis-associated from congress. Given my opponents logic, I could easily say that he is being indiscriminative to bikers, because the resolution didn't include bikers in its title. Given that my opponent didn't mention them, he is being a noise-ist!

It's now easy to see the big logical fallacy with my opponents "Logic".

To conclude, the obvious vote, should be a con vote, as I have proven that mimes are not being actively discriminated by congress, and that indiscrimination is fallatic at best. Also I have proven, that it is obvious it is not in a mimes intention to be represented in congress, due to the obvious fact that there ARENT any mimes who have even attempted to submit their voice to congress. And last I deserve a pro vote because I have proven that A mime shouldn't be classified into a minority group being discriminated against, but rather an individual. If that Individual were looking for a spot in congress we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't achieve it due to their choice of life-style.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge the voters to vote pro.

(P.S.) I apologize for the shortness of round one, as I was busy, and not around a computer, and had to submit the argument off of my Iphone. This problem shouldn't occur again.

Also I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting and fun debating, as I have forgotten to include the formalities in round 1. I am very interested in the remainder of this debate, as a fun and witty challenging opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Pro

I don't have much time to write this; I crave my opponent and audience's indulgence should I slip in my haste. Has been an interesting debate so far, and I thank my opponent for it.

My opponent treats each of the premises of my argument as individual arguments, and holds them up for ridicule. Certainly, each on their own do not prove my case; taken together, however, they make the incontrovertible point that Mimes ought to have representation of their own in Congress. Perhaps that was the reason I put them together into an elongated syllogism?

He finds supposed fallacies with each of my premises, treating them each erroneously as separate arguments; however, he admits the truth of my premises in his rebuff. Those points are premises, underlying statements of fact supporting a larger logical argument. He does not refute their accuracy, only their application; which when all of them are taken together cannot be denied to be correct. He insists on taking them separately, thereby committing his own fallacy, that of the strawman.

Taking my opponent's arguments:

1. "My opponents attack on my first argument suggests that mimes are a suffering diverse people...."

Which my opponent now denies. He could have challenged my statements about this in his first round; an attentive challenger would have picked up on my emphasis on the sufferings of the American Mime. Now, he puts his unbacked word against mine. He says there is no discrimination against Mimes; I say that there is.

"Mimes have no need for a spot in congress, else they would choose not to be mimes."
And my opponent gives a classic example of it. I hold this point has been affirmed by his own words.

2. "My opponent, I'm afraid, is vastly confused as to the implications behind my second point. My opponent assumes that I am saying no minority should have a right in congress, when I am in fact saying, why just mimes? What makes a mime more important than a biker, and his rights?"

and

"Again, if mimes should get a spot in congress so should everyone else."

YES! By George, I believe he's got it; give the gentleman a prize!

This is the whole point, the one he refuses to get. If union bosses and lawyers and liars and conmen and bankers and CEO's and all the rich and powerful people get to hold office, or own someone who does; why do bikers and grandmas and cookie chefs and street urchins and scuba divers and beggars and prostitutes and yes, even the lowly Mime not have someone of their own to speak for them? Why does my opponent think this is such an unthinkable thing, that everyone get some representation, instead of only the elite being represented?

Yes, Mimes and EVERYONE ELSE should have their place in Congress. No-one should be excluded. My argument in this debate was centered around the Mime, not the pimp or the window-washer; but the logic works the same for any and all classes, races, causes and creeds. What justification could there possibly be for the elitist view that only the rich are worthy to rule?

In short, because I sadly have no time to go long, the logic that would exclude a Mime from Congress today is the same that would exclude a tile-layer or an accountant tomorrow. Voters, choose wisely. Choose the rational option. Choose sanity.

"For all these reasons, I strongly urge the voters to vote pro."

I heartily concur.
TUF

Con

I would like to thank my opponent one last time for a great debate!

INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENTS

My opponent claims that each of his original claims work together rather than separately. However even when they are linked, the fallatic four still remain.

We absolutely cannot just say a mime needs a spot in congress just because he is human and humans have rights, given that there are a vast amount of other factors that go into it, that were argued in my round 1. Like if it were in a mimes interests. Or by not allowing them a spot we were really being discriminative.

Going on to my arguments.

DISCRIMINATION

My opponent makes a rather ridiculous claim that mimes are being discriminated against. In all honesty however, I have not noticed any active movements of discrimination towards mimes, no have I personally seen any.

So in this scenario, are mimes really being discriminated against? And if so is it just minor discrimination from a few people. REALLY, are there congressman and others going out protesting mimes for there lack of sound? And last, is this really an argument?

RELEVANT ARGUMENTS?

My opponent agrees that everyone deserves a spot in congress. Okay good, that's out of the way. Now unfortunately you have not answered the question I asked in the previous round. Are we really dis-allowing everyone a spot in congress belonging to a group?

I asked what law was passed, what quote was made, and who "by George" ever said mimes couldn't have a spot in congress? The whole resolution falls given that it not relevant to any actual front hand dis-proval of mimes from congress.

Earlier I said, if a mime wanted to be in congress they definitely could be. In fact they probably wouldn't want to be a mime, as it would be easier to achieve there steps to congress with speech. However, the fact remains, mimes still can be in congress, until someone proves me otherwise.

There are no speech requirements for congress at all actually.

(To be a State Representative:
-must be 25 years of age at the time of the election
-reside in the state that you represent
-citizen for 7 years
-win election

To be a Senator

-must be 30 years or older at time of election
-citizen for 9 years
-reside in the state you are running in)

http://wiki.answers.com...

No where in any of that does it say "Mimes cannot be a member", or must be able to speak.

So please, dear audience, As my opponent says, Choose sanity!
Choose the obvious answer, because mimes already do have the ability to join congress.

Why should mimes get special privilege just for being mimes, while they are just as human as anybody else!

Thus I strongly urge you to vote con.

Thankyou!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
TUF, i am not voting in 11 month old debates!!
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
Amazing..
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Ccstate4peat, what happened?
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
M93, you're welcome to it.

I'd hate for you to think that this was serious, Brenavia.
Posted by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
I would do this, but it wouldnt be serious lol
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Love it. I would take it but I'd need to do some serious brainstorming.

PS Love the definition of Congress. "corrupt; also, <link>" Hahahahaha
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
This is amazing topic. Finish your debate with brian-- and have him accept this
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Thaddeus, would you like to take this?
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I was attacked by a mime today. Silent but deadly.
Posted by anarcholibertyman 6 years ago
anarcholibertyman
Mimes think they can come into our country and refuse to learn and speak English, and then they expect the same rights as the rest of us English speakers? Freeloaders.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
ChrysippusTUFTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments that were more entertaining as well as convincing and motivated me to feel sincerely sorry for the mimes.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
ChrysippusTUFTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I buy that Con spent too much time on each individual argument rather than going after Pro's bigger picture. Additionally, Con never fully addressed the fundamental argument in Pro's case which is mimes deserve a voice in Congress. Con made a compelling point why mimes should get no more special treatment than other minorities, but damned himself once he argued that all people deserve rights.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
ChrysippusTUFTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No one is forcing mimes not to talk and there is no legal requirement of talking to get into Congress.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
ChrysippusTUFTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This really narrowed down to 2 facts: mimes are not forced to be silent, and there is no speech requirement to become a Congressional Represenative. That being said, I wish that Con had brought up his Representative argument sooner than his last speech, and thus I gave conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ChrysippusTUFTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct definitely goes to Pro; Con brought up new arguments in the last round to which Pro could not respond. Throughout the debate, Pro was simply a better debater, and more logically clever and cunning. 4 points to Pro.