The Instigator
olle15
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
PublicForumG-d
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

No more complicated answers to simple questions!!!

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  
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: 4/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,945 times Debate No: 3500
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (23)

 

olle15

Pro

First off I want to thank CON who ever you may be for excepting this debate.

The title it self should be self explanatory so all I need do is provide the question and answer that I am talking about so here it is:

Question: How should we pick our next president?

Complicated answer: First we must elect the reps for the democrats and the republicans by letting the nominees slowly campaign across the country. Then hold primaries one by one giving each candidate a number of delegates until they get up to a certain number and become the rep for their party. Then there are the super delegates that basically undermine the public's opinion. Then the real election where we have the popular vote and an electoral vote the electoral voter looks at the vote of the people then cast their own ballots it's supposed to represent the area where the popular votes they are looking at came from but they don't then a recount and a new president is chosen.

This is way to complicated this is how it should be.

How it should be: All nominees' campaign across the entire country at once then one big primary is held no delegate's most individual votes become the reps of their party then we hold elections no electoral votes popular vote wins sweet and simple. You can't tell me that this plan is at least better than the one in place now.

We need a simpler plan be it one like mine or another either way this way of picking presidents needs to change.
PublicForumG-d

Con

Hello to my opponent.

I am going to begin this topic by addressing the premises of my opponent's case, and then moving on to my own contentions.

My opponent says that questions should have simple answers. Lets examine his structure.

Claim: His claim is very clear, and establishes a base for moving into evidence.

Warrant: Here is where my opponent's case falls. He has good links back to the topic (it is clearly topical) and a clear claim, but no backing. In fact, his entire premise relies on what is known as a "logical fallacy" - an inherantly flawed form of argument.

We offer the following excerpt from the Don Lindsay Archive of Fallicious Arguments on Arguments by Question:

==========
Argument By Question:

Asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?"

Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it.

Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...
=======

What this means is that some situations have no clear answer - there is no snappy way to summarize the proper response to a question. But this does not detract from the answer - in fact, in many cases, this is a good thing. It prevents society from trivializing processes - because the processes are long and arduous, they help build character, loyalty to the process, and endurance. A constant supply of "snappy answers" leads to sound bite society - which no one can argue is good.

Lets look to the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. Each debate lasted approximately _eight_ hours. They got into the hearts of the issues, and made clear to the American public their stances on issues critical to the nation's continuance. And look what this process came out with: one of the best presidents ever to grace the American Presidency. No snappy answers. No sound bites. This was a production of discussions that got to the meat of how America should be run.

Now, however, candidates in debates are limited to responses that are less than one minute. They cannot truly focus on the issues, because to compete with each other, they must try to one-up each other for "the better sound bite". It becomes a publicity affair, rather than a true debate - at the cost of the American public.

Link: There is a clear link to the topic.

Impact: My opponent does not provide any reason that we should consider this important. It begs the question, "And if we don't have simple answers, what happens?"

My opponent does not provide any impact, so at the very worst, if all of my argumentation falls, you should not vote for Pro because the idea that Pro is advocating, (if turned into a true reality) would have no positive effect on reality. Also, there are no Con impacts either - why voting Con would cause a problem in society if this was true - so for this reason, vote Pro.

As to my opponent's specific examples.

The current process of Presidential primaries is critical to electing our nations leaders.

Problems my opponent claims -

Primaries are done slowly: Yes! This allows low-budget true Americans, and not just the rich upper-class to run for the Highest Office. By staggering the primaries, candidates who could not have previously had a chance now legitimately stand to win states - look at Mike Huckabee and Iowa. Had he been forced to divide his resources (and his time) between 50 states simultaneously, he would have been spread too thin to make an impact. However, because of the staggered times, he came out from behind to _win_ a major voting state.

Superdelegates: Are absolutely necessary. First, they have never, ever voted against the will of the people. Second, they only exist in the Democratic party. Third, the are critical to maintaining the will of the people. In what a cataclysm known as "crossing-over", people from other parties will register to an opposing party, and vote for the candidate they find easiest to defeat - best serving the interest of their own party, while screwing the Democrats over. They have also been known to advertise for an opposing party's candidate - to siphon off votes from the majority leader.

This is where superdelegates come in - they are the most educated and knowledgeable about the issues surrounding the democratic party - that's why they're superdelegates. In case something like this ever occurred, the Superdelegates serve as an iron wall to ever prevent their party from being eroded unjustly by opponents. In reality, Superdelegates are a tool to preserve the voice and best interest of the people, not to silence it.

Simplicity is not always the best, especially when it forces corners to be cut in answering questions.

To evolutionists:

Can you provide me with a succinct explanation of how matter can come out of nothing?

========
My loaded question leaves you at a multiple disadvantage - it attacks you, then your point of view. To actually answer this question, you would first have to explain how the question is flawed, and then how there is no succinct explanation, but there is science developed to support the theory of micro and macroevolution.
========

To creationists:

Why should I believe some random guy (who didn't even speak!) just poofed the universe into existence?

=====
Again, my question attacks you and your point of view. If you answered succinctly, and did not address my question, there IS no right answer. This is why you must, like with the evolutionists, explain the flawed wording of the question, then how there is science developed to support the theory of creationism, or how you just take it on faith.
======

My point in illustrating this is that sometimes, there are no succinct answers. This is especially true in questions that define the identity of the human race, the human condition, the creation of the world, religion, political affairs, governmental theories, democracy...the list goes on.

When voting on this round, view how only using simple answered leads to a sound bite society, and how it leaves some of the most important questions in the world impossible to answer. View how the complexity and duration of the primary system actually helps no-name candidates to put themselves out there.

In light of these issues, I ask a Con vote.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
olle15

Pro

Hello what are you talking about you have misunderstood my entire debate the example I gave about the election process was not an example at all it was what the debate was about the complicated answer to the simple question of how to pick a president any second grader could have gotten that. So if you are reading this vote Pro because of his obvious stupidity. And if PublicForumG-d wants a redo say so in your last round.
PublicForumG-d

Con

Well to begin this debate, I'm going to begin with my opponent's second round, and move back to why my entire case still stands, and how he did not at all touch on it, and then ended with an ad hom attack.

In my opponent's second round, he talked about how I was completely off topic by addressing both the title of the debate, and his examples.

The topic for debate, both at the top of the page, and in the web address reads:

"No more complicated answers to simple questions"

This means that the Pro is advocating that complicated answered are unnecessary/bad/not appropriate, etc. while Con is explaining why they are necessary/good/ appropriate, etc.

He appears to have had some alternate intent, but because no such intent was posted on the topic bar, it is not pertinent to this debate. Unless my opponent expected me, or whoever else challenged, to be of the ability to read minds, this is an abusive (unfair) burden and should be treated as so - dropped.

However, even if his argument - which I have just addressed and refuted - stood, he still should not win this debate.

For his understanding, I will repost my entire refutation of his criticisms of the primaries.

===================================
Primaries are done slowly: Yes! This allows low-budget true Americans, and not just the rich upper-class to run for the Highest Office. By staggering the primaries, candidates who could not have previously had a chance now legitimately stand to win states - look at Mike Huckabee and Iowa. Had he been forced to divide his resources (and his time) between 50 states simultaneously, he would have been spread too thin to make an impact. However, because of the staggered times, he came out from behind to _win_ a major voting state.

Superdelegates: Are absolutely necessary. First, they have never, ever voted against the will of the people. Second, they only exist in the Democratic party. Third, the are critical to maintaining the will of the people. In what a cataclysm known as "crossing-over", people from other parties will register to an opposing party, and vote for the candidate they find easiest to defeat - best serving the interest of their own party, while screwing the Democrats over. They have also been known to advertise for an opposing party's candidate - to siphon off votes from the majority leader.
=================================================

That means that even if my opponent was correct about me being non-topical in one aspect, I've completely refuted the only points he had about the primaries.

In his Round 2 speech, he never addressed these refutations, nor any of my other contentions, so I urge a Con ballot.

Finally, I am going to refute the remainder of my opponent's arguments. I've already refuted in entirety his criticisms of the current system, and now I will move to demolish his arguments about what they "should" be. While I realize this may appear to be overkill, I'd like to make it clear that the only viable position to vote for in this round is Con.

---
=====
=====

====
My opponent stated that the primaries should be held all at once:
====

Actually I already addressed this - staggered primaries allow for candidates who have limited funding to do better, and reduce the dependancy on a large pool of wealth.

====
My opponent stated that we shouldn't use pledged delegates
====

Pledged Delegates are very similar to superdelegates, except for that they are bound to the will of the people. Hence the name, "pledged delegates". These delegates serve merely to courier the votes to the national convention. They don't modify the votes at all - for all practical purposes, they are the living equivalents of ballot count machines. Without these people, voter fraud, similar to that which took place in Florida, Michigan, and a number of other states, in which registered voters were defrauded from voting could occur much easier. They serve no negative purpose, but actually preserve against fraud.

=====
=====
----

My father once told me that people that swear have nothing better to say.

The extent of my opponent's eloquent presentation was "vote Pro cuz he's dum". As for a Reason For Decision, this one is not very strong, nor does it have any backing. This type of attack generally (as is the case here) occurs when the person has nothing better to say, or has no other way to win the debate, so he must resort to attacking his opponent, not the arguments.

I will not stoop to that level, but I would ask you to look at the fact that he did, and that I have refuted his entire argument completely and totally. Furthermore, my case, which criticizes the topic and his examples, was never even contested, let alone refuted.

In light of these facts, I urge a vote in Negation.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by olle15 8 years ago
olle15
So you did I agree you win but on a side note try not to be such a sore winner.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Lol I still refuted your primaries stuff entirely.

Lets pretend you forget the entire thing I wrote to address the title of the debate...I still win because I explained the necessity of the aspects of the primaries you had issue with.
Posted by olle15 8 years ago
olle15
SweetBags though he did speak briefly about the pres elections he did not stay on topic treating the issue of elections as one example of simple questions and complex answers which was wrong seeing as the whole debate was about the complex answer to elections. Not simple questions and complex answers in general a concept everyone but you and
PublicForumG-d seem to get based on the comment board.
Posted by olle15 8 years ago
olle15
psynthesizer I did it like that so you would have to read the debate to under stand it. Without reading the debate the title itself is not enough to make a quick conclution because it is vauge.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I don't know that it would never happen, but his entire premise is just totally off, and the topic of the debate is not what we were "supposed" to debate. ><
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
The only problem with Pros idea is that you would have to change the U.S. govt from a Republic to a Democracy, which will never happen thus making the debate pointless
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
And hey Psynth! I didn't know you were on here.

I love how Con actually has votes for this thing. He got smacked around, and died. Yet...he has votes.

lol
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Haha, SB, I was feeling Congress-y actually. I just finished tutoring our Congress kids in CWLI, and when I got on here, I though, "Hey, why not beat him with that?"

Lol no policy for me.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
pro doesn't distinguish between the different types of primary's that the various partys hold (only democrats have super delegates), but other then that has a good opening
con, do you say "we" because you have more then one voice in your head? attacking the pro by saying that carrying the resolution is a logical fallacy is... interesting. you shouldn't say vote pro when your con. your first round sounds kinda policy... who are you and what have you done with pfg???
pro, periods exist for a reason, use them! also wasted your second round, from your first post i thought the topic was that answers should be simple, you provided the example of presidential primary's and a solution to their "problem" of being complicated. con addressed this and i don't see how he missed your meaning, please explain.
con, not every one understands debate jargon, you tried to explain some of it but in the future, be aware that your not typing to a debate judge, but to Joe Everymanwithacomputerandinternetaccess.
because pro never really made a case, or attacked con's except to say it was missing the point, which it wasn't, i am forced to vote con.
Posted by run-ons_maker 8 years ago
run-ons_maker
Best idea ever in the world!!!! Vote pro i Vote too!!!
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by retributions-end 8 years ago
retributions-end
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by righteous-reply 8 years ago
righteous-reply
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JeffGordon 8 years ago
JeffGordon
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by HoldenMcGroin 8 years ago
HoldenMcGroin
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by Loveless 8 years ago
Loveless
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by Survivor 8 years ago
Survivor
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by LazyLarry 8 years ago
LazyLarry
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by KingMong 8 years ago
KingMong
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by CrazyDazy 8 years ago
CrazyDazy
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by Uponastar 8 years ago
Uponastar
olle15PublicForumG-dTied
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