Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent has allowed me to frame this debate, and he said no rules all (exceptions, I'm guessing). My opponent has the burden of proof to prove that rap battles are bad. My opponent's only argument is "let it blast solider" yet he offers you no connection as to why rap battles are bad. I actually contend "let it blast solider" is a way to start a rap battle if anything and thus turn this argument against my opponent.
Rap battles are a key part of our culture, and they represent the progress of our children into a new cultural trend. To stop them would be cultural backwardness, and oppression.
For my opponent to win this round he must prove that Rap battles are bad in all cases whatsoever, (remember he has allowed me to frame this debate).
As of now he has not done this and thus you vote Pro.
Because my opponent never stated what "every case whatsoever" means, I am going to presume that he means "every legal case whatsoever in a court room".
Now people, imagine being in a court room, your lawyer is stating the case that "rap battles are bad in every case". All of a sudden you stand up and start trying to have a rap battle with the old judge in his grey wig, the judge slams down his hammer silence in the courtroom, you continue insulting him with your spits, the judge growls out "silence or ill put you in contempt of this court", you continue to try rap battling him, he calls security to throw you out of the court house.
In every courtroom case whatsoever, rap battles are bad, you will be held in contempt of the court.
My opponent claims that trying to rap battle people in a courtroom case is a key part of our culture and represents the progress of our children into a new culture trend. This is a very awkward stance on there subject of "rap battles are good in every case whatsoever" and I fear that my opponent may suffer from a dreaded incurable case of stupidity.
My opponent will now try to convince the reader that I have made a mistake on what this debate is about, but rest assured I have not made a mistake.
The definition of "rap"
Rapping (also known as emceeing, MCing, spitting (bars), or just rhyming) is the rhythmic spoken delivery of rhymes, wordplay, and poetry. Rapping is a primary ingredient in hip hop music, but the phenomenon predates hip hop culture by centuries. ...
Taking this into consideration I see that the spoken word was man's greatest evolutionary step that led us to evolve into what we are today, an animal that uses and destroys its environment (similar to a virus) for its own greed driven desires. Without the spoken word there would be no rap, without the spoken word the planet would be more or less like it was 1 million years ago, a thriving world of plant and animal life but because of the spoken word that lead to rap it is a polluted and contaminated world.
In every case whatsoever rap battles are bad!!
However, to expand on the definition of case which my opponent never clearly defines with valid definitions I present,
case-an occurrence of something
Now thus my argument that rap battles are good in all occurrences is now justified. Furthermore my opponent must prove that rappers are bad, as they are a case (character), and he must prove thus that all rappers which make money and power and have respect among the community are bad. This means even rappers such as Will Smith and his clean rap which was highly popular with the folks.
My opponent goes on this long rant about the "spoken word", yet he offers no link as to how that disproves rapping's success. Further more the environment would be destroyed anyway by an asteroid or meteor so this is not a harm associated only with raps.
To conclude, my opponent has argued that court cases are bad, but he has accepted the burden in ALL cases. This means these rap videos alone disprove that claim, as they are popular videos that took place in a court room. Further more my opponent must still prove how all rappers are bad, and how all cases of rap battling are bad. Remember the exact definition of case, which my opponent although given the chance, failed to provide. All interpretations of case possible my opponent must be able to defend as his burden that he has accepted.
I still contend that in our cultural world their are many rappers who are looked up to by the younger generation such as Tupac, and their are many cases in the modern world where rap battling is a very daily cultural interaction which have helped progress humanity further.
If my opponent argues that this is not the truth, remember he has allowed me to frame this debate anyway I saw fit and he has not refuted his point.
Thus since my opponent has not successfully proved that all cases of rap battles are bad, which he has accepted is his burden, there is no choice but to vote Pro.
But you've no proof of anything you clown.
Your just a google fenatic, your mums should be ashamed, the b*tch she birthed a spastic.
The title of this debate is rap battle, NO RULES, ALL EXEPTION.
Rap Battle, it seems you know not of its definition, your just a brainless erection.
Taking this into ccount, your argument is null and void.
This is a rap battle, im like an A-Bomb, your just its replica toy.
I pi$$ your elementry talk out my d*ck like orange wizz.
Shouldnt you be out on the street playing with all the other kids.
I molest your debate, and rewrite its rules, now contemplate.
NO RULES ,ALL EXEPTIONS, i change my stance and take up your side of the debate.
I am now pro and you are con, and id prefer some rhymes from you, kinda lika a sing along.
No wait, im not taking up your argument, it was sh*t.
Right now your felling like you did when that first plan did hit.
These are my rules, a schtsofrenic on the drool..
Another waisted cyber space.
And your another useless case.
My opponent cleanly drops all my arguments and thus he admits rap battles are bad in certain cases meaning by default you negate. Remember my opponent allowed me to frame this debate any way I wanted. My opponent is saying the title was, "NO RULES, ALL EXEPTION". I agree their were no rules, but "exeption" is not a word and thus my opponent gains nothing from this argument. My opponent is trying to change the debate which he is not allowed to do in his final round, it can be assumed that since he failed to counter any arguments he has forfeited and thus you should vote Pro by default. My opponent even says "im not taking up your argument" meaning he cleanly admits he is dropping it. Furthermore my opponent's entire argument is a rap which only backs up my argument even further that rap battling is good, and thus turn my opponent's entire argument against him.
Therefore since my opponent has forfeited, you may vote off any argument in Round 2 such as that rap is the progression of civilization. My opponent has allowed me in Round 1 to frame the debate and he may not change this framework in his last round. He never refuted my frame work in Round 2 and thus that went cleanly dropped. Therefore you vote Pro.
P.S, (Just a little fun rap for me) My opponent's rhymes were whack.
His skills did lack.
I hope he checks his opening formatting before he comes back.
He will now learn his lesson after I left him to dry on a rack.
Another victory that was easier than a smack.
My pet rock has more skills than this tack.
It lives in a shack yet it rhymes more than this piece of flak.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.