The Instigator
Blake_Humphrey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: Annemarie is a raving maniac.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 20520
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Blake_Humphrey

Pro

When thinking of what to write, I couldn't come across the words to describe the stupidity of this incompetent oaf who has no social status or societal meaning towards the advancement of our country. That is why I am asking for a strong PRO vote on today's resolution of Resolved: Annemarie is a raving maniac.

I will now describe some key terms that are in relation to the resolution.

1. Annemarie- A name for a dumb insolent oaf who resides in an elitist neighborhood in Wheeling.
2. maniac- Annemarie Krall

Contention One: Annemarie has proven nothing.
In her existence on this thing we called the earth, Annemarie Krall has proved nothing towards the benefit of society. She has given nothing and proven too little to be considered a life form. For example, she is a bumbling oaf who can't decide what to say in a situation that makes her feel uncomfortable. She is dumb and I can't put it in any simpler terms.

Contention Two: Annemarie doesn't even know her own name.
When asked, Annemarie didn't know how to respond to a question that asked her the name she was given by her legal guardians. She instead decided to call me a 'bumbling oaf' which was completely nonsensical due to the fact that she had nothing to say. She is simply retarded.

Contention Three: Annemarie has a set of swollen testes.
I have seen them. They are rotten and swollen.

It is for all of the following reasons that I ask for a PRO vote on the resolution that ANNEMARIE SUCKS!
Wallstreetatheist

Con





I accept this debate to which my opponent has challenged me; however I challenge the definitions my opponent presented as they are abusive to the resolution, and ask for the judges to accept the definitions I have supplied below:





Annemarie: Annemarie Krall; high school student in West Virginia [1]

Raving: declaiming wildly [2]

Maniac: a person who has an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something[3]






Signposting:
I will present my case
then move on to deconstruct my opponent’s case





MY CASE




Contention one: Annemarie is a well rounded person. She participates in science fairs and science poster contests[4,5]. As a middle school student she started taking classes in Latin, violin, fencing, and rowing, all of which she continues to this day[6]. She is also currently playing tennis and ukulele. She is a member of a 32-consecutive state championship speech and debate team and plays violin in the best high school orchestra in West Virginia. She has maintained a straight-A average her entire life in challenging courses. In these regards she is exhibiting a high standard of what is known as the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner.




Spatial
- fencing
Linguistic - debate team/Latin/English/French
Logical-mathematical - debate/Trigonometry
Bodily-kinesthetic - rowing/fencing/tennis
Musical - violin/piano/ukulele
Interpersonal - in a relationship with a very nice young man/has many friends/is well liked
Intrapersonal - keeps a diary of self-improvement, similar to Benjamin Franklin
Naturalistic - Frequently ventures into nature hikes with her father




Contention two: Via definition of terms Annemarie is not a raving maniac.




With a healthy variety of interests and activities Annemarie has demonstrated herself to be a well-rounded person; a well-rounded person does not have “an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something;” therefore, Annemarie is not a maniac.

Annemarie has many close friends and is accepted in school/community; a raving person would not be of likeable social status; therefore, Annemarie isn’t involved with raving.

In conclusion Annemarie is not a raving maniac, and my opponent has failed to provide any substantial arguments as to why she could even be misconstrued as being a raving maniac.

DECONSTRUCTION




RC1: “Annemarie has proven nothing.” My opponent’s first contention doesn’t even fit inside the scope of this debate. If he wanted to demonstrate that she is a “raving maniac,” he should have used Annemarie’s actions or statements as proof. However, since Annemarie hasn’t proven that for his case, Con wins.
“She is dumb” this is an unsubstantiated ad hominem that is irrelevant to the topic of resolution.




RC2: “Annemarie doesn't even know her own name.” This does not pertain to the resolution, and even if it did, Pro has yet to demonstrate any clear link.




“She is simply retarded.” Once again, this is an unsubstantiated ad hominem that is irrelevant to the topic of resolution.




RC3: This contention should not even be addressed, because of its abject stupidity; it is a disgrace to the art of debate.




Thank you for debating and judging :)




[1]https://www.theintelligencer.net...

[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[4]http://www.theintelligencer.net...

[5] http://www.smartcenter.org...

[6]http://culogin.theintelligencer.net...

Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
One round debates... *sigh*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
Blake_HumphreyWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear and dominant victory for Con. Pro began with abusive definitions, and his only arguments were nothing more then his own unsubstantiated opinions. Con showed what the resolution chosen by Pro actually meant, and showed clearly that the resolution is false.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
Blake_HumphreyWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure what this debate is really about, but...its obvious that Con had much more warrants for his arguments as well as sources. Pro's argument seemed less like a debate case and more like a rant after a heated conflict. Also, one round debates are almost always losses for the instigator since he has no chance to respond to Con's arguments.