The Instigator
WrathofGod
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Nate_Henderson
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
WrathofGod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,893 times Debate No: 13284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

WrathofGod

Pro

Brendan is a friend of mine. He's witty, smart, articulate, funny, but also...a buzz kill. Brendan tends to be a pessimist. He even said that joining debate.org with me and conquering all these noobs with our superior skills "looked like the worst thing ever".

Therefore I affirm the resolution which states, "Resolved: Brendan is a Buzz Kill".

=Contentions=

Contention 1) He killed my buzz about Debate.Org
A couple of minutes ago I posted on my facebook that I wanted my friends from my Highschool Debate team to join debate.org with me. It felt electric as I considered recapturing the competitive spirit of speech and debate, the thrill of intelligent discussion, and the reward of voter commentary and decisiveness. While others shared my nostalgia, and eagerly encouraged it, Brendan did not. He commented on my status and said that the site looked stupid. He killed my buzz.

Contention 2) Brendan killed my buzz for Obama's healthcare bill.
Brendan tends to lean a little further left than most people, which I have always appreciated. But when the health care debates were running hot in this country, and I became a proponent of the reform policy (even as I was disappointed in how far to the right it eventually evolved) Brendan was ready to throw it out all together. I was excited when Health care finally passed, but Brendan mocked it as trivial and said it would have been better if it hadn't passed at all. I see his point, and he makes a valid argument, but still he killed my buzz when I was celebrating with others the unique and difficult passage of something vast and far reaching.

=Conclusion=
Brendan is a nice guy, and I find his cynicism refreshingly honest. But he's also a buzz kill. He's the kind of guy who reminds you as you blow out your birthday candles that you are one day closer to death, and that those candles were made in a Chinese sweatshop.

I urge you to vote PRO and affirm with me that Brendan is in fact a Buzz Kill, and should be encouraged to consider his friend's excitement before he tells me how stupid the thing I'm happy about is.
Nate_Henderson

Con

It is true, Brendan is far more liberal than both my opponent (hereafter wrath) and I. However it is this very juxtaposition of our philosophies that grants Brendan his "buzz" effect. Indeed, not only is Brendan not a "buzz kill" but rather he is a buzz provider.

Contention 1: Brendan provides an enthusiasm for social reforms that sceptics such as wrath and myself have forgotten. I personally have read and supported wrath's arguments in the past which proposed that Brendan needed to tone down his enthusiasm and fall in line with the party establishment. While I agree that this is good politics and more likely to produce results, it is without a doubt a blatant murder of the buzz which Brendan created. Brendan's enthusiasm provides new buzz to every argument he encounters.

Contention 2: Brendan is a steady supply of reliable, buzz enhancing information. There is no more active poster on facebook than Brendan and every one of his posts incites further conversation, debate, excitement and especially buzz. The mere fact that sometimes, in order to pursue what he perceives as truth and justice Brendan must call an unpleasant news does not in anyway negate the buzz which he produces in providing that information.

Wrath's contentions basically amount to the single contention that Brendan has a history of being a downer when people are excited. Wrath has also conceded that these incidents arose out of Brendan's fidelity to virtues which Brendan holds as uncompromisable. Therefore I will treat as granted the fact that Brendan is acting in a sincere and productive manner in the given instances and rather focus on the buzz killing nature of those events.

In both situations, the announcing of debate.org and the passing of health reform, Brendan acted to point out weaknesses and areas where improvement was needed. His objective was not to ruin anyone's day, nor to kill anyone's buzz. Rather, Brendan sought to demonstrate how debate could be better forummed and how health care could be better provided. His objective and indeed what was produced by the ensuing debates was an increase in buzz. After all, this very debate would not be taking place without Brendan's objections, nor would the many health care related debates we have had in the past. All of which have been great suppliers of Buzz.

As a final point of history, I might add that even in the arena of enthusiasm Brendan supplies a great deal of buzz. The day after Barrack Obama, as we naively celebrated what was then believed to be a true turning point for our nation, and what in some respects has been, it was Brendan who showed the greatest buzz of all. Brendan sent me pictures of children dancing in the streets of Seattle and people lighting off fireworks in an attempt to demonstrate the buzz that then existed and that he hoped for the future.

I urge a vote against this resolution not only for the fact that Brendan certainly is not a buzz kill, but further because he has consistently enhanced the buzz.
Debate Round No. 1
WrathofGod

Pro

===Against Nate's Case===
C1) This argument is impotent. Nate is suggesting that because Brendan has impossible standards that this somehow trends to the ethereal ecstasy of a buzz, which couldn't be further from the truth. Brendan's unyielding political standards do not result in some childlike dream state with sunshine and farts, they result in his increasing pessimism because he is constantly left unsatisfied by every politician everywhere.

This is like saying that a ravenous man doesn't ruin a dinner party because he has such an interest in food. But the resolution doesn't say that Brendan's liberal gluttony is feasting on the right topics, its saying that he leaves little for the rest of us and so ruins the mood. Therefore Brendan is responsible for the starvation of those kids in all the commercials with that guy who used to be "Meathead" in All in The Family.

C2) I compare this to saying that a guy who gives you a boat load of money, then takes it away, isn't a buzz killer because of course he gave you that buzz in the first place. You've only implicitly admitted the only weighing mechanism of the resolution: that Brendan kills buzzes. Its irrelevant if he provided said buzz to begin with. You know what we call a person who gives you something nice but then takes it away? An Indian Giver. Do you know what American Indians are famous for? Drinking fire-water. Do you know who' life alcohol has destroyed? ...Buzz...Aldrin...yes the same Buzz Aldrin who landed on the moon, the American hero who delivered our country into a brighter future! Not only have you admitted that Brendan is a buzz killer, you've admitted he is a KGB operative hell bent on American destruction, shame on you both, sullying the good name of American icons.

===Defending My Case===

Good Intentions) Nate's arguments against my case are that Brendan has no intention of killing people's buzz when he kills their buzz, for which he unintentionally urges you to vote PRO because Brendan indeed kills buzzes. Also he argues that Brendan has been responsible for supplying buzz, even if he also later killed it. There's a word for a person killing something they created: Abortion. Nate parades his arrogant assertion that since Brendan is a baby-killing, American defaming communist we should all just look the other way and pretend our buzz isn't fizzling out like Obama's clout, WELL NOT I. NO I SHANT LOOK AWAY WHILE BRENDAN KILLS BABIES. And neither will our honest, hard-working, baby-loving, American judges.

===Nuclear Weapon Status: [Armed] Disarmed===
Finally I offer what I consider to be the logical dirty bomb of the debate.

Brendan will be voting on this topic, which ensures a PRO vote for every other judge of this round. How do I know that? Because, as Admiral Akbar once said, "It's a trap!"

See, if Brendan votes CON, he his intentionally voting against me in the very activity I was once excited about, the buzz of which he already mortally wounded. He would only be further killing any renewed buzz this debate may have caused me, and thus, affirms the resolution, demonstrating that he is in fact a buzz killer. The objective judges of this round would clearly award victory to the PRO.

On the other hand, if Brendan votes PRO, the subject of the resolution has affirmed the resolution, rendering it true, and thus the objective, noble, handsome, sweet-smelling judges of our round would affirm, along with Brendan, that he is in fact a buzz killer.

===Conclusion===
Therefore I urge my opponent Nate, since he is the only one in the round not bound by logic to vote PRO, to also vote PRO, and to surrender his first born child, if and when said child is born, so I can prevent Brendan from raising the baby in the ways of Lenin, and then dashing the child upon the rocks in abortive delight, just as he has done to the buzz of so many innocent victims.

I yield the balance of my characters to the honorable Senator from Delaware, Ms. Christine Odonnel.
Nate_Henderson

Con

James, James, James, James, James, this case, no, one more for good measure, James, your previous argument demonstrates clearly that this entire proposition is nothing more than a projection of your own social issues. Judges, this shall be demonstrated as follows.

Mr. of God, Senor de Dios, Lord Poo Poo Pants has posited that my first contention does not provide a buzz in that Brendan's idealism creates unrealistic hopes that fall short of reality. While it may be true that these disappointments end in Brendan's dissinheartenment and that is unfortunate, such disappointments are completely apart from the ready supply of buzz which Brendan supplies. Brendan's buzz is provided to the rest of us. Not a single one of us would be on this website if we did not yearn for the thrill of the debate. One would hope that each one of us also has some degree of a desire to see the world become a happier place. It is to these hopes and desires that Brendan provides such a ready buzz by alerting us to the realities of the world and showing us where the world is falling short of its potential. Wrath projects his own buzz killing nature on Brendan when he reads these calls for a more noble society and sees only gloom and desolation. One would presume this comes as a result of his sexual impotency. By the way, congratulations on the immaculate conception.

Next, the Senator from Douchetopia presents a confusing and misdirected response to my second contention wherein he accuses Brendan of supplying a buzz which he then kills. Inherent in this argument is a concession of Brendan's buzz providing nature. However, more distressing is the entirely unsubstantiated claim that Brendan then goes on to kill the buzz he has created. If the buzz was originally created by Brendan's providing enlightening information, would not the supplying of further information only enhance the buzzforic state? But no Wrath, it is you, in your attempts to bring Brendan down to a crushing mediocrity that kills his feast of buzz.

Finally, this Glenn Beck lover, ya, you guys don't like Glenn Beck do you? Well Wrath wants to make Glenn Beck President, and Pope. Not such a good guy anymore is he? Where was I? Ah yes, finally, GB lover reveals in his response that indeed he only ever had one weak and lonely contention, that of history. Indeed as has previously been shown by my defense of my first contention, Brendan's action of providing insight and vision only enhances buzz, as it did for Wrath in those instances. How can this be proved? Wrath clearly derives a great deal of buzzification from his debates, is he not the one who invited us all to this very forum? And what did the supply of Brendan's enlightening information do? It furthered debate, enhancing Wrath's buzz as well as that of all the rest of us. Where does the true fault lie? In none other than this fear mongering puppy kicker who seeks to cut off Brendan's supply of unicorns and rainbows.

Judges, to this point the flow stands clearly in my favor. Logic commands a vote for "Con". Brendan, stand true to your principles and recognize that you are no murderer of buzz. Bill, if you don't vote for me I'll totally out you about the true nature of your relationship with the steamy, Latin yet black Federico (it's homosexual, just in case you guys got confused there). And to the rest of you, follow your consciences, vote for truth, vote for the free exercise of buzz, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
WrathofGod

Pro

===Closing Arguments===

*A brown, wooden room somewhere in the south swells with the dim autumn light pouring onto the floor in thin rectangles. A man, dressed in a pin stripe suit, stands from behind a table and approaches a measured, and weary jury. His shoes clack on the oak floor as he slowly walks to them, arms behind him, eyes on the floor. He stops in front of the jury box, his gaze ascends and meets the eyes of these impartial, sweet smelling jurists, his voice pours over them like velvet...*

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The defense has tried to confuse the facts of this trial with feelings of emotion, sympathy, and calls for understanding. But the facts of the case are these: The defendant, Brendan, has killed Buzz.

This is not in dispute. The defense never questions what Brendan has done, nor has he disputed the guilt Brendan feels over his crime. Buzz is dead ladies and gentlemen, Buzz is dead, and Brendan killed it. These, are the facts of the case.

Instead of disputing the death of Buzz at the hands of Brendan, the defense merely tries to convince you all to reduce the charge from murder, to manslaughter. The defense pleads that Brendan couldn't have meant to kill Buzz, that Brendan's impossible standards and political enthusiasm converged into an accident that Brendan never meant to occur. "Intent", this is what the defense disputes.

*The man in the pin stripe suit walks away from the jury and gazes out a window into the fleeting twilight of dusk. The illuminated stripes on his face reveal the dichotomy of his soul, dark in places, light in others. Withered and hardened, but also hopeful and beaming. A man untouched by time, an old soul, parched for hope in a world of broken dreams. He glanced back to the jury over his shoulder, his eyes scanned theirs as he continued*

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The best of intentions can't bring back Buzz today, Brendan's actions have assured that, regardless if Brendan meant to end Buzz's life, or not.

*The man opens his hand and extends his arm, gesturing toward a woman in the audience, who weeps into a handkerchief. Her shoulders rise and fall in short bursts as she silences her sorrow with both hands. The man's eyes are piercing as he looks back at the jury*

Buzz's widow doesn't care whether Brendan planned on killing Buzz or not. Because she knows that is outside of the resolution, and Mrs. Buzz understands what the defense doesn't, you have to affirm or deny the resolution, not affirm it but say it was an accident.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Brendan killed Buzz. The defense admits it, Brendan admits it, and most of you have witnessed it. Call it whatever you like, Buzz-slaughter, First, Second, Twentieth degree murder; I don't care. The fact remains Buzz has died at the hands of Brendan.

*The jury nodded their heads, the logic of the man was undeniable. Brendan had killed Buzz, and everybody knew it, even I, the Narrator, know it, and the fact that I am now saying it to the reader should even more firmly declare its truth. The man walked back to his chair, his shoes clacking on the floor as he went. He looked to the sobbing widow in the corner, then back to the jury, and said with the full force of his calm and confident voice...*

Vote PRO.

*At this the jury's eyes fell upon the defense attorney, who was furiously applying lipstick to his belly button while blowing bubbles in his chocolate milk through a bendy straw. The sudden silence in the room woke him from his trance, and his head turned violently toward the jury, his eyes wide like a deers caught in the headlights of a truck. He cleared his throat and pulled out his notes. After a moment he stood, his red high heel pumps clicking as he walked to the center of the courtroom. He paused and the jury gasped as a rodent of some kind came scrambling from the bottom his pant leg. Nate giggled shyly and put his arms in one of those "what do you expect? I have no idea what I'm doing here" sort of poses, and began in his shrill cartoonish clown voice....*
Nate_Henderson

Con

As one reads the closing argument of my opponent, one question is left unanswered, "Did this dude even read the preceding posts? On either side?" Indeed, if this were a contest of showmanship, then perhaps my opponent would win with his John Grisham novel which left us all so riveted. However, as exciting as his stories may be, they nonetheless evade all of the arguments which have been given. This exchange has firmly established a number of things,

First, we have seen that Brendan is a great supplier of buzz, giving articles and insights that enhance conversation, enjoyment, knowledge and overall appreciation of the world.

Second, Brendan's responses to other people's posts and arguments have furthered debate, enriched exchange and made everyone's lives better.

Finally, we have witnessed as Wrath of God has twisted and abused Brendan's gifts of knowledge leaving clear that if indeed Buzz has died, 'twas Wrath that pulled the trigger.

Now I have returned to the more somber note which was earlier held and for that I apologize. However, it has been necessary, as Wrath has made clear, we are dealing with the serious offense of buzz murder. Can we help but to approach this subject with anything but the most sober recognition of the holy duty which justice has placed upon us? Judges! Rise now to the occasion which your responsibility as citizens of this website has set before you! Ignore the flashy lights of deceit with which Wrath has attempted to distract and vote as the arguments demand. The facts are clear, Brendan is no killer of buzz, but rather breathes life into buzz.

I now leave you to vote as you see best.

But as a final note, I wear these shoes because they make me feel beautiful and strong at the same time which is important when you have as stressful of a life as I do.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
Luera youre high, lol, my closing argument was ambrosia from Mt Olympus.
Posted by Comrade_Dmowski 6 years ago
Comrade_Dmowski
Nates consistently good and funny burns are what won him my heart. And my vote.
Posted by JLephant 6 years ago
JLephant
Jobin had the win up until those closing arguments ;[. Nate's John Grisham remark was a solid burn that deserves proper recognition with a win.
Posted by ChillKillchoski 6 years ago
ChillKillchoski
Actually I'm not angry now this whole banks/veto thing is just confusing the hell out of me what's going on.
Posted by ChillKillchoski 6 years ago
ChillKillchoski
http://www.reuters.com...

This just came to my attention right now these are the kind of things that are upsetting me right now.
Posted by ChillKillchoski 6 years ago
ChillKillchoski
Bill is the comrade below me.
Posted by JLephant 6 years ago
JLephant
Oh snap that's not Bill I wish I could edit comments/delete them. Oh well!
Posted by JLephant 6 years ago
JLephant
Bill I accept your challenge. I shall begin making the debate now and we can negotiate the rest
Posted by ChillKillchoski 6 years ago
ChillKillchoski
Also on the topic of "sitting back", I think honestly the laziest thing you can do politically right now is vote straight ticket democrat. And the worst thing you could do is spend time campaigning for the Democrats under the assumption they'll make things work out in the future.

Maybe if politics were a simpler thing, with less at stake, I could go for incremental change and continue to vote democrat. But right now we really can't face inaction on issues like the environment and energy usage, these problems that need immediate effort and the solutions that won't come from our contemporary political discourse. The fact also stands that Barack Obama and the current Democratic Congress aren't working for incremental change either. It is easy to find examples where they're making things worse, I have a giant list of them on someone's wall somewhere.

I am going to spend the energy I would have spent campaigning for the democrats on something else, I'm trying to get involved in prison reform somehow and start volunteering with convicts. The US Prison system is a great example of a systemic problem in the US that isn't being addressed by either of the current political parties. Holder even halted an initiative to stop "endemic prison rape" because it was gonna cost too much, despite acknowledging the human rights abuses that are ongoing in US Prisons.

To be frank, I wasted a lot of time and effort campaigning for the Democrats and they made me look like an idiot. If I'm wrong about this stuff and the Democrats do fix the economy and do a 180 on human rights and corporate privilege and a million other things I'll be happy to be made a fool of again. People definitely ought to agitate from change, from outside of the current two-party system. I think that will have positive results politically and for my enthusiasm. Again, I think endorsing the status quo is much worse than taking the position that we can and should do and expect more.
Posted by ChillKillchoski 6 years ago
ChillKillchoski
Jim I'm a little upset you'd characterize me as a "nothing can effect positive change" kinda guy.

In response to the Sarah Palin comment, I don't think it's fair to use her and the other tea party candidates as bogeymen to force liberals into the party line. It isn't that I don't fear the destruction ushered in by a Sarah Palin Presidency. I would be one of her most vocal critics and I would take every opportunity to let people know when she did something suspect. Right now I legitimately fear the things Barack Obama is doing, which I must reiterate, run the gambit from illegal wars and warcrimes, torture and the violation of due process including the assassination of Americans abroad, cutting social services and making education worse, and of course his legislative failures. We were expected to vote against George Bush because he was a war criminal and violated the constitution, now we have a Democratic President doing the same thing and it's good politics to vote for them?

I used to be a proponent of incremental change because I believed systemic change was too difficult. It's become increasingly difficult believe incremental change is worthwhile or even possible. In the last several decades our country's government has become increasingly hostile to what we would consider progress on social issues. Poverty, for example, was handled better in the years following WW2 than it is today and it is the Democrats who are responsible for some of the worst cuts to welfare and social services since that time. Someone politically active from Johnson's Presidency who hoped for incremental change from the Democratic party would be sadly disappointed today.

Anyways I'll make a challenge to whoever, if you want to make one of these debate things and take the pro side, pick a reasonable issue that's important to you (ideally without doing any research first). Give me a few days and I will make an exhaustive post about how the legislature has made things worse since WW2
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Janyl 6 years ago
Janyl
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JLephant 6 years ago
JLephant
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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:31 
Vote Placed by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Dmowski 6 years ago
Comrade_Dmowski
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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 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 Nate_Henderson 6 years ago
Nate_Henderson
WrathofGodNate_HendersonTied
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:16