The Instigator
Human_Joke65
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PHSDebate
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should comedians replace congress?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 29276
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Human_Joke65

Pro

If Jon Stewart can come up with better laws just by watching congress fail to legislate a worthy bill, why not fire them all and start fresh?

Passing laws would require the most laughter to fliter the jokes from the serendipitous; when the comedians aren't laughing, it could be extremely good or bad. Differentiating would entail in the subsequent reactions of booing or cheering. At least, if the idea is inefficient, it would still be amusing and could have a better chance of inspiring a proficient one.

Comedy can be more direct and honest. Comedic politicians wouldn't be so easily embarrassed; that's not necessarily a good thing, granted. Scandals; there might be more, but they might be more tolerable.
PHSDebate

Con

The idea that a comedian could come up with a better law/idea than an actual congressman relies on the argument that comedians must be well versed and knowledgeable in the field of politics. Just off the top of my head, the only comedians who would be truly fit for this would be Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. However, because they are comedians, they would not have the adequate skills to work with others in congress. This would mean we could have a 3-10 person Congress deciding everything. To try and justify an entire "comedic congress" when only a few examples could be given of comedians with the actual ability to debate, argue, and pass legislation is ludicrous, therefore the Con side is the only logical side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Human_Joke65

Pro

So it's about Comedic Hope versus Logical Reality?

What about turning all current politicians into comedically minded people? Watching the Daily Show, Colbert Report and Bill Maher for tutorials on comedic style could be more conducive to productivity as it would promote civilized discourse despite resentment among partisan platforms.

3-10 congress; the precedence is a nine-person Supreme Court. Would it be worth it to reduce the congresspeople count solely for filtering excessive personnel?
PHSDebate

Con

It's not about Comedic Hope and Logical Reality, well, not all of it.

"Turning all current politicians into comedically minded people" literally sounds like you are suggesting we brainwash our politicians into being funny. "Tutorials on comedic style" is a ridiculous implication. Congress is what we have to facilitate our society, replacing them with comedians will only further harm the non-existent progress being made by the stubbornness to cooperate.
Debate Round No. 2
Human_Joke65

Pro

So stubbornness is not defeatable by satirizing foolish bills to the point that everyone laughing at you is for good reason; and being able to understand the joke as humorously reasonable would not reduce obstinacy?

Non-existent progress can get worse? Joking to the end is better than worrying with complete despair; how much better is uncertain. The only risk is insensitivity; how does that affect the economy and other national statuses?
PHSDebate

Con

Stubbornness can be defeated with compromise or with acceptance from one member of one party. Satirizing "foolish" bills will simply waste time. If it truly is a foolish bill, it will be voted down on its own- no time must be spent making jokes about it. That's a recipe for lack-of-progress.

If "joking to the end is better than worrying with complete despair", "The end" will have been caused by putting comedians in congress. Also, if we truly must stay positive, as you suggest with this quote, shouldn't we have better leaders, not jokesters?

What this boils down to is whether we'd have a cheap laugh and become a 3rd world country or have strong leaders we can rely on. Whether or not you are pleased with the current Congress' progress, they. are. leaders. Jon Stewart isn't the solution- leaders are.
Debate Round No. 3
Human_Joke65

Pro

How serious can a leader be without sacrificing comedic charisma? A leader who at least rarely jokes will quench worriers about the stress of being the leader.

Foolish bills get passed all the time; comedic filtering helps reduce bad jokes. Foolish bills are bad jokes.

If these are the strongest leaders we have for congress, and they lack comedic tactics because they're not desperate enough to pass a worthy bill; then why take them seriously? They've exercised all the seriousness they could and they're still a joke. Embrace the joke and reverse the irony.
PHSDebate

Con

PHSDebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Human_Joke65

Pro

The House and the Senate would have to be elected based on their comedic honesty. Responding to voter polls/questions with answers that detect lies if not funny. Playing dirty with jokes is cleaner than what politicians do without comedy. By giving responses through joking, their ulterior motives are better concealed if hidden in deeply entrenched subtlety and comedic gymnastics. At least, they'd be better at that part of their job. Likeability would increase, motivating inept congress people to work harder to gain the approval of the nation by thinking on their feet because thinking quickly is masterfully difficult enough; add consistent cleverness that amuses and you have a politician with the charisma to stay in office long enough to do something productive.

Comedy during national hardship is audacious enough. Insensitivity is a minefield of tactful tip-toeing. Congress people would have less controversial and asinine incidents of tactless remarks in their interviews and public statements. Practice would be encouraged and enhanced with comedic regimens in order to discipline their foolish tongues.
PHSDebate

Con

Sorry about Round 4, I was at a tournament that weekend.

In the concluding arguments of this debate, what you have to look at is logic. According to my opponent, congressmen would be elected based on comedic honesty. This would essentially destroy our entire governmental legitimacy as we know it. I could be as funny as I want, and not know a thing about leadership or decision making, and my opponent's logic would find that to be true and acceptable. What you have to look at with this debate is that humor does not translate to leadership or conviction. Because I believe I've presented a more logical look at this resolution, I ask you to vote Con in this round
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.