Should comedians replace congress?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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 forfeited this round.
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.
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
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.