The Instigator
MissAna
Pro (for)
Tied
17 Points
The Contender
Nobody
Con (against)
Tied
17 Points

The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is Stupid

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,432 times Debate No: 6395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

MissAna

Pro

The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is as follows:
Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.

I stand to prove that this topic is stupid and will make for bad public forum debates.

First: This is a heavily scientific topic, and few high school debaters are qualified to be an authority on it.

Second: Public forum debated Alternative Energy in October 2008, and therefore another topic about alternative energy is superfluous.
Also, Policy is currently debating a similar topic: (2008-2009)

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

Third: The majority of information from the topic comes from either Eco-friendly groups, or groups out to prove that Alternative Fuels are causing deforestation and other environmental woes.
Information that would be valid to use in an actual Contention is few and far between.

Therefore, this topic is stupid and will make for bad debates.
Nobody

Con

>I would like to take this opportunity to thank my esteemed opponent, MissAna, for starting this debate. I wish her the best of luck.

>I obviously accept the current Public Forum definition as given by my opponent.

>I would like to observe that my opponent has the burden of proof to prove the resolution (which she so specified) stupid. If she fails to do this, your vote should be for CON.

>My opponent's reasons for believing in the stupidity of the resolution are below. I would first like to define stupid:

Tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless

This definition I found to be the most relevant to the topic at hand.

>The first reason provided by my respected opponent was that the topic at hand is scientific, and that the debaters are not qualified to have any authority. I wholeheartedly agree. On no debate topic is the average high schooler qualified to have any authority. Let's take a look at last month's resolution:

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

Are teens qualified to decide whether Web sites have had a positive impact on the United States? Absolutely not.

>The second point brought up by my opponent addressed two issues: the topic used a few months ago, and the similarity of the Policy topic. The topic from October was the following:

Resolved: The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy and alternative fuels are quite unrelated. On account of the second issue my opponent brings up, what impact does a Policy resolution have on Public Forum? Why does this even matter?

>The third and final topic my opponent discusses is the is the validity of the sources on this particular topic. Admittedly, most information does and will come from eco-friendly groups. But what negative effects does this have? Eco-friendly groups have the best available access to information on this topic, it is a benefit.
Debate Round No. 1
MissAna

Pro

I would like to thank Nobody for accepting this debate. (Well, that sounded a little weird.)

To prove that this topic is not pointless, or stupid, my opponent needs not only to prove that the resolution does not have problems, but also that it has merits. After all, something that has no merit can only be stupid.

Point 1: I will point out that we can understand how Social Networking sites function, and I would hazard a guess that most teens understand the risks and the benefits of Social Networking sites very well. We are by no means experts, but we can understand what we are talking about.

Now, with alternative fuel, I would hazard another guess that your average high school debater does not know how Alternative fuels are discovered, does not know how and what kind of research can be done, and does not understand exactly what an 'oil peak' means, regarding reserves, etc.. High School students are not authorities on any topic, by all means, but when we are arguing about something we understand very little about, the debate lacks meaning, proving to be a stupid debate.

Second point: nuclear energy and alternative fuels are both ways of gaining energy other than from coal and oil. Therefore, they are very closely related. Debating topics that bring up the same arguments is stupid.

I did not explain why related Policy topics are bad. Because Policy debaters have already accumulated a large amount of research, this places an unfair advantage on schools that have Policy and Public forum teams.

Finally, my third argument. Many eco-friendly groups will go to any cost to promote their beliefs, particularly because their beliefs are not gaining much ground. While some groups may stick strictly to the facts, others have been known to stretch facts. Also, with better topics, information comes from reputable news sources. I realize that not all information must come from unbiased sources, but with this topic, very little information is unbiased.
Nobody

Con

>Thanks to MissAna for her response.

>My opponent starts out by claiming that something without merits is stupid. I disagree given that the definition of stupid (above) in no way warrants needing a merit.

>The link created by my opponent in her rebuttal of her first contention is faulty. Is is general knowledge as to the function of social networking sites? No. It it general knowledge as to the merits of gases? No. My opponent has fail to prove anything. She provides no evidence to have us believe otherwise.

>My opponent's response to her second contention's rebuttal was rather convoluted. She essentially states that because nuclear power and alternative fuels are not coal or gas, they are related. This is entirely fallacious. To universalize her logic, she is saying that because -41 and 378 are not equal to two, they are related. This is false.

My opponent validly explains why similarity is a bad thing. She does not explain the similarity of the topics, though.

>My opponent claims in her rebuttal to her third contention that eco-friendly groups "have been known to stretch facts." If this is correct, she can provide examples.

>I look forward to MissAna's response.
Debate Round No. 2
MissAna

Pro

MissAna forfeited this round.
Nobody

Con

>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. I extend.

>Please vote for CON as PRO has proved nothing here. Please do not vote base upon bias. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MissAna 8 years ago
MissAna
I missed the deadline....that's why the forfeit. Now I feel stupid.
Posted by maddoxparadox 8 years ago
maddoxparadox
Conduct: Tied
Spelling/Grammer: Tied
Arguments: Nobody (The forfeit helped tilt this toward Nobody)
Suorces: Tied (No one used sources)
Posted by Russia 8 years ago
Russia
" I would like to thank Nobody for accepting this debate." Hahaha, omg that's rediculous!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
MissAnaNobodyTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
MissAnaNobodyTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
MissAnaNobodyTied
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 VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
MissAnaNobodyTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by maddoxparadox 8 years ago
maddoxparadox
MissAnaNobodyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HalfBloodPrincess 8 years ago
HalfBloodPrincess
MissAnaNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30