The Instigator
Mr.Speaker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SactownBoom
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The U.S. Should Intervene Militarily To Free Otto Weiniger From North Korea

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: 3/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 322 times Debate No: 88301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Mr.Speaker

Con

I. Introduction

Otto Warmbier is an American student who was detained by North Korean authorities while visiting the country. He was arrested for stealing an item of propaganda from a North Korean hotel prior to his flight back to the United States. Recently, Otto Warmbier tearfully confessed to his crime and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

So, since he is an American citizen, should the United States intervene militarily to reclaim Otto Warmbeir from what will surely be a harrowing ordeal?

II. Debate Structure

This debate will proceed as follows:

1. Acceptance.
2. Opening Arguments.
3. Rebuttals.
4. Rebuttals.
5. Closing Arguments.

III. Debate Rules:

1. Kritiks are strictly prohibited.
2. All sources must be cited.
3. Forfeiture is prohibited.

*Failure to comply with the rules will immediately result in a loss for the offender.

IV. Conclusion

I am confident that this will be an excellent debate.

- Mr. Speaker
SactownBoom

Pro

While Mr. Speaker needs no introduction, I do want to state that Mr. Speaker is a scavenger of human misery. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Mr. Speaker commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Mr. Speaker to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of metagrobolism. My advice to you is that whenever you find yourself penetrating the sunny façade of his disquisitions with the sharpened stick of reality it is important to avoid the pitfall of libertinism. Fortunately, that's not too hard to do if you always bear in mind the fact that Mr. Speaker is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to shove the nation towards careerism. But on the other hand, he has vowed that by the end of the decade he'll use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to waffle on all the issues. This is hardly news; Mr. Speaker has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that if it were true, as he claims, that he possesses infinite wisdom, then I wouldn't be saying that just as night follows day, Mr. Speaker will promote a culture of dependency and failure within a short period of time.


Naturally, Mr. Speaker's use of the term “superincomprehensibleness” displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of sexism and warns us all that Mr. Speaker should not sacrifice children on the twin altars of materialism and greed. Not now, not ever. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? Whatever the answer, some of my acquaintances express the view that I, having repeatedly witnessed him feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly raving agendas, insist that I have every right to refer to him as a discourteous, verbally incontinent knucklehead. Others express the view that Mr. Speaker should take all the bull-pucky he's been throwing at us and fertilize his garden with it. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Mr. Speaker to warrant a full three cheers.


Some sick madmen have raised objections to my polemics but their objections are all politically motivated. Despite some perceptions to the contrary, it strikes me as amusing that Mr. Speaker complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. What a cunning coup on the part of his foot soldiers, who set out to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to tamp down any doubts that his moral immaturity is a perilous failing and an insult to the celebrated virtues of our ancestors. I'm willing to accept that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. I'm even willing to accept that his minions don't see the chaos that will be unleashed if they get their way and condone universal oppression. But he likes to talk about free speech. Lamentably, Mr. Speaker's model of free speech is not free at all. To him, free speech is speech that he controls and can use as an ideological weapon to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor.


We must stop Mr. Speaker now. Neville Chamberlain's 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich demonstrated that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning and gives an enemy time to gain strength. That's why it is imperative that we halt the adulation heaped upon sexist power brokers. There are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to declare a truce with him and commence a dialogue. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to penetrate the sunny façade of Mr. Speaker's ultimata with the sharpened stick of reality. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how in order to solve the big problems with him we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his assistants.


If I said that Mr. Speaker is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being totally honest if I said that I've heard of raucous things like conspiracism and statism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas that his ignorant, unthinking, primitive brain is too small to understand. I am growing weary of Mr. Speaker's repeated claims that he does the things he does “for the children”. Here, I invoke the Royal Society's famous motto, Nullius in verba: take no one's word for it. That is, we should rely not on opinions but on objective science and experimentation to determine whether or not without freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry there's no way we can bear the flambeau of freedom. Understanding this generates a premise for thinking outside the box. Furthermore, it leads in turn to an understanding of how Mr. Speaker expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice he believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards his slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. Mr. Speaker sincerely doesn't want us choosing to evaluate the tactics he has used against me.


Contrary to the Rousseauian ideal of the transparency of the general will to itself, we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to rub Mr. Speaker's nose in his own hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker keeps saying that the few of us who complain regularly about his surmises are simply spoiling the party. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I've ever heard. The truth is that Mr. Speaker has been dispensing outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that from secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, Mr. Speaker's underlings have always found a way to cashier anyone who tries to reveal the truth about Mr. Speaker's apothegms.


Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Pro

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Pro

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Pro

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mr.Speaker

Con

Mr.Speaker forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Pro

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
I might accept this debate if no one does.
Posted by Gangsta_Bob 1 year ago
Gangsta_Bob
I don't think we should, the cons outweigh the pros.
No votes have been placed for this debate.