The Instigator
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
bozotheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

This house believes that the wire tapping of journalists is justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,263 times Debate No: 19150
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

This is an ESU Debate practice for myself, and I am using one of the other topics from the first round motions. I would like someone to help me debate this issue, and practice. As per standard rules, you get 7 minutes roughly per each stage, so the argument maximum is six thousand characters. Also, the debate shall be initiated by the pro, and he who changes the status quo is he who holds the burden of proof. There is no defined definitions, except that judges (in this case voters) must use their own intelligence in the definitions set forth.
Also, blatant disregard of debate's intention/inference regarding meaning of debate or "tin ear" or committing a "squirrel"[1]. Also, use of sources are only necessary if called upon by the other side.

The first round is acceptance and beginning the debate for the pro of the motion (he who accepts is pro).

1 - A squirrel is a term in debating jargon, particularly in parliamentary debate, that indicates a definition from the side of the opening speaker that makes it too easy for his or her side. The first speaker in a debate, who is defending the motion or proposition, generally has to define the terms used in the motion. When this definition is done in an unexpected way, it can favour the opening side, because that side had been able to prepare for the particular interpretation in the preparation time. For example, if the motion read "This House Would dissolve the police", it would be a squirrel to refer to the band The Police instead of the police. Another squirrel in this case, that helps the opening side by making the debate generally easier for them, is to add unreasonable exceptions to the motion. For example, defending "dissolving the police" except in cases where it has to "uphold the law" is rather easy.
bozotheclown

Pro

USSR wire tapped people and look how much that helped the crime rate!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Banned opponent.
bozotheclown

Pro

bozotheclown forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bozotheclown

Pro

bozotheclown forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

duh, winning.
bozotheclown

Pro

bozotheclown forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
...I don't think he is a serious challenger -_-
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Stephen, I'm glad you've found an opponent. Feel free to send me a challenge if you want even more practice!
Posted by Sahaj 5 years ago
Sahaj
I would accept, but I have no time, I need to study. Maybe some other time.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Regarding larz's comment, thank you for such a comment, it is good to hear that I am not alone in wanting this issue resolved. If anyone wants to do this 2v2, I will be happy to accept messages of requests to do so.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
If this is still open after my final exam I'll do it (in about a day and a half).
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I'm not against four-party debates. I just think you want to be selective when choosing participants. If you want to do that, and you can't do it here, we can hold the debate at freeratio.org, or elsewhere.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
"But so many two-way debates get forfeited, trolled, accepted by people who have no intention of discussing the resolution. Such problems would be even more likely in a four-way."

Agreed, but to be honest, that happens in real life too. Not discussing the resolution is squirreling, which I have actually seen happen very frequently (although I love creative squirrels - it can be really funny). Trolling refers to not adding anything constructive to the debate, which happens to at least a third of the parliamentary teams I see. Forfeits happen in the real world too, and they're not too uncommon either. Nevertheless, the two biggest debate tourneys in the world are both in parliamentary style. I still think four-way debates should be an option, particularly for debates like this one where the instigator is practicing for a tourney.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
-_- Use your own intelligence when writing, then. I've made a silly mistake, it seems.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Con, you said the limit was 6,000 characters, but you have this set at 8,000.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
If we could do it in a parliamentary fashion, that'd be great. When I said 7 minutes, I meant in the standard debate style, each party has 7 minutes, because it is live.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Stephen_HawkinsbozotheclownTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Con due to troll forfeit.