Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

New debate ideas I have:

Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The first:

What if opponents were two debate two topics at once? i.e. Pro says that handguns should be banned, while con says that iguanas are awesome, and they both rebut their opponents and rebuild their own contentions. Like real debate, only weirder.

The second:

A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
guns! I like to debate conceal carry reduces crime. Any takers?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:29:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:29:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
guns! I like to debate conceal carry reduces crime. Any takers?

You get off on tangents easily.

Seriously though, what about the ideas?
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:29:52 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:29:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
guns! I like to debate conceal carry reduces crime. Any takers?

You get off on tangents easily.

Seriously though, what about the ideas?

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:55:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do enjoy the intelligence of LD, it's just that I enjoy Pf more.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

"Facts are stubborn things"
John Adams.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:06:12 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

"Facts are stubborn things"
John Adams.

I agree.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:09:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:07:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:06:12 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

"Facts are stubborn things"
John Adams.

I agree.

You have a disregard for morality?
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
BTW- EC DB8? I'll be Pro.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:19:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:09:33 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:07:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:06:12 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

"Facts are stubborn things"
John Adams.

I agree.

You have a disregard for morality?

No, I just dislike them
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:21:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
The first:

What if opponents were two debate two topics at once? i.e. Pro says that handguns should be banned, while con says that iguanas are awesome, and they both rebut their opponents and rebuild their own contentions. Like real debate, only weirder.

The second:

A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

what does your signature mean?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:21:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts

I kinda agree with zaradi, but like debating facts not why they are good/bad, although it is much of the time accepted. Also oldfrith, facts can be countered with other facts. Facts are never facts, rather strong theories.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts

But without facts, morality has no basis. Without facts, nothing would exist. Facts also cover a wide and infinite range of things whereas morality is bound to humans. Without morality, facts will still exist. Without facts, morality would perish. If you believe in objective morality, then morality would be a fact. So I can see no other option than either morality = facts or facts > morality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:26:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts

But without facts, morality has no basis.

Oooh boy, you clearly aren't well-read into some of the more prominent philosophers. Try looking into Levinas and Derrida, specifically on their thought of The Other. Literally no factual representation there.

Without facts, nothing would exist.

Nope. Facts are something that we create. We call percentages and studies facts, but if we didn't create that percentage, would whatever was measured suddenly not exist? Of course not. To say otherwise is just silly.

Facts also cover a wide and infinite range of things whereas morality is bound to humans.

Clearly haven't read Dasein or The Other.

Without morality, facts will still exist.

Sure.

Without facts, morality would perish.

Not even close to true.

If you believe in objective morality,

Except I don't.

then morality would be a fact. So I can see no other option than either morality = facts or facts > morality.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:43:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:31:41 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:26:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts

But without facts, morality has no basis.

Oooh boy, you clearly aren't well-read into some of the more prominent philosophers. Try looking into Levinas and Derrida, specifically on their thought of The Other. Literally no factual representation there.

Without facts, nothing would exist.

Nope. Facts are something that we create. We call percentages and studies facts, but if we didn't create that percentage, would whatever was measured suddenly not exist? Of course not. To say otherwise is just silly.

Facts also cover a wide and infinite range of things whereas morality is bound to humans.

Clearly haven't read Dasein or The Other.

No I have not. I am interested in knowing why the statements are false. Can you elaborate?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Oldfrith
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:21:15 PM, 000ike wrote:


what does your signature mean?

Congress (in Debate tournaments. that one.) is better than debate.

Debate (which is better that congress (in Debate tournaments. that one.)) is better than this website that you are currently reading this forum post on. Namely, debate dot org, or DDO
You know how people, when they don't know the meaning of a word, automatically think it's appropriate?
Well, How about this one:
Schloop-Schloop-Ping-a-Pang-bong
Which means:
To play a vigorous game of monopoly
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:05:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:43:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:31:41 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:26:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:17:16 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:13:25 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 4:11:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:57:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:54:49 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:43:51 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:27:03 PM, Oldfrith wrote:
A 4th style of HS debate: Think of PF, only solo. That's it really.

You mean like LD except dumbed down and really bad? Why wouldn't we just do LD? :P

I hate debating morals.

facts > morals, in my opinion

Morals provide the warrants as to why facts matter.
Thusly, morals > facts

Facts, however, are objective.

Morals are based upon either society or your personal belief, but both of which are subjective and, therefore, biased.

Objectivity and subjectivity don't actually matter. Sure, facts are objective, but that doesn't give it a reason as to why it matters. I could say that 80% of my school likes black jellybeans, but without some sort of moral code or theory (i.e. eatting black jellybeans is immoral, or the suffering caused by the horrible taste of black jellybeans gives us value in life), there would be no reason why the fact mattered. Regardless of objectivity or subjectivity, morality provides the warrants for why facts matter.

Thus, morals > facts

But without facts, morality has no basis.

Oooh boy, you clearly aren't well-read into some of the more prominent philosophers. Try looking into Levinas and Derrida, specifically on their thought of The Other. Literally no factual representation there.

Without facts, nothing would exist.

Nope. Facts are something that we create. We call percentages and studies facts, but if we didn't create that percentage, would whatever was measured suddenly not exist? Of course not. To say otherwise is just silly.

Facts also cover a wide and infinite range of things whereas morality is bound to humans.

Clearly haven't read Dasein or The Other.

No I have not. I am interested in knowing why the statements are false. Can you elaborate?

Would love to. The entire premise of the Other (Dasein touches on some of the same things, but I am not as well read on it as I am the Other, so shall only elaborate on the basis of the Other) is based on a pre-ontological stance (ontology being the study of being, i.e. how I became and what makes "I") that before we can even begin to ask the question of becoming, we are being constantly exposed to a being that Emmanuel Levinas (founder of the theory) calls the Other. The Other exists outside of human comprehension and recognition, but we are always being exposed to it and always morally obligated to the Other.

Because the Other exists outside of humanity, the above statement of yours, "morality is bound to humans", is false.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...