Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

More unique debate ideas

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:16:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Takes into account Flesch–Kincaid reading level as well as debate quality. Both participants should aim for the lowest Flesch–Kincaid score possible.

2. Argument must be littered with bad puns and double entendres.

3. Pirate speak, with plenty of bad pirate jokes. "Yarrr, natrl' rights do be existin'"
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:16:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
1. Takes into account Flesch–Kincaid reading level as well as debate quality. Both participants should aim for the lowest Flesch–Kincaid score possible.

2. Argument must be littered with bad puns and double entendres.

3. Pirate speak, with plenty of bad pirate jokes. "Yarrr, natrl' rights do be existin'"

Uh... what?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:32:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Me argument why we be usin' non-violent political be simple: because it be more effective. I shall split me argument into three main points: precedence, society 'n effectiveness. Precedence 'tis be simple: we look at historical precedence, 'n we spy wit' ye eye which actions have resulted in th' best results. Violence or non-violence. We'll take th' most prominent in history. th' suffragettes in th' UK be th' primary example here, because thar be both th' violent late 19th century suffragettes, 'n th' early 20th century suffragers, who both fought fer women's rights. In history, th' earlier suffragettes be seen as badly, as causin' many problems 'n as makin' wee progress. They attacked people, 'n caused many vandalous acts, doin' thigns such as settin' property on fire. However, th' non-violent protestors were most well known fer fillin' in fer th' war effort, stoppin' all protests 'n helpin' sword fight th' Germans, all th' while petitionin' Parliament. 'tis method was much more successful: by 1918 women could vote, by 1928 they had roughly th' same votin' rights as men at th' the hour. Another example be th' rIRA. th' Irish nationalist group fought endlessly wit' th' UK government, killin', terrorisin', bombin' 'n generally destroyin' property, as me opponent wants us to do wit' th' Occupy movement. They failed. Badly. th' rIRA itself be seen as an extremist group, 'o which people prefer to be associated wit' Sinn Féin, a political parrrty aimin' fer th' Mitchell Principles, meanin' they renounce violence. Finally, th' examples 'o M.L.Kin', 'n others show non-violence be many times more effective. Kin' won th' Nobel peace prize fer his set the sails to end racial segregation: his set the sails towards civil rights be phenomenal. He famously be known fer usin' non-violent methods such as civil disobedience. Non-violence be th' most effective means 'o protest: history has taught us that, 'n we learn from it, 'n not be doomed to repeat th' failures me opponent be advocatin' a return to. Society me opponent states that in modern times, words no longer works ('n fails to gift examples 'o them). I wish to state that in a modern society, words be more important than ever. Now, we have means 'o mass communication. I can brin' a message across th' entire country - across th' seven seas - in a matter 'o seconds now. th' success 'o th' Occupy movement has be a great example 'o 'tis. th' peaceful message involved, 'n th' lack 'o riots anywhere be somethin' which has made th' message popular, made it viral, 'n made it spread. Riots make causes, in a modern society, unpopular. Lookin' at th' London Riots, th' whole thin' was seen negatively because 'o th' damage bein' done. all ye pirates now forgets th' original message: I wonder how many people be knowin' what th' London Riots were 'bout here now? If anyone remembers 'bout th' Tottenham policeman killin' Mark Duggan? th' message be obscured by riotin'. It be less popular. Pressure groups in society such as th' Occupy movement set the sails best when they be in accordance wit' th' government. If th' majority 'o people want somethin', th' government reacts, the hour 'n the hour again. We be knowin' 'tis from Martin Luther Kin' to th' Suffragettes. Society works best when we set the sails in accordance wit' th' government. Experience 'n logic teaches us 'tis. Society be also a pluralist system. Pluralism be how "politics 'n decision makin' be located mostly in th' framework 'o government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence"[http://en.wikipedia.org......(political_theory)]. We can use our resources to exert influence. But resources be not simply doubloons. Politicians have influence due to their status. Likewise, th' sailin' tavern, or th' 99%, has steampower due to it bein' th' labour in a system. By not usin' violent means, it unifies th' 99%. If th' group started usin' less well recieved methods such as vandalism, th' group would split 'n fracture, makin' itself less powerful. To retain steampower, it be best by far to use non-violent means. effectiveness 'tis be me final point. What be more effective? As me opponent says, violence angers th' taxpayers. It alienates them from th' group. But 'tis goes farther: violent means alienates all ye pirates who be outside th' group. No-one be sympathetic to any cause when it uses violence as th' solution. If Greenpeace started bombin' Florida, people would just be annoyed 'n disenfranchised 'n less wantin' to support them, not more wantin' to support them. A group which wants to exert pressure needs numbers to get th' advantage. Separately, non-violent means be seen a lot more positively. In th' media, when a 'million scurvy dog march' be reported, it be seen positively, when people be simply statin' their views: exercisin' their rights. 'n when th' police get violent, then all hell breaks loose 'n th' people protestin' be supported even more. By contrast, if we look at, shout, th' greek riots, when th' people fought back, 'n was violent, we lost sympathy, 'n they lost steampower. It be more effective to use non-violent, politically smart moves than brute force. To conclude, I have presented three 'o me own reasons in favour 'o political protest, 'n reasons against riots. I shall coordinates me opponent's arguments in th' next round.

One of my debates in a really long form, but in awesome.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:16:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
1. Takes into account Flesch–Kincaid reading level as well as debate quality. Both participants should aim for the lowest Flesch–Kincaid score possible.

2. Argument must be littered with bad puns and double entendres.

3. Pirate speak, with plenty of bad pirate jokes. "Yarrr, natrl' rights do be existin'"

You been drinkin?