Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD: PhD's should be required for political..

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 7:18:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
ARGUMENTS: To convince the readers that politicians ought to be mandated to have a PhD, Pro raised the valid point that experts are more qualified to take political control of the country--the ability for someone to be helpful in politics, rather than the willingness of the person to be helpful, should be what we use to judge whether somebody is qualified to become a politician. Pro"s argument in the first round clearly shows that he was referring to politics in a nation"s government--not that in a high school student council or the politics of influencing people in general. Con did not present a valid point against Pro in the first round, as his point revolves around politics, but not in the sense that Pro was arguing about. Pro pointed this out in the second round, and clarified the definitions in this debate by stating the obvious to Con. Con, exploiting a loophole in Pro"s definition, argued that student governments should not require PhD"s; this occurred even though the previous context of the debate made it clear that Pro was talking about the government in a different sense: the national government. The only actually relevant arguments made in the second round were that firstly, that if people were so stupid and unable to vote for good candidates that requiring candidates to have a PhD is necessary, then the good candidates would have to dumb down their policies to be elected, and secondly, that the rich can get PhD"s dishonestly, making Pro"s proposal pointless. Pro responded by noting the irrelevance of the student government argument, and then stating that even if Con"s scenario were true, the government would still be better than in the Status Quo, in which Donald Trump could very well become president. Pro said that dishonest PhD"s are not going to be voted for by the general public because the public would understand them to be dishonest. In his last round, Con jumped on Pro"s so-called concession on his student government point, even though it was not actually a point, but rather just playing with semantics, one that made "vaguness [Pro"s] real opponent." Then, he actually made an argument that cheating candidates would still be voted into office, but he failed to ruin Pro"s BOP despite having the last word, as Pro only needed to prove that the Status Quo would be improved by his proposal, and Con only pointed out a part of society which his proposal would not change. Pro has successfully demonstrated that, otherwise, society will be improved by his proposal. As such, Pro has successfully met his burdens, and wins the argument point. CONDUCT: Con has made numerous irrelevant points, such as the student government point and the point about influence, that appeared to be instances of intentional semantics; he played around with exploiting weak spots in Pro"s defining of the contention, and Pro has pointed this out and stated that the arguments weren"t relevant.
:) nac
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 4:06:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/27/2016 7:18:05 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
ARGUMENTS: To convince the readers that politicians ought to be mandated to have a PhD, Pro raised the valid point that experts are more qualified to take political control of the country--the ability for someone to be helpful in politics, rather than the willingness of the person to be helpful, should be what we use to judge whether somebody is qualified to become a politician. Pro"s argument in the first round clearly shows that he was referring to politics in a nation"s government--not that in a high school student council or the politics of influencing people in general. Con did not present a valid point against Pro in the first round, as his point revolves around politics, but not in the sense that Pro was arguing about. Pro pointed this out in the second round, and clarified the definitions in this debate by stating the obvious to Con. Con, exploiting a loophole in Pro"s definition, argued that student governments should not require PhD"s; this occurred even though the previous context of the debate made it clear that Pro was talking about the government in a different sense: the national government. The only actually relevant arguments made in the second round were that firstly, that if people were so stupid and unable to vote for good candidates that requiring candidates to have a PhD is necessary, then the good candidates would have to dumb down their policies to be elected, and secondly, that the rich can get PhD"s dishonestly, making Pro"s proposal pointless. Pro responded by noting the irrelevance of the student government argument, and then stating that even if Con"s scenario were true, the government would still be better than in the Status Quo, in which Donald Trump could very well become president. Pro said that dishonest PhD"s are not going to be voted for by the general public because the public would understand them to be dishonest. In his last round, Con jumped on Pro"s so-called concession on his student government point, even though it was not actually a point, but rather just playing with semantics, one that made "vaguness [Pro"s] real opponent." Then, he actually made an argument that cheating candidates would still be voted into office, but he failed to ruin Pro"s BOP despite having the last word, as Pro only needed to prove that the Status Quo would be improved by his proposal, and Con only pointed out a part of society which his proposal would not change. Pro has successfully demonstrated that, otherwise, society will be improved by his proposal. As such, Pro has successfully met his burdens, and wins the argument point. CONDUCT: Con has made numerous irrelevant points, such as the student government point and the point about influence, that appeared to be instances of intentional semantics; he played around with exploiting weak spots in Pro"s defining of the contention, and Pro has pointed this out and stated that the arguments weren"t relevant.

I appreciate the feedback.

Just to clarify, your deciding factor for arguments was that the Ph. D. prerequisite for national government would mean that Donald Trump couldn't become president, which makes the policy a good thing and fulfills BoP, correct?

Also, Arguing semantics is not bad conduct. Unless it is stated in round 1 that semantics are not allowed, semantics are fair game.