Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

NFL November Public Forum Res

Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 12:53:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It was originally about whether or not a mosque should be built around ground zero. I checked recently to find this:

"Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate."

This new resolution is: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It strikes me as ridiculous, but what are your thoughts on the matter?
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 2:34:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 12:53:47 AM, Sobriquet wrote:
It was originally about whether or not a mosque should be built around ground zero. I checked recently to find this:

"Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate."

This new resolution is: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It strikes me as ridiculous, but what are your thoughts on the matter?

Retarded considering that the building is not on ground zero nor is it a "Mosque" per se
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
4tunatecookie
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 11:08:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 2:34:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 10/3/2010 12:53:47 AM, Sobriquet wrote:
It was originally about whether or not a mosque should be built around ground zero. I checked recently to find this:

"Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate."

This new resolution is: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It strikes me as ridiculous, but what are your thoughts on the matter?

Retarded considering that the building is not on ground zero nor is it a "Mosque" per se

To be fair to NFL, it was originally phrased as "An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero."

Anyways, I think this is stupid. Whoever decides the PF topics needs to get his/her panties out of a bunch and give us a decent topic.
I mean, October's topic was a recycled version of last January's topic. But November's topic takes the cake. Worst PF resolution ever. I'll be switching to LD, thank you very much.
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 11:47:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 11:08:46 AM, 4tunatecookie wrote:
At 10/3/2010 2:34:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 10/3/2010 12:53:47 AM, Sobriquet wrote:
It was originally about whether or not a mosque should be built around ground zero. I checked recently to find this:

"Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate."

This new resolution is: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It strikes me as ridiculous, but what are your thoughts on the matter?

Retarded considering that the building is not on ground zero nor is it a "Mosque" per se

To be fair to NFL, it was originally phrased as "An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero."

Anyways, I think this is stupid. Whoever decides the PF topics needs to get his/her panties out of a bunch and give us a decent topic.
I mean, October's topic was a recycled version of last January's topic. But November's topic takes the cake. Worst PF resolution ever. I'll be switching to LD, thank you very much.

Good choice.

I think the first resolution would have been great, but people complained. I was going to judge a November tournament...but I dont think so now.

Why should the NFL bend to the whims of others when the resolution isn't something blatantly offensive? The cultural center is a rather large issue right now, and research/debating it would have allowed for the younger generation to educate themselves on the matter. Instead, they have to argue why we should remain ignorant to religious issues.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
4tunatecookie
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 12:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 11:47:22 AM, Sobriquet wrote:
Good choice.

I think the first resolution would have been great, but people complained. I was going to judge a November tournament...but I dont think so now.

Why should the NFL bend to the whims of others when the resolution isn't something blatantly offensive? The cultural center is a rather large issue right now, and research/debating it would have allowed for the younger generation to educate themselves on the matter. Instead, they have to argue why we should remain ignorant to religious issues.

I thought it was a good topic too. I mean, God forbid we debate something controversial. Of course it had its flaws (supporting CON with legitimate sources being one), but it was doable. Plus the Cross-X's would've been fantastic to watch.
There's almost nothing to debate with the new topic. And the wording and the content of the resolution sounds very LD-ish to me. And putting that aside, how are people supposed to research this? Ugh. It's just frustrating.
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2010 12:24:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 12:16:00 PM, 4tunatecookie wrote:

I thought it was a good topic too. I mean, God forbid we debate something controversial. Of course it had its flaws (supporting CON with legitimate sources being one), but it was doable. Plus the Cross-X's would've been fantastic to watch.
There's almost nothing to debate with the new topic. And the wording and the content of the resolution sounds very LD-ish to me. And putting that aside, how are people supposed to research this? Ugh. It's just frustrating.

They go to the LD resolution because its actually great.

I would rather do open LD than argue pro on the new PF resolution. You can't really research this. There isn't much for researching the harms related to high schoolers debating controversial religious topics. The only thing it caused was complaints. Honestly the affirmative action resolution was more offensive (one side always looked racist) but nothing was done (rightfully so). The NFL shouldn't budge.

Do you think the new PF resolution could allow for later resolutions to involve religious topics if it is shown that the con side does far better in tournament?
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
Turtlegods
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 11:24:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/3/2010 12:24:02 PM, Sobriquet wrote:

They go to the LD resolution because its actually great.

I would rather do open LD than argue pro on the new PF resolution. You can't really research this. There isn't much for researching the harms related to high schoolers debating controversial religious topics. The only thing it caused was complaints. Honestly the affirmative action resolution was more offensive (one side always looked racist) but nothing was done (rightfully so). The NFL shouldn't budge.

Do you think the new PF resolution could allow for later resolutions to involve religious topics if it is shown that the con side does far better in tournament?

The NFL has said that they won't be looking at results from tournaments to make any decisions for or against debating sensitive religious issues.

The NFL change the topic because people were writing in, saying they couldn't/wouldn't debate the old topic because they were in fact Muslim and didn't want to argue against their faith because it would be blasphemy. If people receiving affirmative action wrote in to complain about that topic, then maybe it would have changed.

I believe the topic isn't that bad. We debated it yesterday at a tournament and it was interesting. It wasn't a bunch of people complaining, it was a bunch of people who had thought about things, formed original arguments, and then discussing those arguments logically. PFD isn't policy. We don't need evidence for everything, in fact, we shouldn't have evidence for everything we say. We should have some evidence then our own, individual, analysis on what that means. We convince the public with logic, not evidence.

Even if you disagree with my opinion on the topic, why are you complaining so much? The topic isn't going to change. Instead, you have a choice. You debate it or you don't. If you choose the first one, as I did, then why not come up with some arguments? Let's through around case ideas, my favorite pro argument is blasphemy.
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:34:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 11:24:48 AM, Turtlegods wrote:
At 10/3/2010 12:24:02 PM, Sobriquet wrote:

They go to the LD resolution because its actually great.

I would rather do open LD than argue pro on the new PF resolution. You can't really research this. There isn't much for researching the harms related to high schoolers debating controversial religious topics. The only thing it caused was complaints. Honestly the affirmative action resolution was more offensive (one side always looked racist) but nothing was done (rightfully so). The NFL shouldn't budge.

Do you think the new PF resolution could allow for later resolutions to involve religious topics if it is shown that the con side does far better in tournament?

The NFL has said that they won't be looking at results from tournaments to make any decisions for or against debating sensitive religious issues.

The NFL change the topic because people were writing in, saying they couldn't/wouldn't debate the old topic because they were in fact Muslim and didn't want to argue against their faith because it would be blasphemy. If people receiving affirmative action wrote in to complain about that topic, then maybe it would have changed.

I believe the topic isn't that bad. We debated it yesterday at a tournament and it was interesting. It wasn't a bunch of people complaining, it was a bunch of people who had thought about things, formed original arguments, and then discussing those arguments logically. PFD isn't policy. We don't need evidence for everything, in fact, we shouldn't have evidence for everything we say. We should have some evidence then our own, individual, analysis on what that means. We convince the public with logic, not evidence.

Even if you disagree with my opinion on the topic, why are you complaining so much? The topic isn't going to change. Instead, you have a choice. You debate it or you don't. If you choose the first one, as I did, then why not come up with some arguments? Let's through around case ideas, my favorite pro argument is blasphemy.

Actually, in my area, they decided to run the original November resolution instead of this new one. Like you said, you either debate it, or you don't. I guess the same thing applies to the mosque resolution.

I agree that PF should back their arguments with logic, but from my experience (5 tournaments in open PF) judges want evidence (statistics/quotes/etc). Obviously finding substantial evidence for the new resolution wouldn't be the easiest thing to do, so I'd expect more logical arguments than anything. I did junior LD for a couple tournaments before I did PF, and the judges could certainly recognize it. Also, did you really expect a bunch of people complaining? The community that takes debate seriously will nut up debate whatever issue is given to them when it comes to the tournament itself.

Brainstorming ideas for the resolution wouldn't serve any purpose. I graduated last year. I help out with LD and PF at my old high school. I can't do tournaments anymore. I can't judge for 2 years (some rule probably concerning bias against some schools)

Side note: the new December resolution for PF seems kind of...dumb, actually.

Resolved: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense.
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:48:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:44:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think that the new PF topic is hilarious. It shows that the wording committee actually has a sense of humor.
lol yeah..

the first question I thought when I read the resolution "Is normal bullying in and of itself illegal?"
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:46:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The new topic amounts to the NFL flipping everyone the middle finger for complaining about the old topic.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:57:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

Nope, telling a kid that he'll be butt-raped for the next two years in prison if he keeps making fun of people online is a much better deterrent than threatening a suspension.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:03:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:57:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

Nope, telling a kid that he'll be butt-raped for the next two years in prison if he keeps making fun of people online is a much better deterrent than threatening a suspension.

You seriously think that "harassing" a kid over the internet should have a harsher penalty than harassing a kid in person?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Yogurt
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:25:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:03:11 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:57:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

Nope, telling a kid that he'll be butt-raped for the next two years in prison if he keeps making fun of people online is a much better deterrent than threatening a suspension.

You seriously think that "harassing" a kid over the internet should have a harsher penalty than harassing a kid in person?

No, I advocate that both be punished with the death penalty.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:27:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:25:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:03:11 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:57:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

Nope, telling a kid that he'll be butt-raped for the next two years in prison if he keeps making fun of people online is a much better deterrent than threatening a suspension.

You seriously think that "harassing" a kid over the internet should have a harsher penalty than harassing a kid in person?

No, I advocate that both be punished with the death penalty.

Lol.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:41:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:25:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:03:11 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:57:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:53:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
"Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense"? It's scary how fast society can inflame a "problem" into a national security issue. If two kids got into a fight at school, they'd get suspended AT MOST. If they were caught yelling at a kid or insulting him, they security or teachers wouldn't do much... But if it's over the computer, the bully is the next Jeffrey Dahmer.

Nope, telling a kid that he'll be butt-raped for the next two years in prison if he keeps making fun of people online is a much better deterrent than threatening a suspension.

You seriously think that "harassing" a kid over the internet should have a harsher penalty than harassing a kid in person?

No, I advocate that both be punished with the death penalty.

Ah, much better.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Sobriquet
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:46:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

Hit the nail on the head.
1) No matter what the resolution is, people will complain
2) Normally people come to the conclusion it is one sided
3) Research(most times) proves them wrong
4) skip 3 and figure out they're screwed mid-tournament
"Bullsh!t is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about."
— Harry G. Frankfurt
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:11:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In interviews on pfdebate.com podcasts, you'll hear NFL representatives say that they did research on the cultural center topic and decided that there was equal ground on both sides.

They really just pussied out because coaches complained to them that some of their students were claiming they had to "sit this topic out" because it was too sensitive of an issue (mostly Muslims, although I suppose there were some members of 9/11 families).

Some members of the NFL wording committee, who are actual coaches, claim that they have done a good job of "selling" the new topic to their novices. Why didn't they do that with the old, better topic, that THEY worded? They should have explained to "offended" debaters that there are merits to switch side debating, in learning to defend a side that you utterly disagree with.

It teaches critical thinking and allows you to hold beliefs based on rational decision-making (seeing an issue from all sides), instead of based on gut feeling.

The NFL has lost all legitimacy in my mind for caving it to pressure and has only encouraged people to complain more vehemently about topics in the future.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Yogurt
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:22:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

And watching a debater who hasn't been to Afghanistan argue about NATO's prescence in Afghanistan "makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football" right?

I think the original November topic offended a lotta people, but i take the undebatable part back :)

And for the record, I am not in novice :P
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:22:48 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

And watching a debater who hasn't been to Afghanistan argue about NATO's prescence in Afghanistan "makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football" right?

No, there's a difference. There is evidence to cite about NATO's presence in Afghanistan and whether it is beneficial, like the Womankind Worldwide report.

There's no evidence on this new topic which is a debate about what is okay to debate (meta-debate). The only possible evidence is experiential/personal because there is no literature on whether debate, specifically, should confront sensitive religious issues.

I personally find the new topic more offensive. Anyone who believes in the educational value of debate should feel wrong affirming the resolution.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Yogurt
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:40:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:29:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:22:48 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

And watching a debater who hasn't been to Afghanistan argue about NATO's prescence in Afghanistan "makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football" right?

No, there's a difference. There is evidence to cite about NATO's presence in Afghanistan and whether it is beneficial, like the Womankind Worldwide report.

There's no evidence on this new topic which is a debate about what is okay to debate (meta-debate). The only possible evidence is experiential/personal because there is no literature on whether debate, specifically, should confront sensitive religious issues.

I personally find the new topic more offensive. Anyone who believes in the educational value of debate should feel wrong affirming the resolution.

Well the November Resolution is more of a moral topic, and not the ones we are used to. And I found the October topic to be a little favored to the Negation, based on how the resolution aws defined.

What you say applies to all resolutions. You have to debate both sides, and of course everybody has an opinion, and will "feel wrong" debating for the other side of what you believe in.
I think the debates will result in offending vs education and tolerance
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:46:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:40:32 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:29:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:22:48 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

And watching a debater who hasn't been to Afghanistan argue about NATO's prescence in Afghanistan "makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football" right?

No, there's a difference. There is evidence to cite about NATO's presence in Afghanistan and whether it is beneficial, like the Womankind Worldwide report.

There's no evidence on this new topic which is a debate about what is okay to debate (meta-debate). The only possible evidence is experiential/personal because there is no literature on whether debate, specifically, should confront sensitive religious issues.

I personally find the new topic more offensive. Anyone who believes in the educational value of debate should feel wrong affirming the resolution.

Well the November Resolution is more of a moral topic, and not the ones we are used to. And I found the October topic to be a little favored to the Negation, based on how the resolution aws defined.

What you say applies to all resolutions. You have to debate both sides, and of course everybody has an opinion, and will "feel wrong" debating for the other side of what you believe in.
I think the debates will result in offending vs education and tolerance

Lol, which all goes to prove that the pro side on the new topic is illegitimate. It's illegitimate to argue you can't argue something because it "feels wrong." Thus, we should debate sensitive religious issues.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Yogurt
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 6:02:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:46:11 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:40:32 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:29:40 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:22:48 PM, Yogurt wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:32:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 4:15:37 PM, Yogurt wrote:
The original November topic, I believe, wa outrageous. It was undebateable as the Negation barely had any reasonable ground to debate.

I'm not saying the new topic is good, but I'm actually enjoying myself thinking of contentions and blocks for the resolution. It breaks the norm, and that's why poeple really hate it so much.

This topic was made to evaluate whether the NFL should input more sensitive religious topics or not and was a follow up to the original november resolution, to clarify

Haters gonna hate <3

Resolved: high school public forum debate should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Watching a novice 14-year old debater explain why switch-side debating (advocating positions you "don't agree with") is bad, having never debated for, makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football.

Y'all have complained about every single topic - there's nothing special about the cultural center topic. Go back through the pfdebate.com forums on every topic - there's so many complaints on all of them, with people claiming there is zero ground on one side. Then people go out and actually research and find out they were wrong.

And watching a debater who hasn't been to Afghanistan argue about NATO's prescence in Afghanistan "makes about as much sense as watching someone who has never watched a football game criticize football" right?

No, there's a difference. There is evidence to cite about NATO's presence in Afghanistan and whether it is beneficial, like the Womankind Worldwide report.

There's no evidence on this new topic which is a debate about what is okay to debate (meta-debate). The only possible evidence is experiential/personal because there is no literature on whether debate, specifically, should confront sensitive religious issues.

I personally find the new topic more offensive. Anyone who believes in the educational value of debate should feel wrong affirming the resolution.

Well the November Resolution is more of a moral topic, and not the ones we are used to. And I found the October topic to be a little favored to the Negation, based on how the resolution aws defined.

What you say applies to all resolutions. You have to debate both sides, and of course everybody has an opinion, and will "feel wrong" debating for the other side of what you believe in.
I think the debates will result in offending vs education and tolerance

Lol, which all goes to prove that the pro side on the new topic is illegitimate. It's illegitimate to argue you can't argue something because it "feels wrong." Thus, we should debate sensitive religious issues.

What I said was that it "feels wrong" for every topic because everybody has a view on a resolution (not related to Nov. topic)

And offending can stretch to: offending others when talking about this and
offending themselves by being forced to advocate another religious view
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 6:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Whatever, dude, you kissed a guy."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)