Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Anyone in here know about debating?
  • Subject: Anyone in here know about debating?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Anyone in here know about debating?

The cake is a pie


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: Decieved Soul

Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: NinjaLord77
As a Muslim I obviously have a different opinion than a Non Muslim.

Eh? I wouldn't be so sure. Furthermore, the question at its basis does not revolve around Islam.
Could I use that every war has put us in debt or?

It has? I thought that World War II boosted America's economy?

And if you ask me, the question is ethical, not economic. Well, I suppose it necessarily encompasses both, along with many other subjects, but it seems very heartless to leap at the question of money when in concern of people's lives.


Afghanistan and Iraq didn't help the economy

If other modern conflicts also show this pattern, then the question falls solely to ethics, I think.

  • 12.05.2012 3:02 PM PDT


Posted by: Phoenix9508
ITT: People who don't realize debate teams study for both sides because they are informed on their position later and eithercside can be convincing with the right words.
I know about his side, I know what he will say

  • 12.05.2012 3:05 PM PDT


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
I could help but words bear so much Gravity when spoken and lose so much when written.

side note ask yourself if your initial premise is aggreeable by all, if not reserve the argument. You can only argue if you agree on something, ensure you get said thing correct.
I can use my paper during the debate. So, shoot.

  • 12.05.2012 3:07 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

Well, I AM a MASTER debator.

What do you want to know?

  • 12.05.2012 3:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Intervening in Syria is a terrible idea. It is a war, not genocide. Intervention would result in catastrophic destabilization making the tinderbox more likely to erupt.

  • 12.05.2012 3:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

What will we gain? Nothing
What will the world gain? Something

  • 12.05.2012 3:11 PM PDT

Posted by: AngryBrute1
Oh yeah, since somebody does not believe what YOU believe; that makes us vapid...
I cannot grasp that what you call "Something happened to nothing, and that nothing became something, and it was smaller than than a period."

One important thing to know is that there's almost always someone better than you. Also make sure your facts are correct.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 3:11 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 3:11 PM PDT

My spoon isn't the only thing that's too big

Pull Gish Gallop's like Mitt Romney. If you tell enough falsehoods in a short enough period of time, your opponent spends all their time trying to disprove your falsehoods and can never create an argument of their own.

  • 12.05.2012 3:12 PM PDT

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"


Posted by: Decieved Soul

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
I could help but words bear so much Gravity when spoken and lose so much when written.

side note ask yourself if your initial premise is aggreeable by all, if not reserve the argument. You can only argue if you agree on something, ensure you get said thing correct.
I can use my paper during the debate. So, shoot.


Problem 1: how do you get opposition to agree with your first premise? I think a good one is that if you agree that the other nations are a threat (which is to be expected) than you have made the decision worthless. If you have a group of people, of whom most are from the west and you ask them their opinion than your result is likely to be swayed. it is akin to asking people at a convention if they think people should go to the convention.

Additionally a democracy shouldn't enforce democracy as the west has a tendecy to do. you do this you are the invader not the saviour. You have to accept that morals of a society are reflected by a democratic government, if a nation is not part of said democracy the moral compass you use becomes void.

Most I have typed is opinion but in discussion the ability to adapt to responses enables me to formulate better arguments.
sorry if I didn't help.

  • 12.05.2012 3:30 PM PDT

"If you want to test a man's character, give him power" -- Abraham Lincoln

I've been in a few debates.

Its more about how much sense your argument makes and how clear and simple you can make it than just having good sources.

  • 12.05.2012 3:34 PM PDT

"If you want to test a man's character, give him power" -- Abraham Lincoln


Posted by: mahspoonis2big
Pull Gish Gallop's like Mitt Romney. If you tell enough falsehoods in a short enough period of time, your opponent spends all their time trying to disprove your falsehoods and can never create an argument of their own.


Sorry, Obama was the one lying the entire time.

  • 12.05.2012 3:35 PM PDT

Covan was here, December 20th.

Come back later, after he's out of Parris Island.

This

  • 12.05.2012 3:46 PM PDT


Posted by: mahspoonis2big
Pull Gish Gallop's like Mitt Romney. If you tell enough falsehoods in a short enough period of time, your opponent spends all their time trying to disprove your falsehoods and can never create an argument of their own.
..Seriously?

  • 12.05.2012 3:51 PM PDT

Not bad, honestly. Will use, anything else? I need evidence
Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID

Posted by: Decieved Soul

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
I could help but words bear so much Gravity when spoken and lose so much when written.

side note ask yourself if your initial premise is aggreeable by all, if not reserve the argument. You can only argue if you agree on something, ensure you get said thing correct.
I can use my paper during the debate. So, shoot.


Problem 1: how do you get opposition to agree with your first premise? I think a good one is that if you agree that the other nations are a threat (which is to be expected) than you have made the decision worthless. If you have a group of people, of whom most are from the west and you ask them their opinion than your result is likely to be swayed. it is akin to asking people at a convention if they think people should go to the convention.

Additionally a democracy shouldn't enforce democracy as the west has a tendecy to do. you do this you are the invader not the saviour. You have to accept that morals of a society are reflected by a democratic government, if a nation is not part of said democracy the moral compass you use becomes void.

Most I have typed is opinion but in discussion the ability to adapt to responses enables me to formulate better arguments.
sorry if I didn't help.

  • 12.05.2012 3:52 PM PDT

Covan was here, December 20th.

Come back later, after he's out of Parris Island.


Posted by: ArchNinja64

Posted by: mahspoonis2big
Pull Gish Gallop's like Mitt Romney. If you tell enough falsehoods in a short enough period of time, your opponent spends all their time trying to disprove your falsehoods and can never create an argument of their own.


Sorry, Obama was the one lying the entire time.



Politifact website - Obama truth-o-meter.


Plenty more truths than Mitt Romney, by far.

10 page plus of things that he said he would do and actually did.

These are facts, hence the name Politifact.com.

I'm just letting you know - don't come at me with fire.

  • 12.05.2012 3:55 PM PDT

Let's not bring that in here. Just, what should I do and I can't find anything useful on google
Posted by: RaptorSevereP88

Posted by: ArchNinja64

Posted by: mahspoonis2big
Pull Gish Gallop's like Mitt Romney. If you tell enough falsehoods in a short enough period of time, your opponent spends all their time trying to disprove your falsehoods and can never create an argument of their own.


Sorry, Obama was the one lying the entire time.



Politifact website - Obama truth-o-meter.


Plenty more truths than Mitt Romney, by far.

10 page plus of things that he said he would do and actually did.

These are facts, hence the name Politifact.com.

I'm just letting you know - don't come at me with fire.

  • 12.05.2012 4:01 PM PDT

OP, you still hasn't answered what type of debate this is.
You are allowed to use printed materials, so I assume this is not Parliamentary.
In that case, is it LD, Public Forum, Policy, or otherwise?

  • 12.05.2012 4:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

When in doubt, question your opponent's -blam!-ity, and as a last resort, claim to have had sex with his or her mother. Works every time.

  • 12.05.2012 4:58 PM PDT


Posted by: XxhargbeastxX
OP, you still hasn't answered what type of debate this is.
You are allowed to use printed materials, so I assume this is not Parliamentary.
In that case, is it LD, Public Forum, Policy, or otherwise?
I...I don't know. It's for class.

  • 12.05.2012 7:09 PM PDT

Mreh.

What are you arguing?

Are you saying that the US only ever invade for strategic gain against our enemies? Because that's pretty evident to everyone.


But just some general tips:
1. Use logic supported by evidence, don't try to prove anything with an anecdote, use documented evidence that can be verified, preferably with a quick Internet search.

2. Try to come up with a counter argument to your points so that A.) You can prepare yourself for your opponents arguments B.) To strengthen your argument by coming up with a preemptive response.

3. Make sure that the position you're defending isn't pointless to defend. Something that has no potential for a logical argument in favour of it isn't worth arguing over.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 8:06 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 7:51 PM PDT

The Flood doesn't debate, they argue.

There's a big difference.

Posted by: Decieved Soul
Fairly positive there's some people in here who took debate...


[Edited on 12.05.2012 7:52 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 7:51 PM PDT

Sometimes I am tempted to quit gaming. I can no longer play without seeing ponyphags, horrendously bad teammates and mexicans.

Gaming community, I want you to know that you suck.

Avoid war, hold secret UN assassination meeting.

  • 12.05.2012 7:52 PM PDT

You look around.You fire your weapon before you realize.
Its just me. I fall and you walk up. You cry why.
When i pop up. You look at me in wonder. I say,"ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL."
You bend to my will and go to a cliff, walk off, and fall.
The last thing you hear is me stating as fact,"All will fail the battle of life, you just went early"

I know nothing about debating.

But I do it anyways.

  • 12.05.2012 7:53 PM PDT

Mreh.


Posted by: Gaara444
The Flood doesn't debate, they argue.

There's a big difference.

Posted by: Decieved Soul
Fairly positive there's some people in here who took debate...


Depends on how the people involved are arguing.

  • 12.05.2012 7:54 PM PDT

What side are you on?

  • 12.05.2012 7:55 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3