Debate Tournament Commentary

Ah, we live in intersting times indeed.

I see theLibra as my hardest opponent. I'm sure I stand well in the eyes of others, but it's time to start dancing and dominating. I warn you theLibra! En Guard!!!!

Edit- For those that don't know, this is my third debate tourney. I won my first one.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by ktprktpr]

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I see theLibra as my hardest opponent. I'm sure I stand well in the eyes of others, but it's time to start dancing and dominating. I warn you theLibra! En Guard!!!!

(grunts)
(cracks knuckles)
(cricks neck)

Come get some.

Ugh...

The testosterone funk is getting a little thick in here.

I think I'm gonna go hang out on BTS for a while with the women-folk.



You know how sometimes a picture says a thousand words? Well, in regards to the chest thumping, this picture here of my monkey friend says only three.

"..I'm not impressed."

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think I'm gonna go hang out on BTS for a while with the women-folk.

with the women folk? *cough, clears throat* you mean the men folk

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I see theLibra as my hardest opponent. I'm sure I stand well in the eyes of others, but it's time to start dancing and dominating. I warn you theLibra! En Guard!!!!

(grunts)
(cracks knuckles)
(cricks neck)

Come get some.

KIEEEHHAAAIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

*adopts monkey kung fu stance and commences chattering*

Frightful indeed!

[edit on 21-7-2005 by ktprktpr]

Alright you two, be careful, I don't want any broken fingers before the next round starts.

Other than that, have at it.

Nah I'm done here.

But the 'ol pimp hand ain't.

It'll be paying ya a facial visit in Round 3. Till then...

Originally posted by ktprktpr
Nah I'm done here.

But the 'ol pimp hand ain't.

It'll be paying ya a facial visit in Round 3. Till then...

You'll have to hop up and down to reach it, kid.

It's on!

I smell an upset due to theLibra's Hamlet impersonation, you know, poison chalice and all....

What a horrible thing to have to argue! I think he might impale himself on a sharpened exclamation point out of frustration!

As far as my debate with OTS, I don't think there is a distinct advantage out of the gate. It will come down to dueling definitions of "meaningful", I'm almost sure of it.

"Let's get it on!" - Mills Lane

I am sorry.

The topic which theLibra and I are asked to argue is both RACIST (exclusionary of non-western societies) and extremely one-sided.

I ask that a new topic be granted so ATS does not look like a neo-nazi site.

Are you with me on this theLibra?

The topic is "Non-Western Societies are incapable of democratic self-rule"

EDIT- And I had an unfair advantage and i still feel this way.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by ktprktpr]

What? What? Where'd Everybody Go? I was Just Sayin'

Originally posted by ktprktpr
The topic is "Non-Western Societies are incapable of democratic self-rule"

Man, I sure wouldn't want to draw "pro" for that one.

I'm not sure if the ringmasters would change it, but I can't say you don't have a point.

Your in the council. Your voice rings through the marvelous halls of Cosmic. Carry my voice, my brother! Seriously, this topic is racist. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I am sorry.

The topic which theLibra and I are asked to argue is both RACIST (exclusionary of non-western societies) and extremely one-sided.

I ask that a new topic be granted so ATS does not look like a neo-nazi site.

Are you with me on this theLibra?

The topic is "Non-Western Societies are incapable of democratic self-rule"

EDIT- And I had an unfair advantage and i still feel this way.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by ktprktpr]

Sorry but how can they even argue that topic?

It's just not very fair..but neither is life..to be fair.

To argue vehemently would require putting aside good sense and every shred of restraint. I mean, you'd really have to get raw to have even a hope of winning, and I don't know if I'd be willing to go that far for the win, yaknow? Nevermind the fact that takin' it to that extreme might motivate the judges to vote against you out of spite, even if you made your points! Lose-lose situation.

You simply can't go at that topic bareknuckled and merciless-like...

Man..that's rough. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Well, I think the point to make is that some of the non-Western societies are Islamic, used to shariah law. But, then I guess all one has to do is bring up Turkey where ~98% are Muslim.

Actually, you just need to show one example of a non-Western society that has become democratic. And there are plenty to choose from. This is actually an easy question for someone who trying to prove that non-Western countries can become democratic, cause you just have to show one country and then you can throw that ugly generalization out the window.

I don't think it's racist, but I do think it's a bad topic, because generalizations like that are so easy to argue against.

Off the top of my head I can think of three, Non-Western Democratic Nations.

It's a really unfair topic for thelibra in my view however, he can argue/debate well enough to defend himself.

(from google; define:racism) Racism - Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race.

Non-Western Societies are incapable of democratic self-rule

Systematically treats? ... Societies incapable of democratic self-rule. Check.

... Group of individuals differently because of their race? Non-Western Soceities certainly constitutes a group of races, which are not included in the Western ones (primarially, non-whites). Check.

That topic fullfills all the requirements of racism, am I wrong? And even if it's a little fuzzy to call it racism, it certainly is insulting. But whatever. I'll see what theLibra says and go with that. I, for one, am somewhat shocked. For instance, it's commonly known that Native American societies were democratic. These kinds of societies were around when Europeans were eating each other in the dark ages.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by ktprktpr]

Originally posted by ktprktpr
That topic fullfills all the requirements of racism, am I wrong? And even if it's a little fuzzy to call it racism, it certainly is insulting. But whatever. I'll see what theLibra says and go with that. I, for one, am somewhat shocked. For instance, it's commonly known that Native American societies were democratic. These kinds of societies were around when Europeans were eating each other in the dark ages.

First, Native Americans were cannibals too, and still practiced it when Europeans arived. The final defeat of an enemy was to eat a prisoner.

Second, Turkey is considered a Western nation and certainly they are of a somewhat different race. Non-Western does not imply a different race. I mean, look at all the different races within America and Britain. Western has to do with philosophy regarding the different aspects of society and politics.

Only two tribes out of roughly 1200 were involved in cannibalism at that time.

www.native-languages.org...

Not for the most part, no, but there were some groups who were. The Aztecs were notorious for ritual cannibalism (warriors would eat a strip of flesh from enemies they had slain in combat). Some people dispute this, but the Aztecs' own written and oral histories seem to support it as the truth. There were a few Amazonian tribes who practiced funerary cannibalism (family and friends would eat part of a dead tribal member's body as a religious ceremony at the funeral). Finally, the Carib people of South America were said to kill and eat prisoners of war, though it's been pointed out that the Spaniards who made this claim were lining their own pockets by doing so (Queen Isabella had forbidden her subjects from selling Africans, or Indians, as slaves unless they were cannibals).

None of the other 1200 Native American cultures engaged in culturally sanctioned cannibalism at the time of European contact. That doesn't mean cannibalism never happened--there were certainly stories in the American Indian oral history about cannibalistic incidents (a hunting party trapped in a snowstorm who fell to eating each other, a war chief who taunted captives by striking them in the face with their leader's heart and then taking a bite out of it.) Such incidents also occurred in American and European history under similar starving-in-the-wilderness and war-atrocity circumstances (a company of Crusaders, for example, bragged of having grilled and eaten a Saracen; a Jamestown settler was executed for cannibalizing his wife during a famine). Cannibalism should not be considered part of American Indian culture on this account any more than it would be considered part of European or American culture--it was culturally unacceptable behavior. The Sioux considered cannibalism a sin, the Cree considered it a mental illness, the Algonquin and Ojibwe considered it a sign of possession by an evil spirit. In almost all cases, American Indian cannibals--just like European or American cannibals--were put to death as soon as they were discovered.

Cosmic Thing

Originally posted by ktprktpr
Your in the council. Your voice rings through the marvelous halls of Cosmic. Carry my voice, my brother!

Actually, Councilors don't have access to Cosmic. That's mods only.

We have our own forum where we argue with one another and badger the senior staff, which is plenty of fun for the likes of us.

Well, actually we do have a "Pub" forum where mods and Council staff can hang out and talk casually behind closed doors, but it's an informal venue -- although I've found it to be an awesome way to both express member opinions directly to the mods and get their perspectives in return.

All that said, based on what I've seen "behind the scenes", there is very little, if anything, that escapes the attention of the staff.

After all, they're not only members too, but for moderators, reading members' posts is their job.

Just because they may not all chime in on every thread doesn't mean they aren't watching. Mods read a lot of posts.

Race To Nowhere

Originally posted by ktprktpr
Seriously, this topic is racist. Am I wrong?

I wouldn't call it "racist". I reserve that term for actual racist bigotry.

Rather, I see it as a form of cultural bigotry to assert that a broad group of cultures cannot adopt democratic forms of government.

While some cultures may indeed seem resistant to the concept, it's worth pointing out that western democracies arose from feudal origins that had nothing to do with democracy, and were bitterly and violently opposed to it.

The history of France, which was a cradle of western democracy, illustrates that point well enough.

In terms of debating, the “pro” side has a tough job, but the nature of the debate contest is that, regardless of the topic, the object is to demonstrate superior debating skill.

While it's not my place to say one way or the other, I would hope that the judges will bear that in mind, focus on the approaches and tactics the contestants use, and not allow the topic itself to cloud their judgment of what's being determined, which is who is a better “fighter”.

In some respects, drawing the “short straw” might even be an advantage, because it gives that contestant a chance to show off his or her talent.

Let's see what transpires.




[edit on 7/24/2005 by Majic]