Debate Commentary Thread

Phoenix, I wans't sure how that would turn out, but I can't say I'm too surprised. Excellent job; congratulations, and good luck with semis.

To everyone else who participated and made the debates happen, thank you! I certainly enjoyed myself.

Now let's see some hot round 3 action!

*ding, ding *

Ok before round three I must make this painful statement.

Due to job requirements I have to move out of my house, and my father is in heavy need of help in moving.

On top of that I am still fufilling community service requirements for a scholarship.

The last debate was very taxing on my time, and with these increased duties I feel that I cannot live up to the expectations of judges, my opponent, Kano, and the rest of you.

It is my unfortunate duty to inform you of my round three concession.

I apologize for not realizing this move before I entered, or not revealing this information until after my second round advancement.

I feel absolutely horrible about this, but it is something I must do.

Good luck to the three remaining contestants.

Agent47 I am sorry that you have to drop out of the contest and I wish you the best in your personal affairs. All I can say is that I am thankful I don't have to face you.

In order to fill the place left by Agent47 how about we have a play in debate by two of the other contestants. The two choosen for the play in spot could be determined by either the judges or by the amount of votes they received.

Below is a list of the contestants that are no longer in the tournament and the votes received.

Contestant Round 1 Round 2 Total

PurdueNuc 6 3 9
Ycon 6 3 9
Gryffen 6 2 8
Viendin 6 * 6
KtprKtpr 4 * 4
Strangelands 4 * 4
JediMaster 3 * 3
LadyCool21 3 * 3
Benjj 2 * 2
Intrepid 2 * 2
mig12 2 * 2

Also of note the following contestants have been beaten by contestants still in the tournament.

• PurdueNuc
  
• Ycon
  
• Gryffen
  
• ktprktpr
  
• Viendin
  
• mig12
  
• Ladycool21
  

[edit on 12-7-2004 by BlackJackal]

BlackJackal: I've toyed with the idea, but I'm just going to stick to standard procs and leave it as an Agent47 forfeit. Anything else we do will take up too much time and can't be 100% fair.

Looks like we have enough interest to run another (probably 2) couple of tournaments right on the back of this one, so we all shouldn't have to wait for too long.

I was really looking forward to taking on Agent47's agressive debating style, it would have been a slugfest of words and ideas - but alas its not to be. A loss for both of us I'm sure, for each debate adds to ones knowledge and skill.

BlackJackal and John Bull 1, good luck and may the best win.

Kano,

Thats even better!!! I have really enjoyed this tournament and would love to participate in any future ones the sooner the better.

But for the time being I am currently still in the tournament and hope John Bull 1 takes it easy on me.


[edit on 19-7-2004 by BlackJackal]

Good Luck to John Bull and BlackJackal in round 3

Phoenix, too bad agent47 won, I'd love to debate you.

I just read the opening statements in the "Gun control" debate. This looks like another heavyweight bout. I can't wait for this to unfold. Good luck gents.

Hmm I like the openers. They seem to be about equally matched. it'll be interesting to see the arguments develop. I see some slight word twisting
already, which, in the past, I noticed some judges don't like.

I hope i can take part in the next debate tourny and reclaim my rightful throne. I was knocked out of round 1 in my last two debates, somehow, someway... *kicks dead horse a bit*

This is great. I am always looking for new arguments to throw at my anti-gun brother. Don't worry; if any real zingers come out I will be sure to say, "This came up in a forum I read..." and give proper credit. These guys deserve it

Good luck to each and every! *gets popcorn and waits anxiously

Originally posted by Ycon
Phoenix, too bad agent47 won, I'd love to debate you.

Feel the same way Ycon its hard to sit this out on the sidelines, hope I don't get rusty because the openings on round three appear to be the beginings of a real battle - both of them have some real good aguments behind the info presented in the opening.

I was looking over the debates, and I don't mean to toot my horn, but I'm tooting anyway: Round 1. BlackJackal vs. Ktprktpr has 1011 views. That's astounding considering it's less than a month ago.

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I was looking over the debates, and I don't mean to toot my horn, but I'm tooting anyway: Round 1. BlackJackal vs. Ktprktpr has 1011 views. That's astounding considering it's less than a month ago.

You toot away, you deserve to. I think that we have the best debate team in the world.

I'd love to see how we would do against ANYBODY. ANYTIME.

originally posted by intrepid
I'd love to see how we would do against ANYBODY. ANYTIME.

Bring it ooon, bring it oon, lets rock and roll - I didn't get that "Fighter" tag fer nut'n heh heh.

I have fulfilled my portion of the debate an now await John Bulls Conclusion. I just want to say that this debate was very fun and challenging.

JB1, Thank you for a great fight. Win or lose it was fun.

Well which one shall it be BlackJackal or John Bull 1 ? I think the semi-final was pretty even overall when balancing things so I as yet cannot tell which is to be the contender in the final battle for debate champion.

Phoenix is well rested and ready for either one of these challenging debators to duel with for the crown.

(Hint to the wise: Don't drink unopened 3 week old HG800. Even sitting refrigerator, unopened, it sours. But it's all I got. Now to other forms of wisdom...)

Blackjackal opens with hugs all around. He immediately latches onto the constitution, saying that the Old White Guys said to keep your guns. He makes the good point that great gun control keeps guns out of the hands of band guys. Not you or I, law abiding Joe Moes. So we have something of an ideal focus being set up.

He goes on to define the scope of his second amendment argument by pointing out that we use common sense when applying it. Murderers can't have guns, etc. He points out that many amendments are restricted. We can't yell fire in a movie theatre.

Then he points out that sure not very many people die from gun violence, in relation to other things, but does that make those lives any more meaningless? This places an interesting personal scope on his argument. No one's going to say that 123 people don't matter.

Then he throws a pretty Burke quote out.

Does JB1 bite? Yes he does. Kinda. At the end.

Jb1 opens with a somewhat weak environmental argument. Much like the Death world trilogy, in America you never know what's going to pop out at you. Gang bangers, rabid deer or rednecks, you need smith&wesson to keep your heart warm.

JB1 points out an interesting twist that the topic has presented him: that the US laws aren't strict enough. But US laws are always changing. Oh yes they are. Look at the Patriot Act. He then goes on to say that it's a good thing to have one basic foundation (federal law) and various state applications.

He points out that American history is a large reason for this development. Then JB1 leaves us with several things: People who want to kill themselves will do it without a gun. People will kill others w/o a gun. And criminals don't' care about laws. So he's saying that whatever legal barricades you put on guns, they aren't real and people can do just fine ignoring them or using something else.

Alrighty. Then the debate begins to rev up. Diesel Harley? Jackal comes back for the second round.

Good gun control is when the criminals can't get guns and kill people but you can. Blackjackal points out that current legislation sucks. That other methods are needed.

Then, strangely enough, he says that the laws for murder are to weak. Then he says that 1,225 people die each year, from people failing to take pre-cautions.

Now he comes to the real solutions, which I like. He says that there is a direct co-relation between gun violence and education. So, what we should do is educate these people. And, also, we could raise the gun buying age to 25.

JB1 charges back, bull style ... and the first thing he points out is a technical error. I'm not sure what it was. Did Black Jackal go over the word limit or post a picture? I don't' know. JB1 moistens the tissue a bit going on about the breadth of the subject (I'm just joshing ya...!)

JB1 twists Blackjackals foot by using citing his admission that making firearms illegal would be a bad thing. And it looks like the pot was sprinkled with some extremism. We get stuff like, "that the worst kind of law, and thus tyranny, is to take away the right of the individual to defend themself." Lol, JB1 comes one witty in telling Jackal to drop the array of topics to discuss. Very funny. Can I have my debate please?

And he serves, with two points. He asks Blackjackal to answer the fact that gun laws or not, a criminal will always get a gun if he wants one. And, if that fails, he'll kill someone with something else. Sounds like the Bull is charging that gun laws don't have much point, here.

Alrighty. More wrangling over the topic. What does it mean?

Whoops. Blackjackal slipped. He says that, somehow, a law that restricts everyone under the age of 25, will "only remove the guns from the criminals." Impossible. Say, I'm 24, not a criminal, and I want to buy a gun. What's not in my hand? I'm not a criminal. He goes on about harsher sentencing.

Ah, it ain't pretty. But we must get through this. Damn I'm only half through this thing. Must pour more alcohol into my mother. Of the HG800 nasty ass variety. Whoa. I mean, must pour more alcohol into my mouth. Alrighty.

(Intermission; peanut butter sandwich entering my mouth)

Okay. Blackjackal goes on to say that we should limit the amount of guns that can be brought in bulk order. Ban wimpy weapons. Place background checks at gun shows.

JB1 pokes a funny stick in Blackjackals eye by calling his solutions Utopia. Then he reiterates his points, which Blackjackal hasn't directly addressed. Momma have mercy. Jb1 fires off almost a direct insult (the first I've seen from the Bull): "Come on Black Jackal ! You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to win this debate. You haven't laid a glove on me yet."

Shiver me timbers. What happens next in this movie!?

Wow. It's like Blackjackal woke up or something. He comes back with a lengthy exposition with fact and pretty pictures. I was properly impressed.

Hmm, jb1 crawls back, well, walks back with a another semi wet tissue about the scope and weight of the debate. Jb1 points out that gun control doesn't work in Britain. People murder people, which is true. Wow. Jb1 strikes again with another insult. Will the judges be affected? Maybe Jb1 is getting more violent along with Britain. The facts predict an upward trend.

Jb1 one closes that round with good points 60 million guns aren't going to disappear over right. Criminal will use them. They ignore gun laws.

Man. I'm going to summarize at this point. Blackjackal fires off one more round, that gun problems in this country are like a disease. Jb1, man, give this guy some valium or something, rags on Blackjackal. I think he pushes it to a un-sportsmanship like level. If Blackjackals side was so poorly played then why didn't he eat wheaties for breakfast and win the debate? Big talk is easy from behind a keyboard.

Man. So who won? Blackjackal came alive, somewhat, towards the end. I don't know if JB1 was using slick British propaganda, but it sounded like his points were never directly answered. Blackjackal brought forth a decent case, but he didn't "breach Jb1s position." But does he need to? No. Honestly, I don't think this debate answered the topic. And I really can't say who will win. It was a decent debate though and pats on the back for both.








[edit on 22-7-2004 by ktprktpr]

Good God!!!

ktprktpr,

How long did it take you to write that report? Whatever the case I think your commentary presented a fitting end to Round 3.

Oh yeah! Remember if I get kicked out now you and I are up for War on Terror Round 2!

Fair appraisal KTPR.

I didn't really want to reply to this until after the decision has been made bacause my honest opinion might weaken my position further.

But suffice it to say that:

a) My position was inherently weak.

b) I don't have a good enough grasp of U.S law anyway let alone on so many different levels.

c) The tissues were a diversionary tactic.

d) The goading was a provocation.

e) The overall tactic was to make the judges think I won even if I didn't really.Or atleast think it was close even if it wasn't.

I won't feel particularly hard done by if I lose.

Rough and tumble is all part of debating.As far as I'm concerned what happens in the debate is totally separate from the rest of the board and no disrespect is ever intended.

Errmmm................... and,Oh! I didn't enjoy it one bit.Frankly,I only only finished because it was the honourable thing to do.

I think I'll leave it there.

It tooke me about 30 minutes. I can type pretty fast and I was eating in between thoughts.

Sorry to hear that you didn't particularly enjoy the debating, JB1, but it's all good. And Blackjackal, I've been sharping my sticks, in anticpation of skewering you in round 2. *beats chest and defecates in corner*

[edit on 23-7-2004 by ktprktpr]