The JPP Debate Championship Official Start

Mott the Hoople said:
My picks in round #1.

Debate #1. Moe.
Debate #2. Damo
Debate #3. Winter
Debate #4. SF
Debate#5. Beefy
Debate#6. US Free
Debate #7. Thaichi
Debate #8. Capt.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your #7 pick; because sissie would lose by the second state, where he began referring and listing the chronological order and then he would resort to calling names and saying he was done.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I disagree with your #7 pick; because sissie would lose by the second state, where he began referring and listing the chronological order and then he would resort to calling names and saying he was done.
Click to expand...
That depends. I tend to agree that USL probably has the better debating skills but I'm betting that Zappa will have the better understanding of the topic. This is a difficult topic for sure.

The one that scares me is SF vs. Liberty. It's a tricky topic and both will have to be innovative and think on their feet. I don't know Liberty that well so I'm going with SF. Tough pick though. I'm looking forward to this debate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Debate #1. At what point does human life begin, birth or conception?
Human Life begins at conception - Mott
Human Life begins at birth - Watermark
Click to expand...

Mott, could you further define this? "Human life begins at birth" is not a defensible position. It's like asking me to defend the position that 2 + 2 = 3. Am I missing something here?
 
Wickedjews said:
Mott, could you further define this? "Human life begins at birth" is not a defensible position. It's like asking me to defend the position that 2 + 2 = 3. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

A good debater knows both sides of the issue.
An excellent debater is able to present a side that he doesn't necessarily agree with.

This isn't about what we agree with or think.
It's about how well you can argue the point.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Fat chance. I don't see how "All conservatives must die" will even come close to being a valid strategy. Skidmark better show something he's never shown before if expects to escape the first round. I feel confident that Winter would beat Bravo and I'd be debating him next. All I know is if I go up against Winter I'd better bring my A game.
Click to expand...

All conservatives must die has never been a serious argument. If someone were slaughtering conservatives in mass numbers I'd put my life on the line to defend them.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
In practical results though Bravo winning would be the biggest upset.
Click to expand...
Hardly. There's good reason Watermark was picked dead last. Not only that, even if a miracle were to happen and he were to beat me he'd have to face either Winter or Bravo as his next opponent and he's not remotely in their league either.

Watermark has a lot to prove. I'll be honest. I'm not even concerned about you youngens. The only youngen who can debate is one of the judges. Now Grind I would take seriously. He knows how to sweat details and he has skills in rhetoric. You other youngens.....not so much.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
A good debater knows both sides of the issue.
An excellent debater is able to present a side that he doesn't necessarily agree with.

This isn't about what we agree with or think.
It's about how well you can argue the point.
Click to expand...

What does he mean by "human life"? Life began 3 billion years ago. Human life began when the first cro-magnon became sufficiently recognizable. The mother and the offspring divide into independent organisms a short time after conception.

I just think that saying "human life" puts too much obvious and unignorable science into the issue. And practically no one accepts the extremist position that fetuses should have no rights up to the moment of birth. Making the lesser the stronger is impressive, but you must at least have a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly. There's good reason Watermark was picked dead last. Not only that, even if a miracle were to happen and he were to beat me he'd have to face either Winter or Bravo as his next opponent and he's not remotely in their league either.

Watermark has a lot to prove. I'll be honest. I'm not even concerned about you youngens. The only youngen who can debate is one of the judges. Now Grind I would take seriously. He knows how to sweat details and he has skills in rhetoric. You other youngens.....not so much.
Click to expand...
Oh Mott, this will be so much fun.
 
Wickedjews said:
All conservatives must die has never been a serious argument. If someone were slaughtering conservatives in mass numbers I'd put my life on the line to defend them.
Click to expand...
Well you'll now have an excellent opportunity to distance your self from your current reputation. That is, after I put a whoopen on your ass! LOL

Bring your A game Watermark. You'll need it!
 
Wickedjews said:
What does he mean by "human life"? Life began 3 billion years ago. Human life began when the first cro-magnon became sufficiently recognizable. The mother and the offspring divide into independent organisms a short time after conception.

I just think that saying "human life" puts too much obvious and unignorable science into the issue. And practically no one accepts the extremist position that fetuses should have no rights up to the moment of birth. Making the lesser the stronger is impressive, but you must at least have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
Quit whining and deal with it. It only gets harder from here.
 
as a judge I don't think who I will say I think is favored right now for any particular match but I do believe a few people in this thread are being underestimated
 
It's a shitty shitty shitty shitty shitty shitty question mott. Both positions are obviously logically untrue and they aren't even opposite positions, since there's plenty of other arguments.

Again: give me your retarded definition of "human life". I cannot debate on an issue with a word that's not defined.
 
Last edited:
Asking me to defend the concept that human life begins at birth is like asking me to defend that it begins whenever the kid is 2 years old. It's a shitty shitty shitty dumb question made by an absolute retard. No one thinks human life begins at birth.
 
I propose an alternate question:

Debate #1:
Mott: the earth is being consumed by the sun at this very moment.
WM: the sun is actually in alpha centari consuming whatever planets may reside there.
 
Better abortion questions:

Are embryos, zygotes and fetuses "persons" worthy of legal protections?
Should the potential to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a right to life?
Does a fetus gain rights as it gets closer to birth?
Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body?
Is abortion acceptable in cases of rape, incest, contraception failure?
Is abortion acceptable in cases where the fetus is deformed?
Is abortion acceptable in cases where if the pregnancy were to continue, it would pose a direct threat to the life of the mother?


The debate on these would actually be meaningful and not silly and surreal.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hardly. There's good reason Watermark was picked dead last. Not only that, even if a miracle were to happen and he were to beat me he'd have to face either Winter or Bravo as his next opponent and he's not remotely in their league either.

Watermark has a lot to prove. I'll be honest. I'm not even concerned about you youngens. The only youngen who can debate is one of the judges. Now Grind I would take seriously. He knows how to sweat details and he has skills in rhetoric. You other youngens.....not so much.
Click to expand...

I will admit that my refusal to participate is an obvious indictment of my formal debating skills. I consider them to be lacking, and am far too lazy to put in the effort needed to overcome them. Generally, I prefer to debate topics that I am passionate about, or have years of study in, such as history (I suspect that part of your bitterness in trashing the Youngins comes from discussing presidential history and getting killed). Besides, I do read a lot of stuff on this site that I never respond to. As a member of the audience, I will be studying the arguments presented in the debates with genuine interest.
 
Wickedjews said:
What does he mean by "human life"? Life began 3 billion years ago. Human life began when the first cro-magnon became sufficiently recognizable. The mother and the offspring divide into independent organisms a short time after conception.

I just think that saying "human life" puts too much obvious and unignorable science into the issue. And practically no one accepts the extremist position that fetuses should have no rights up to the moment of birth. Making the lesser the stronger is impressive, but you must at least have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

I'm fucking worried about this kid. Have you simply been trolling for so long that you've forgotten how to be serious and intellectual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top