The JPP Debate Championship Official Start

Threedee said:
Its something I plug away inside the devious back of my mind, in case I ever pursue politics.
Click to expand...
Everything I do is an act in subtlety or throwing peoples perceptions off. Body language, choice of words, how I dress, etc. Everything is designed to give a certain image/perception. By doing so, I maintain an advantage when I deal with people.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Everything I do is an act in subtlety or throwing peoples perceptions off. Body language, choice of words, how I dress, etc. Everything is designed to give a certain image/perception. By doing so, I maintain an advantage when I deal with people.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly understand the power of psychology and perception. In a fight, I would try to appear weak and perhaps a bit unbalanced. Crazy people are scary, and I sometimes question if I might be a bit crazy for real (history of family mental illness, has been really marked these past several years).

I possess what I call an "aura of absurdity." I get the "you crack me up" line a lot. People have historically perceived me as naive, not aware of what is truly going on around me, and so forth. When I enter the room, I shift the mood in favor of giddiness, and I have a strange presence I still cannot comprehend fully. I am often referred to and greeted by full name (Hey, its Three Dee!).

You can start to see why I hate myself.
 
Threedee said:
Well, I certainly understand the power of psychology and perception. In a fight, I would try to appear weak and perhaps a bit unbalanced. Crazy people are scary, and I sometimes question if I might be a bit crazy for real (history of family mental illness, has been really marked these past several years).

I possess what I call an "aura of absurdity." I get the "you crack me up" line a lot. People have historically perceived me as naive, not aware of what is truly going on around me, and so forth. When I enter the room, I shift the mood in favor of giddiness, and I have a strange presence I still cannot comprehend fully. I am often referred to and greeted by full name (Hey, its Three Dee!).

You can start to see why I hate myself.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware being emo was required to be a youngin.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
I wasn't aware being emo was required to be a youngin.
Click to expand...

When I was a teen (the demographic most associated with not being able to adapt or to control its emotions), I was positively stoic. You couldn't make this manly man upset (at least for long. The long process of piercing through my defense mechanisms does pay off with a nuclear powered rage, but you have to be committed).

For example, the Threedee that posted on P.Com and early on, on FP, rarely showed anger, swore, or flamed, etc. I was probably much more mature back then.

The last several years have been weird. Its almost like the college version of me is experiencing all the stuff my high school version never did. I would have said "fuck no, I'm not emo" a few years ago, but now I wonder... If only I'd evolve toward possessing useful knowledge and skills, I'd be happy.
 
Threedee said:
When I was a teen (the demographic most associated with not being able to adapt or to control its emotions), I was positively stoic. You couldn't make this manly man upset (at least for long. The long process of piercing through my defense mechanisms does pay off with a nuclear powered rage, but you have to be committed).

For example, the Threedee that posted on P.Com and early on, on FP, rarely showed anger, swore, or flamed, etc. I was probably much more mature back then.

The last several years have been weird. Its almost like the college version of me is experiencing all the stuff my high school version never did. I would have said "fuck no, I'm not emo" a few years ago, but now I wonder... If only I'd evolve toward possessing useful knowledge and skills, I'd be happy.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty much the opposite, I was a much angrier individual when I was in HS. And far less social. Now I'm far calmer and more fun to be around. Unless of course you're an idiot or I'm behind the wheel of some auto, in which case I'm blind with rage.
 
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 imagine, in this case, the debate is whether or not an unborn child is determined to have "human life' or does it only begin after it's drawn it's first breath.

I could be in error.
 
Wickedjews said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would seem that the debate isn't that the baby is human; but does it have human rights prior to birth and at what stage, or is it as Apple professes and only becomes a full fledged person at birth.

It will put your debate talents to work, you don't have to agree with the premise.
 
God.jpg


I AM THE GOD OF DEBATE. YOU SHALL ALL BOW TO ME.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I believe him. I like to smoke grass on occassion but I can't because I like being employed. So I don't.

I still can't believe SM drew the topic "Is homosexuality a mental illness". I swear that was a purely random pick.

There's some really interesting match ups here.
Click to expand...

You have done a good job in arranging all this, Mott.

But I am wondering about the pairings and topics in the later rounds. Assuming you get into those rounds, are you still going to be picking the topics and who debates which side? I understand you wrote them down and picked them from hats, but it might be less believeable in later rounds.
 
Wickedjews said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. The questions are set. We're not about to change them now. It would be unfair. Do you think SF and Liberty like "Cats and Dogs"? We have about the easiest topic to debate in the first round. Man up.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I tend to agree with WM here. The question is stupid and his position is indefensible. You're giving him lemons and asking him to make mole. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
His position is neither and I could defend that side easily but I'm not going to. The field is set. Watermark has to deal with the cards dealt to him like everyone else.
 
<(' . '<) said:
if mott feels the questions are equal I am sure he'd have no problem switching with wm :)
Click to expand...
I do but I won't on general principle. What if the other contestants don't like their question and want to switch sides? I'd have no problem taking Watermarks side of this issue had I drawn it and I would crush him still. He has to follow the same rules as everyone else. This isn't going to be a popularity contest. If Watermark wants to win he has to earn it and this is going to be the easiest topic he'll have to debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top