JPP Cup Debate Championship Field Is Set

out of curiosity, would the participants post a few general ideas about the types of issues they would LIKE to debate.....so we can make sure to avoid them all......
Much as I'd love it, I wouldn't recommend having me argue anything involving guns. It's pretty much like giving me a free win.
 
out of curiosity, would the participants post a few general ideas about the types of issues they would LIKE to debate.....so we can make sure to avoid them all......

Soviet Policy.
Nuclear Winter.
Ending the war in Vietnam.
Continuing the Moon flights.
Ford Pardoning Nixon.
Marcos ending Marshal law.
 
I take back my last post. I'd love to argue the following:

The MG registry
NFA taxes
Contractors/mercenaries in modern war
Open carry
The DOD budget
 
Much as I'd love it, I wouldn't recommend having me argue anything involving guns. It's pretty much like giving me a free win.

Any debate contest I have ever seen has not had people chose what side of an argument they get to argue.

So you could end up arguing for gun bans or stricter gun control.
 
Any debate contest I have ever seen has not had people chose what side of an argument they get to argue.

So you could end up arguing for gun bans or stricter gun control.
My higher sense of morality would have me argue against it, regardless of the assigned position.

That being said, I would do a pretty good job against a novice.
 
No, should I?
I'd recommend just about anything written by Michener. It's about the history and settlement of South Africa and includes the Boer war. Essentially it was a war of the original Dutch settlers of SA against the British Empire with the native African population caught in the middle.

If your interested in the subject the movie Breaker Morant is about the politics that ended the Boer war. It's an excellent movie..
 
I think that we should take the participants out of their comfort zone, have them argue the odd side of their regular argument. Avoid wedge issues.
 
I think that we should take the participants out of their comfort zone, have them argue the odd side of their regular argument. Avoid wedge issues.
I say leave that up to the judges. I mean say for example they put you, a strong debater, up against a weak debator like Watermark. Why not let Watermark debate a subject he's familiar with since you would have such a large advantage regardless of what the topic is or which side you would have to defend?
 
Last edited:
I think that we should take the participants out of their comfort zone, have them argue the odd side of their regular argument. Avoid wedge issues.
if we do that we'll spend the rest of the year debating whether the judges were fair in setting up the issues.....
 
I say leave that up to the judges. I mean say for example they put you, a strong debater, up against a weak debator like Watermark. Why not let Watermark debate a subject he's familiar with since you would have such a large advantage regardless of what the topic is or which side you would have to defend?

No... the assignment should be random.

The judges have 8 topics. They randomly draw the topics for the 8 match ups. Then they flip a coin to see who takes which side of the argument. No trying to make it 'fair' by adjusting for perceived 'strengths and weaknesses'.

Side note... I bet Water does well with the debates. When he actually focuses on anything other than being an emo spaz, he does quite well.

As for topics....

I would add:

Flat tax vs. current tax system
Abortion
Keynesian economic theory
Human cloning
Should fast food/junk food be regulated to help lower obesity rates
Should we just go ahead and anoint Obama as the second coming?
School vouchers
legalization of drugs
 
I also suggest some light hearted topics, see if us master debaters can think on our toes.

Cats vs. dogs
Hamburgers vs. hotdogs
Vanilla vs. chocolate
Pepsi vs. Coke
 
Back
Top