Debating topics

[gekko]

So, university starts next week, and debating will begin soon after. As you may or may not know, I'm pretty heavy into debating (more so every year), so I've been thinking alot already about debate topics.

That's where you come in. Essentially, I want you to do my dirty work for me. :P Seriously though, I value your input and could benefit from it a great deal.

What I'm looking for are topcis or ideas that can be turned into good debates. 'But gekko!' you cry, 'what makes a good debate?' Don't worry, I'm getting to that.

A good debate is witty, informative, original, topical, entertaining and thought-provoking. While it doesn't have to be all of those things, the more the better (the 2nd best debate I participated in last year was the following: Martha Stewart Should Host A Reality Show From Inside Prison). The 'Big X' topics are NOT good debates (X should be a number, but I can't remember exactly how many there are). The 'Big X' debates include capital punishment, euthenasia, abortion, etc. Recent aditions include marijuana legalisation and gay marriage. Essentially, any really overdone argument is no longer a good debate, unless you have a 100%, brand spankin, absolutely, totally new spin on such a topic, that has never ever been thought of by anyone, ever. Basically, don't try.

So, let the ideas flow! At this time I'm more interested in broad topics than in specifics, but feel free to get down to the nitty-gritty if you're so inclined.

One idea I'm considering running is a classic Swift argument: Canadians applying for welfare should be deported. The case should be alot of fun to run, and the debates I forsee would be quite lively. Essentially, the government (that's PRO, btw) argues that welfare cases are a drain on society, no one likes seeing poor people, etc. The more horrible arguments, the better. In the end, the case is actually purposely a loser -- you can't win on arguments. For the final speech, the prime minister stands and talks about how while our solution was clearly ridiculous, it's no worse than the current situation -- rising poverty rates, the inability of our welfare system to work towards getting people OFF the welfare system, the inability of our governments to create jobs and affordable housing, etc.

That's a fairly curvy approach. Often, the best debates can be simply straightforward. My partner and I are both hockey fans, so we'll also want to prepare at least one case in that area. Likely choices include Todd Bertuzzi and the player/owner lockout.

That's all for now. Let me know if any of any good arguments you've had recently; let me know your thoughts on just about anytning you think would make a good debate.

gekko

ps dancing bananas do not make good debates.

[BruceGod]

ps dancing bananas do not make good debates.

Of course dancing bananas make good debates! :o It's all in the presentation. For example, you could debate the merits of bananas dancing disco vs the mamba, or argue for a new style of dancing on bananas. At the very least, your audience will be more entertained than arguing about exporting all Canadian welfare dependants.

Of course, you probably want something with more substance than a dancing banana debate, so here are a few ideas. We should use criminals for human lab rats. In this way, they can repay their debt to society, and nobody will care much if they contract some incurable disease or condition. (I'm guessing you're Canadian, but forgive me if I'm wrong.) Since bike gangs are taking over Canada (I actually saw a book proclaiming this when I visited in early June), motorcycles should be outlawed. This will solve the problem. See, just about anything in the outrageous claims post can usually be turned into a pretty good argument if you follow its semi-logical precepts. (After all, a good outrageous claim is fully defensible.)

If you want a more outrageous flavor of debate, you can always try something else. Cats are actually aliens from another planet and are studying us. Alligators make good watchreptiles. Ketchup cures cancer. The only problem is keeping it in the realms of debateability, since you will have to find facts to support your position, but these can be a lot of fun.

Sorry for posting so long. Hopefully, I've given you something to think about. May all your debates be thought-provoking and insightful. :rolleyes:

[--Pete]

Hi,

For your consideration: "Since Canadians are often misidentified as 'Americans' throughout the world, Canada should adopt French as its native language to help differentiate itself from its neighbor to the South."

Or does that fall into "The 'Big X' topics" North of the 49th parallel? ;)

--Pete

[Sir_Die_alot]

Ketchup cures cancer.

What is to debate here? I eat lots of Ketchup and I've never had cancer so it MUST cure cancer! :lol:

[Guest]

It will definetly show who has the principles for real dialectic and who tries to relie on debate tricks.

[Chaerophon]

Well, from an existentialist's discursive perspective, 'egomania' has no classificatory meaning; self-determining will to power does not subject itself to such 'origin-validating' judgments. It transcends them.

One can only 'critique' existentialism in such a way if one accepts the validity of an 'original' discourse.

[Guest]

Actually no.

The concept of existentialism trancends all arguements against it.

But from the existentialists perspective, the subject does having meaning once it is considered. The existentialist perspective on the discourse is differrent from the non-existentialst, but once he exsperiences a process it has as much signifigance as anything else that he/she thinks upon.

[Chaerophon]

Ummm... yeah, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks. You're going to have to clarify that before I can comment, but as of right now, I'm thinking that it's pretty much garbage.

One can only 'critique' existentialism in such a way if one accepts the validity of an 'original' discourse.

Because the existentialist rejects such discourses (i.e. the notion that the task of existence is to realize some fundamental purpose / has been imbued with intrinsic purpose) no such discourse will be acceptable to him or her. Period. The task, instead, is to overcome such discourses. Ethical categorizations such as those involved in characterizing one as "egomaniacal", rely on, for instance, moral/social normative discourses that are incompatible with the existentialist's fundamental goals/reasons.

[Occhidiangela]

Legalize prostitution. Pro and con.

I am pro. Won't say why, as I do not wish to get into any debates on the Lounge for a while, and I am just offering a topic.

Seriously, please don't make a debate out of it!

Just trying to help Gekko. :lol: *with help like that, who needs hindrance?*

Occhi

[Guest]

Edited- Ghostiger, you were over the line.

-Griselda

[Guest]

the prostitutes are really hot!!

[Chaerophon]

Extensive jargon is ussually a crutch for the learned but noncomprehending .

Is that how you defend your own posting style?

Existentialisnm is a rather simple philosophy(most philosphies are) and can be well explained with mundane words.

Tell that to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Sartre. One of Nietzsche's fringe gripes is that language, as it exists, is a tool not best fitted to the proper elucidation of his philosophy.

What really shows the joke of your first post is - "no such discourse will be acceptable to him or her". This is true. But since we were talking about people in a already in a debate class your point is moot thus your enire first post was meaningless.

And a side note - "egomanical" is not an ethical classification. However the extistentialist will of course reject the notion, as it is a concept that that is only valid if you beleive that a society of individuals exists.

What kind of debate can one have if the proponents of one side of the debate refuse to accept any counter to their ethical perspective on the basis of the fact that they believe the logical foundation of their opponent's arguments to be flawed? Egomania is an ethical classification. There are normative implications running all through the concept in its lay use. Even in its purest, most 'clinical' use, as you've pointed out, one cannot determine 'egomania' without reference to societal classificatory norms; thus it is entirely irrelevant to the existentialist. What use can even such a theoretical 'pure' classification have for an existentialist who believes that the source of his or her transcendence is, in fact, his or her rejection of all other 'originating' discourses and the constraints of society at large? If it is a concept that is "only valid if you believe that a society of individuals exists" then it assumes a normative function even in its 'purest' form, does it not?

While I grasp your larger point in the sense that you still think that it could be a source for debate, I think that the fact that the existentialist outright rejects such comparative, 'rational' classifications means that the classification of such a one as an egomaniac would require the 'pro' side to first unravel the entirety of existentialism's philosophy of transcendence. Good luck.

Since the existentialist defies all norms of societal classification in his or her 'overcoming', they are uncriticizable from 'within' such discourses. In order to debunk their position, one must debunk the rational foundation of their philosophy, which is, at its most basic level, that since the 'science' of metaphysical rationality cannot prove the validity of originating discourses that imbue life/society/morality with inherent meaning, the popular acceptance and imposition of any such discourse is, in fact, a societally induced crutch or constraint. If you can do that, then I would suggest that you start writing right now, because you sir, can change the world. Otherwise, in any such debate, the 'con' side can merely point out that you are operating from within just such a constraining discourse of the 'herd', and without the aid of metaphysical proof (a la the failed exercise of Cartesian rationality), the 'pro' side can get nowhere.

[Brista]

I think one needs to tailor the debate to the audience. If your university class doesn't know or care anything about Diablo2 then a debate on maphack would bore them rigid

Reversing that logic and following the trail back, find a topic that really matters to them

Student funding, gender issues, religion and politics may be hot topics. Animal rights perhaps, civil liberties

Try to pick a subject where every single person is likely to have a strongly-held opinion. And not something that people argue about every day and are sick of

You know the demographic better than we do

I would advise avoiding things that will only engage a few of the audience. Two people arguing about some -ism that's just abstract is likely to send people to sleep on a hot autumn day.

Similarly if none of them are Canadian I doubt that Pete's idea will work well. If I had to sit there listening to people arguing about whether Canadians should speak French my overwhelming reaction would be "who cares?" followed by an hour of gazing dozily out of the window

If you want a specific how about: People under 21 shouldn't be allowed to drive - that pits concerns about the road death toll with concerns about individual freedom which may well touch most of your audience.

or Uninformed decisions damage democracy. Voters should be required to pass a simple current affairs awareness test before casting a vote

The test of a good debate subject is when people are still talking about it after they leave. Good luck!

[--Pete]

Hi,

Similarly if none of them are Canadian I doubt that Pete's idea will work well.

Given that gekko asked for the input, that he lists his location as Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada and that he lists one possible topic as "Canadians applying for welfare should be deported" I would be very surprised if *most* of the audience weren't Canadian.

I think one needs to tailor the debate to the audience.

That is so self evident, it almost shouldn't need to be said. If gekko were a Brit or an Aussie, I would not have made the suggestion I did.

--Pete

[gekko]

Pete's right on this one. However, I suppose I'm also guilty of being (purposely) less than clear. I was looking for (and found -- thanks for your input thus far everyone) some general ideas to get my own creative juices flowing. I am Canadian, and most deabtes do concern Canada. However, many of our debates include Americans, or deal with American issues. Foreign issues are also very popular. Last year most of the top teams ran at least a few cases concerning the American War on Terror, the wars in the middle east, or other similar topics.

Thanks again everyone for your input. I've got more than a few ideas kicking around in my head now, so I'm off to a good start. Feel free to keep posting any ideas that come to you (or PM me, if this thread gets old and you just want to toss some ideas around).

gekko

[Guest]

Suffice to say what I see as a proper responce is not see as such by others.

Ill let it at I personally have a low regard for you now, and the arguement and wont be responding beyond this.

[Minionman]

Legalize prostitution. Pro and con.

I am pro. Won't say why, as I do not wish to get into any debates on the Lounge for a while, and I am just offering a topic.

Seriously, please don't make a debate out of it!

Those of us with imaginations are using them right now :)

I can guess the real reason but won't start any arguing about it.

Here's some ideas: Is colder or warmer weather better for people in general? You can use health information and everyone knows in general about the weather.

Do people consider real life enough when arguing politics? Usually political arguments turn into a bunch of people going kind of nutty in their support of an issue, and making arguments that have nothing to do with what they actual;ly see in life, at least that's what I see. Others may disagree, and the debate group can argue about that. If anyone actually argues, I'm not arguing back in this thread.

Related to that, do people make major decisions very well or not? Examples here would be making laws based on school shootings rather than street crime even though street crime kills more people. You'd have to get information about this and see how much of an issue it actually is.

[kandrathe]

Hmmm, I was thinking along the "what would be of interest to the audience" line as well.

People under 21 shouldn't be allowed to drive...

My take on that one is that anyone who has not earned a HS diploma under 21 cannot drive.

Voters should be required to pass a simple current affairs awareness test before casting a vote

Unfortunatly, apathy is the problem so adding barriers would exacerbate the problem. People will do what they are incented to do, or participate if they feel there is merit. The Russians used to hand out free vodka at the polling stations for those who had voted. I'm not suggesting anything like that, but I ponder if Robert A. Heinlein wasn't on to something by requiring compulsory government service for 2-3 years prior to being given full citizenship. Maybe people would value it more.

This is probably a big X topic for Canadians, but I've always marvelled at the odacity of humankind in felling an ancient old growth tree. These ancient giants that have stood for 200 years, and we feel we have the right to tear them down and turn them into lumber.

A good topic for University is why they charge tuition to citizens at all. Educating the best and brightest of Canada is in the national interest so why add the burden of tuition?

Another that maybe a big X, but you decide, is the influence of American Pop culture and the domination of American culture and institutions.

Oh, and for Occhi. I too am in favor of legalizing adult prostitution, although I've never and never will utilize one. My reason is simple; Why should the state waste money regulating the behavior of adults in private? Same argument for gambling.

[Chaerophon]

Suffice to say what I see as a proper responce is not see as such by others.

Ill let it at I personally have a low regard for you now, and the arguement and wont be responding beyond this.

I read and responded to your post. It would be quite simple for you to argue with me if you'd like; try attacking my points rather than me. Something tells me that "you won't be responding" because you dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of. That being said, I'm quite sure that I have made some points that could be subjected to critique. Feel free.

As a side note, if you want to discuss complex philosophical ideas, I would suggest that in the future, you be prepared for some 'jargon'. Anyone who has read and understood existentialist philosophers will undoubtedly understand the language that goes with the territory. Since all signs seemed to point to the fact that you knew what you were talking about, I thought that such language would best express what I wanted to say.

Cheers.

[Guest]

nt Was meant to be a personal tell.