The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hey everyone, I've only just started posting in life but you all seem to be quite intelligent so I thought I'd ask for some help. I have recently signed up to participate in a debating competition. I will actually be representing my school however I have never even taken part in an official debate before in my life.
I have until the 3rd of November to prepare but I amn't even at school due to holidays until not this Tuesday but Next. However I do know that the topic of debate will be "This house would ban reality TV shows" and our time has been assigned the task of opposing this motion. In essence we want to keep them going. Anyway I say team...well it's just me and an American guy who just moved to our school last month and although he's argumentative he's not exactly reasonable. He seems to think everything is either right or wrong but if it was as simple as being right or wrong we wouldn't have to debate.
Anyway I was wondering if any of you could give me some help in preparing? Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
I have until the 3rd of November to prepare but I amn't even at school due to holidays until not this Tuesday but Next. However I do know that the topic of debate will be "This house would ban reality TV shows" and our time has been assigned the task of opposing this motion. In essence we want to keep them going. Anyway I say team...well it's just me and an American guy who just moved to our school last month and although he's argumentative he's not exactly reasonable. He seems to think everything is either right or wrong but if it was as simple as being right or wrong we wouldn't have to debate.
Anyway I was wondering if any of you could give me some help in preparing? Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Page:
Cubist wrote:
> Ohh but it's so tempting Strafex heh. I really don't know why he talks
> to me though.
Because it's a debate. *That's what you do*
And for the record, I didn't call you cold hearted or a simpleton. I might've gone for simpleton, but I wouldn't say cold hearted. The former overules the latter, I think.
> Ohh but it's so tempting Strafex heh. I really don't know why he talks
> to me though.
Because it's a debate. *That's what you do*
And for the record, I didn't call you cold hearted or a simpleton. I might've gone for simpleton, but I wouldn't say cold hearted. The former overules the latter, I think.
Ohh but it's so tempting Strafex heh. I really don't know why he talks to me though. I mean he quite clearly thinks I'm a moronic, cold hearted, simpleton who's only value in life is as an organ donor yet he still talks to me. I'm pretty sure he called me at least two of them in the topic I did in the movies forum a wee while back and now it's happening again. He should really learn to let things go.
Cubist wrote:
> Yes I did read what you said and you implied that someone somewhere
> had called you PC and there is no one in this topic who has called
> you PC at any point. As for the last topic ages ago you really
> shouldn't try and rationalise your mistake by bringing up that. I
> mean seriously why on earth would someone randomly start a topic
> addressing something that wasn't even said in that topic? They just
> wouldn't...god that was just sad.
I brought it up because you mentioned it recently in the other thread, where we were engaged in similar discussion, and referenced it in this. it was not a mistake at all.
> You're point being? Doesn't mean that Iraqi terrorists couldn't be
> responsible does it? They could be responsible for the September 11th
> attack in the same way you can be responsible for a murder without
> comitting it yourself e.g. you pay a hit man to do it for you.
Yes, I see your point here. Obviously, the men on the actual planes didn't need to be from Iraq, they could have worked for an Iraqi company, or Saddam himself. But where is the evidence? There must be something to make you believe Iraq was behind it. What is it? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?
> Looked pretty damn levelled to me:P
Because of course, you were there, examined the whole of the cities etc etc
> The whole casualties of war thing comes to mind. In WW2 Hitler bombed
> the hell out of Britain killing thousands of civillians and guess
> what! We did the same to them and both sides simply disregarded the
> innocent casualties as casualties of war and they are to be expected.
> In the end you have to look out for yourself and if that means keep
> your army safe and let the machines do the bombing then that's what
> you do.
Comparing Desert Storm II to WW2 is ridiculous. For a start, Hitler's Germany had actually done something wrong to start with.
What I'm trying to say is, if there are people in Iraq who do not agree with Saddam (the person who we are against...so that makes them closer to us than Saddam), and they do exist in their thousands, why should they have to suffer because of him? Put yourself in the position of an innocent Iraqi. You do nothing wrong, just get on with your life under a regime you don't agree with. And suddenly your city is being "levelled" because of this man who you don't agree with. And your friends, family, and the whole community in which you live and work will be killed because of someone you don't agree with. If another country suddenly dropped bombs on your city because they dislike Blair, I highly doubt you would say "Oh well, I'm just a casualty of war" and not be at all annoyed.
Nazi Germany were making advances on other countries and were actually fighting back, so in a way our bombing campaign was necessary. But to compare it to Gulf 2 isn't viable.
> Oh I have patience for forum members i actually like such as Grix
> Thraves, Dringo, Phuzzy, Black Gove etc. You know forum members that
> I actually respect as being good posters and many other good
> qualities but you well. What have you done to make me want to be
> patient and talk things through with you? Don't bother answering that
> question actually.
I will bother - I've presented points to rebutt and even refute those put forward by yourself. I've asked for evidence to prove your position and ask why you believe such. What happens if you don't like the person you'll be debating? Just gonna storm out in a hissy fit?
> Yes I did read what you said and you implied that someone somewhere
> had called you PC and there is no one in this topic who has called
> you PC at any point. As for the last topic ages ago you really
> shouldn't try and rationalise your mistake by bringing up that. I
> mean seriously why on earth would someone randomly start a topic
> addressing something that wasn't even said in that topic? They just
> wouldn't...god that was just sad.
I brought it up because you mentioned it recently in the other thread, where we were engaged in similar discussion, and referenced it in this. it was not a mistake at all.
> You're point being? Doesn't mean that Iraqi terrorists couldn't be
> responsible does it? They could be responsible for the September 11th
> attack in the same way you can be responsible for a murder without
> comitting it yourself e.g. you pay a hit man to do it for you.
Yes, I see your point here. Obviously, the men on the actual planes didn't need to be from Iraq, they could have worked for an Iraqi company, or Saddam himself. But where is the evidence? There must be something to make you believe Iraq was behind it. What is it? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?
> Looked pretty damn levelled to me:P
Because of course, you were there, examined the whole of the cities etc etc
> The whole casualties of war thing comes to mind. In WW2 Hitler bombed
> the hell out of Britain killing thousands of civillians and guess
> what! We did the same to them and both sides simply disregarded the
> innocent casualties as casualties of war and they are to be expected.
> In the end you have to look out for yourself and if that means keep
> your army safe and let the machines do the bombing then that's what
> you do.
Comparing Desert Storm II to WW2 is ridiculous. For a start, Hitler's Germany had actually done something wrong to start with.
What I'm trying to say is, if there are people in Iraq who do not agree with Saddam (the person who we are against...so that makes them closer to us than Saddam), and they do exist in their thousands, why should they have to suffer because of him? Put yourself in the position of an innocent Iraqi. You do nothing wrong, just get on with your life under a regime you don't agree with. And suddenly your city is being "levelled" because of this man who you don't agree with. And your friends, family, and the whole community in which you live and work will be killed because of someone you don't agree with. If another country suddenly dropped bombs on your city because they dislike Blair, I highly doubt you would say "Oh well, I'm just a casualty of war" and not be at all annoyed.
Nazi Germany were making advances on other countries and were actually fighting back, so in a way our bombing campaign was necessary. But to compare it to Gulf 2 isn't viable.
> Oh I have patience for forum members i actually like such as Grix
> Thraves, Dringo, Phuzzy, Black Gove etc. You know forum members that
> I actually respect as being good posters and many other good
> qualities but you well. What have you done to make me want to be
> patient and talk things through with you? Don't bother answering that
> question actually.
I will bother - I've presented points to rebutt and even refute those put forward by yourself. I've asked for evidence to prove your position and ask why you believe such. What happens if you don't like the person you'll be debating? Just gonna storm out in a hissy fit?
Cubist, a little tip.
As annoying as you might find your "opponent", making it personal and using personal insults is a sign of weakness. ;-)
Keep up the practice. :-)
As annoying as you might find your "opponent", making it personal and using personal insults is a sign of weakness. ;-)
Keep up the practice. :-)
Blank wrote:
> What was one of my points? Listening to what the other person has to
> say. I didn't say anyone had asked to be PC, you said I was PC in
> another thread.
Yes I did read what you said and you implied that someone somewhere had called you PC and there is no one in this topic who has called you PC at any point. As for the last topic ages ago you really shouldn't try and rationalise your mistake by bringing up that. I mean seriously why on earth would someone randomly start a topic addressing something that wasn't even said in that topic? They just wouldn't...god that was just sad.
> Hate to tell you, but ti's common knowledge that the terrorists were
> Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan...ian.
You're point being? Doesn't mean that Iraqi terrorists couldn't be responsible does it? They could be responsible for the September 11th attack in the same way you can be responsible for a murder without comitting it yourself e.g. you pay a hit man to do it for you.
> But they weren't! That's what I'm trying to say! They did bomb the
> cities, but hit key government buildings. They didn't level cities.
Looked pretty damn levelled to me:P
> Another thing that bothers me is the way you completely disregard all
> innocent Iraqis, and have the extremely narrow minded view that all
> middle Eastern countries are full of mongrels were terrorists are
> revered as kings. There is nothing that makes an Iraqi innocent any
> worse than a US or UK citizen. They just happen to be in the wrong
> place at the wrong time.
The whole casualties of war thing comes to mind. In WW2 Hitler bombed the hell out of Britain killing thousands of civillians and guess what! We did the same to them and both sides simply disregarded the innocent casualties as casualties of war and they are to be expected. In the end you have to look out for yourself and if that means keep your army safe and let the machines do the bombing then that's what you do.
> And actually, you should be going into this debate at the moment, and
> it's not off topic - it's excellent practice for what you'll have to
> face soon. Except on a forum you have more time to collect your
> thoughts, and can read over what you want to say and re-write it
> before actually putting it out there. So what you'll have to do will
> be more raw and spontaneous. And if you don't have the patience to do
> it on here...
Oh I have patience for forum members i actually like such as Grix Thraves, Dringo, Phuzzy, Black Gove etc. You know forum members that I actually respect as being good posters and many other good qualities but you well. What have you done to make me want to be patient and talk things through with you? Don't bother answering that question actually.
> What was one of my points? Listening to what the other person has to
> say. I didn't say anyone had asked to be PC, you said I was PC in
> another thread.
Yes I did read what you said and you implied that someone somewhere had called you PC and there is no one in this topic who has called you PC at any point. As for the last topic ages ago you really shouldn't try and rationalise your mistake by bringing up that. I mean seriously why on earth would someone randomly start a topic addressing something that wasn't even said in that topic? They just wouldn't...god that was just sad.
> Hate to tell you, but ti's common knowledge that the terrorists were
> Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan...ian.
You're point being? Doesn't mean that Iraqi terrorists couldn't be responsible does it? They could be responsible for the September 11th attack in the same way you can be responsible for a murder without comitting it yourself e.g. you pay a hit man to do it for you.
> But they weren't! That's what I'm trying to say! They did bomb the
> cities, but hit key government buildings. They didn't level cities.
Looked pretty damn levelled to me:P
> Another thing that bothers me is the way you completely disregard all
> innocent Iraqis, and have the extremely narrow minded view that all
> middle Eastern countries are full of mongrels were terrorists are
> revered as kings. There is nothing that makes an Iraqi innocent any
> worse than a US or UK citizen. They just happen to be in the wrong
> place at the wrong time.
The whole casualties of war thing comes to mind. In WW2 Hitler bombed the hell out of Britain killing thousands of civillians and guess what! We did the same to them and both sides simply disregarded the innocent casualties as casualties of war and they are to be expected. In the end you have to look out for yourself and if that means keep your army safe and let the machines do the bombing then that's what you do.
> And actually, you should be going into this debate at the moment, and
> it's not off topic - it's excellent practice for what you'll have to
> face soon. Except on a forum you have more time to collect your
> thoughts, and can read over what you want to say and re-write it
> before actually putting it out there. So what you'll have to do will
> be more raw and spontaneous. And if you don't have the patience to do
> it on here...
Oh I have patience for forum members i actually like such as Grix Thraves, Dringo, Phuzzy, Black Gove etc. You know forum members that I actually respect as being good posters and many other good qualities but you well. What have you done to make me want to be patient and talk things through with you? Don't bother answering that question actually.
Cubist wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Who said I want to be PC? Far from it.
>
> find me one quote from anywhere in this topic in which someone has
> asked you to be PC...
What was one of my points? Listening to what the other person has to say. I didn't say anyone had asked to be PC, you said I was PC in another thread.
> That truly is the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life. Apart
> from the fact that it is common knowledge Tony Blair is English
Hate to tell you, but ti's common knowledge that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan...ian.
> I
> just said that I thought Iraqi terrorists were responsible for the
> September 11th attacks. Whether they were directly or indirectly
> doesn't matter anymore though as either way our troops went in and
> levelled a few cities. You just got all touchy when I said they
> should have saved themselves the time, money, resources and
> casualties on our side by bombing Iraq from far away as either way
> the cities were levelled.
But they weren't! That's what I'm trying to say! They did bomb the cities, but hit key government buildings. They didn't level cities.
Another thing that bothers me is the way you completely disregard all innocent Iraqis, and have the extremely narrow minded view that all middle Eastern countries are full of mongrels were terrorists are revered as kings. There is nothing that makes an Iraqi innocent any worse than a US or UK citizen. They just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And actually, you should be going into this debate at the moment, and it's not off topic - it's excellent practice for what you'll have to face soon. Except on a forum you have more time to collect your thoughts, and can read over what you want to say and re-write it before actually putting it out there. So what you'll have to do will be more raw and spontaneous. And if you don't have the patience to do it on here...
> Blank wrote:
> Who said I want to be PC? Far from it.
>
> find me one quote from anywhere in this topic in which someone has
> asked you to be PC...
What was one of my points? Listening to what the other person has to say. I didn't say anyone had asked to be PC, you said I was PC in another thread.
> That truly is the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life. Apart
> from the fact that it is common knowledge Tony Blair is English
Hate to tell you, but ti's common knowledge that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Afghanistan...ian.
> I
> just said that I thought Iraqi terrorists were responsible for the
> September 11th attacks. Whether they were directly or indirectly
> doesn't matter anymore though as either way our troops went in and
> levelled a few cities. You just got all touchy when I said they
> should have saved themselves the time, money, resources and
> casualties on our side by bombing Iraq from far away as either way
> the cities were levelled.
But they weren't! That's what I'm trying to say! They did bomb the cities, but hit key government buildings. They didn't level cities.
Another thing that bothers me is the way you completely disregard all innocent Iraqis, and have the extremely narrow minded view that all middle Eastern countries are full of mongrels were terrorists are revered as kings. There is nothing that makes an Iraqi innocent any worse than a US or UK citizen. They just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And actually, you should be going into this debate at the moment, and it's not off topic - it's excellent practice for what you'll have to face soon. Except on a forum you have more time to collect your thoughts, and can read over what you want to say and re-write it before actually putting it out there. So what you'll have to do will be more raw and spontaneous. And if you don't have the patience to do it on here...
Blank wrote:
> Who said I want to be PC? Far from it.
find me one quote from anywhere in this topic in which someone has asked you to be PC...
> And bringing up past events with the sole purpose of annoying you? I
> think not. Serious points, every one of them. All based on an ACTUAL
> debate we just had over in Movies. So you ought to pay attention to
> those a lot more than those of others which are just general. Mine
> are tailor made just for you. Aren't I kind?
Not to me you're not, as a matter of fact if I had to guess I'd say you are the anti-christ. Possibly Damien.
> "Tony Blair, he's English"
> "No he isn't"
> "Yes, he is. Look, he has an English passport, was born in
> England, his parents were English..."
> "Well I think he's Russian"
> "Why?"
> "Look, I just think that, okay? It's my opinion, it can't be
> wrong"
That truly is the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life. Apart from the fact that it is common knowledge Tony Blair is English I just said that I thought Iraqi terrorists were responsible for the September 11th attacks. Whether they were directly or indirectly doesn't matter anymore though as either way our troops went in and levelled a few cities. You just got all touchy when I said they should have saved themselves the time, money, resources and casualties on our side by bombing Iraq from far away as either way the cities were levelled. I really don't want to get into this now though as it is in the past and as I said before it is clear that none of us are going to change our beliefs. I believe that Iraqi terrorists were in someway responsible for September 11th and you don't. Big deal. I probably am wrong but frankly I don't care. Either way I'm pretty sure they did.
> Clearly it can.
> Who said I want to be PC? Far from it.
find me one quote from anywhere in this topic in which someone has asked you to be PC...
> And bringing up past events with the sole purpose of annoying you? I
> think not. Serious points, every one of them. All based on an ACTUAL
> debate we just had over in Movies. So you ought to pay attention to
> those a lot more than those of others which are just general. Mine
> are tailor made just for you. Aren't I kind?
Not to me you're not, as a matter of fact if I had to guess I'd say you are the anti-christ. Possibly Damien.
> "Tony Blair, he's English"
> "No he isn't"
> "Yes, he is. Look, he has an English passport, was born in
> England, his parents were English..."
> "Well I think he's Russian"
> "Why?"
> "Look, I just think that, okay? It's my opinion, it can't be
> wrong"
That truly is the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life. Apart from the fact that it is common knowledge Tony Blair is English I just said that I thought Iraqi terrorists were responsible for the September 11th attacks. Whether they were directly or indirectly doesn't matter anymore though as either way our troops went in and levelled a few cities. You just got all touchy when I said they should have saved themselves the time, money, resources and casualties on our side by bombing Iraq from far away as either way the cities were levelled. I really don't want to get into this now though as it is in the past and as I said before it is clear that none of us are going to change our beliefs. I believe that Iraqi terrorists were in someway responsible for September 11th and you don't. Big deal. I probably am wrong but frankly I don't care. Either way I'm pretty sure they did.
> Clearly it can.
Who said I want to be PC? Far from it.
And bringing up past events with the sole purpose of annoying you? I think not. Serious points, every one of them. All based on an ACTUAL debate we just had over in Movies. So you ought to pay attention to those a lot more than those of others which are just general. Mine are tailor made just for you. Aren't I kind?
Oh, and I don't believe in a clear cut right and wrong in a debate such as the one you'll be involved with, but when it's a matter of fact as in our other debate then there is a clear cut right and wrong. No room for opinion. It's based on evidence. What you were saying in the other thread was basically similar to something like this:
"Tony Blair, he's English"
"No he isn't"
"Yes, he is. Look, he has an English passport, was born in England, his parents were English..."
"Well I think he's Russian"
"Why?"
"Look, I just think that, okay? It's my opinion, it can't be wrong"
Clearly it can.
And bringing up past events with the sole purpose of annoying you? I think not. Serious points, every one of them. All based on an ACTUAL debate we just had over in Movies. So you ought to pay attention to those a lot more than those of others which are just general. Mine are tailor made just for you. Aren't I kind?
Oh, and I don't believe in a clear cut right and wrong in a debate such as the one you'll be involved with, but when it's a matter of fact as in our other debate then there is a clear cut right and wrong. No room for opinion. It's based on evidence. What you were saying in the other thread was basically similar to something like this:
"Tony Blair, he's English"
"No he isn't"
"Yes, he is. Look, he has an English passport, was born in England, his parents were English..."
"Well I think he's Russian"
"Why?"
"Look, I just think that, okay? It's my opinion, it can't be wrong"
Clearly it can.
To be honest, I do think there are plenty of clear cut right/wrong topics, a person's position just depends on lots of things though.
Indeed Beldandy, arguably the whole point of having a debate is to put forward different views and opinions to which you are bias too. Of course there are always these people who look for the clear cut you're right or you're wrong.
Page: