Org Mobile Site
Thread: Debate Advice
I'm going to be in my first Debate at TWC, about Do Violent Video Games and such cause Violent Actions in Kids (School shootings for example). I took the side of they do, just to see how I do. 
Anyone got advice for me?
Anyone got advice for me?
You're wrong.
paint the other side as violent neanderthals who use thier killing games as practice before they go on thier own killing spree....
you need some fancy soundbyte which the media agencys can repeat easily, Games are murder! or something similar...
do you believe the side your arguing for ?
you'll struggle to find people who agree with what your saying... though there are supporting arguments out there...
you need some fancy soundbyte which the media agencys can repeat easily, Games are murder! or something similar...
do you believe the side your arguing for ?
you'll struggle to find people who agree with what your saying... though there are supporting arguments out there...
you´re wrong...so logic isn´t gonna get you anywhere.
what you need is to confuse the topic......make veiled accusations that your opponent is a terroristic communist and that he uses videogames as propaganda tools to brainwash the youth, and they will break into your houses and rape your womenfolk.....try to dig up some dirt on him...can´t find any? make it up, let your opponent try to disprove he collects nazi pajamas ....make sure some "independent" source makes this public just before the debate.
godspeed...and remember....it's not a lie if you believe it!
what you need is to confuse the topic......make veiled accusations that your opponent is a terroristic communist and that he uses videogames as propaganda tools to brainwash the youth, and they will break into your houses and rape your womenfolk.....try to dig up some dirt on him...can´t find any? make it up, let your opponent try to disprove he collects nazi pajamas ....make sure some "independent" source makes this public just before the debate.
godspeed...and remember....it's not a lie if you believe it!
If you believe in the position you're taking, it should be easy enough to argue for it. If you don't believe in the position you're taking, have a look at Dromikaites' Goebbels award thread, where he argues in favour of culling children, to see an example of arguing a position one is actually personally opposed to.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
yeah I know, but I can try
Thanks Everyone
Yell and scream and call your opponent a baby murderer who is threatening to take away the constitution. Thats what I do.
Casually toss around the opinion of a famous philosopher on the subject. It never ceases to impress people. I do it all the time.
No need to worry about the correct application of the quote, the opponent hasn't read him anymore than you did.
No need to worry about the correct application of the quote, the opponent hasn't read him anymore than you did.
See if you can find some literature on the topic that supports your argument. Like scour pubmed, web of knowledge or so.
You might go for a "secondary" argument, i.e. instead of argueing that violent video games are the root cause of violence you could argue that they can serve as a trigger or catalyst that give inherently violent kids the final kick or help to cultivate an obsession about going on a killing spree.
Since there are millions of gamers playing violent games, and relatively few violent outbursts because of them, don't argue about the case in general. Use specific examples, with names and surnames. I remember I read some time ago about a kid who was violent and specifically said it was because he saw it in GTA 3. Google it around. If you try to argue the case in general, you'll probably lose, because your opponent has statistics to back him up.
When we were young we would play ninja after watching a kung-fu movies blabla
Good intro, easy to defend.
Good intro, easy to defend.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You're wrong.
The irony from a “debate advice” perspective is funny. You're wrong.
on topic:
The strawman tactic usually works around here
Photoshop images of the Mario Brothers performing violent acts against others.
Then use it as visual proof.
Then use it as visual proof.
Depends on a few factors:
1) Is this going to be judged, by a neutral observer?
2) If so, in what format is the debate?
3) If judged, be sure to try and find sources for whatever you're backing, even if flimsy at best. Bad sources are better than none. Of course, if you can somehow find good sources on your subject, use those first.
4) If its not going to be judged, strawman the hell out of your opponent and most people will not notice the difference. IE- Bringing up lots of examples of violent people who didn't become have violent videogames. Quite likely, you'll goad your opponent into spewing more nonsense than yourself.
1) Is this going to be judged, by a neutral observer?
2) If so, in what format is the debate?
3) If judged, be sure to try and find sources for whatever you're backing, even if flimsy at best. Bad sources are better than none. Of course, if you can somehow find good sources on your subject, use those first.
4) If its not going to be judged, strawman the hell out of your opponent and most people will not notice the difference. IE- Bringing up lots of examples of violent people who didn't become have violent videogames. Quite likely, you'll goad your opponent into spewing more nonsense than yourself.
A quick google around says you are wrong, buuuut, wiki links to some sources who disagree with you. Try there.
Originally Posted by seireikhaan:
Depends on a few factors:
1) Is this going to be judged, by a neutral observer?
2) If so, in what format is the debate?
3) If judged, be sure to try and find sources for whatever you're backing, even if flimsy at best. Bad sources are better than none. Of course, if you can somehow find good sources on your subject, use those first.
4) If its not going to be judged, strawman the hell out of your opponent and most people will not notice the difference. IE- Bringing up lots of examples of violent people who didn't become have violent videogames. Quite likely, you'll goad your opponent into spewing more nonsense than yourself.
AFAIK they take it in turns, and it's judged by popular vote/acclaim of whoever decides to read it and comment on it (there's a debate thread and an accompanying commentary thread). 4) won't work, as I'll warn him for off-topic posting.Depends on a few factors:
1) Is this going to be judged, by a neutral observer?
2) If so, in what format is the debate?
3) If judged, be sure to try and find sources for whatever you're backing, even if flimsy at best. Bad sources are better than none. Of course, if you can somehow find good sources on your subject, use those first.
4) If its not going to be judged, strawman the hell out of your opponent and most people will not notice the difference. IE- Bringing up lots of examples of violent people who didn't become have violent videogames. Quite likely, you'll goad your opponent into spewing more nonsense than yourself.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
AFAIK they take it in turns, and it's judged by popular vote/acclaim of whoever decides to read it and comment on it (there's a debate thread and an accompanying commentary thread). 4) won't work, as I'll warn him for off-topic posting.
AFAIK they take it in turns, and it's judged by popular vote/acclaim of whoever decides to read it and comment on it (there's a debate thread and an accompanying commentary thread). 4) won't work, as I'll warn him for off-topic posting.
In that case, good luck arguing that case.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO