I think that's the general idea; one is presented with a perspective on a given topic and must convincingly sell it to the baying mob, pausing only to crush your opponent's arguments like a stale bread-stick at a peep-show.

Or something.

Mayfair wrote:

aaron wrote:i want an "electrical audio debate society" satin jacket

maybe we should sell those giant candy bars to pay for them?

Yes! And we could actually get the logo for the Electrical Audio Debate Team on the candy bars!! That would RULE! I think I am now more excited about the Electrical Audio Debate Team Candy Bars than I am about the jackets... or at least as much.

mayfair, i know that a debate society demands taking stands on difficult issues, but i want to tell you that i don't think it's necessary to choose candy bars over satin jackets, or vice versa. the two work great together, no?

no matter which you prefer - and i'm sure we all have different, worthy opinions on the matter - what matters is feeling good and looking great, right? i think that's something we can all agree upon.

segerandpriest wrote:no matter which you prefer - and i'm sure we all have different, worthy opinions on the matter - what matters is feeling good and looking great, right? i think that's something we can all agree upon.

Yes, agreed! I can not wait to look good in my satin jacket while I am feeling good about eating the first box of EA candy bars I was supposed to be selling to pay for said satin jacket.

I did not realize how fun debating can be!

There's no challenge to this if one is not occasionally required to debate from a position in which one does not personally believe.

ginandtacos.com wrote:There's no challenge to this if one is not occasionally required to debate from a position in which one does not personally believe.

I'm afraid I dont really understand it then. I mean in theory, yes, it helps build debating skills but can you (and should you) really put that much effort into arguing for something that you think is wrong? Especially if you think it's very wrong (I'm thinking abortion would crop up sooner or later).

Does that make us no better than lawyers?

I think it's good to examine the other side's reasons for what they believe. You can be sure, then, that you understand what you are arguing for or against and this provides a check against becoming a knee-jerk political hack.

It also keeps you from saying something like "People who think Samoas are better than Thin Mints are pure evil" (though it doesn't keep me from saying it). The opposing side usually has a number of reasons for why they believe what they believe; it's better to undertand these reasons than to dismiss the opposition as mistaken and stupid and not worth your time.

In other words, examining the opposition's reasons for believing what they do keeps you human.

Maybe there is an argument that Samoas are better than Thin Mints. I mean, I fucking doubt it, but maybe.

Well, if we only argue our own personal opinions, I'm afraid there might not be two well-developed and opposing sides on a lot of issues.

I was saying it is good to argue the other side. Trying to say that, anyway.

I need my thin mints.

Teams will be picked based on the ranking by the captains, and affirmative and negative positions will be assigned by a coin toss. So yes, it's not only possible, but actually likely that you will be required to argue a position with which you do not agree.

As to the simple "why", Mayfair has it right:

Mayfair wrote:it's about the strength the skill of the debater rather than the validity of the subject debated, right?

As to the somewhat less simple "why", Bumble has it right:

bumble wrote:I think it's good to examine the other side's reasons for what they believe. You can be sure, then, that you understand what you are arguing for or against and this provides a check against becoming a knee-jerk political hack.

Even though when it comes to Samoas, she's wrong. Dead wrong.

And as to the practical "why", ginandtacos.com has it right:

ginandtacos.com wrote:Well, if we only argue our own personal opinions, I'm afraid there might not be two well-developed and opposing sides on a lot of issues.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Even though when it comes to Samoas, she's wrong. Dead wrong.

LVP, expect the ninja squadron to arrive at your doorstep tomorrow afternoon, tea time.