• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Defend The Indefensible

 
 
 
ruby sparks

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ok so this is based on a BBC radio game. It's a test of your creative debating skills.

Posters are to try to briefly defend a proposition. Maximum 3 sentences. You must try to vigorously support a topical theme that is either ludicrous, distasteful, politically incorrect, plainly wrong, self-derisory or entirely contrary to popular opinion. You don't have to mean it. :)

The person who proposes the proposition picks a winner (after, say, there are 3 entries or after 24 hours) and the winner gets to think up the next proposition.



First proposition:

Donald Trump should be awarded an Honorary degree from Palo Alto University Gender Studies Faculty for services to gender equality.
 
Last edited:
ruby sparks said:
Donald Trump should be awarded an Honorary degree from Palo Alto University Gender Studies Faculty for services to gender equality.
Click to expand...

Trump is a vile, insecure human being who only compliments people who are either literally or metaphorically blowing him.

He does not judge; his expectations are consistent regardless of gender.

Donald Trump is the most egalitarian person with regards to his narcissism and as such deserves an Honorary degree from Palo Alto University Gender Studies Faculty for services to gender equality.
 
ruby sparks said:
First proposition:

Donald Trump should be awarded an Honorary degree from Palo Alto University Gender Studies Faculty for services to gender equality.
Click to expand...
Trump's treatment of women dehumanizes them, thereby leaving the human race with only one gender, thereby entirely eliminating gender inequality.
 
ruby sparks said:
Donald Trump should be awarded an Honorary degree from Palo Alto University Gender Studies Faculty for services to gender equality.
Click to expand...
Trump's behavior, boasting, and constantly sticking his schnozz into issues actual presidents would avoid has contributed greatly to gender equality studies.
As he almost never provides a source for his statements, other than the oft-cited 'some people are saying,' his claims, the need for a proper reference to counter his bullshit is quite visible.
So when he touts the way things are, or he thinks they are, or they ought to be, those who wish to pack his statements up his ass are motivated to search out actual studies to provide references that his orations lack.
 
Ok so 3 answers in and thanks for the replies. They're all good and in the right vein, which is cool because I wasn't sure I'd explained the game enough.

I'm going to pick Bomb#20's argument, because of the clever twist on the assumptions of what gender inequality means. :)

Bomb#20, you can set the next one. On any topical or non-topical topic.

When the game is aired on the radio here, they apparently receive regular complaints from listeners who don't get that people aren't seriously defending the proposition. This is especially true when the justifications involve things that are close to the knuckle (eg the suggestion that eliminating women is a valid way to eliminate gender inequality). :)
 
ruby sparks said:
Ok so 3 answers in and thanks for the replies. They're all good and in the right vein, which is cool because I wasn't sure I'd explained the game enough.

I'm going to pick Bomb#20's argument, because of the clever twist on the assumptions of what gender inequality means. :)

Bomb#20, you can set the next one. On any topical or non-topical topic.

When the game is aired on the radio here, they apparently receive regular complaints from listeners who don't get that people aren't seriously defending the proposition. This is especially true when the justifications involve things that are close to the knuckle (eg the suggestion that eliminating women is a valid way to eliminate gender inequality). :)
Click to expand...

I agree that Bomb deserve the win - not only does he satisfy the contest criteria, but offers a solution to overpopulation!
 
ruby sparks said:
I'm going to pick Bomb#20's argument, because of the clever twist on the assumptions of what gender inequality means. :)

Bomb#20, you can set the next one. On any topical or non-topical topic.
Click to expand...
Woohoo! Thanks Ruby!

But that was just a trial run to explain the game and kick things off, so naturally you started with an easy challenge. Time to kick things up a notch into the truly, truly indefensible...

Second proposition:

Greedo shot first.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Greedo shot first.
Click to expand...

In the 1997 special edition of Star Wars, Greedo shot first. Whether or not one considers this canon is irrelevant; the fact remains that there is a movie where it happened.
 
Greedo, a bounty hunter employed by Jabba the Hutt, is a Rodian. A species that is definitively not human. Nor is his equipment. The blaster he used fires a bolt with a frequency centered in the Rodian visible spectrum, and entirely outside the human VS. Thus, Han's shot was the first one seen by humans, but was fired as a reaction to Greedo's initial shot.

When people started to question Solo's morality in shooting first, a distraught Lucas felt that everyone was missing the significance of the scene.
Han fired when he detected the crease*, demonstrating his wide experience with non-humans attacking him, and his resolve to survive any encounter.
Lucas altered the scene in later releases to capture the true sense of the moment. This, of couse, made the purists, the hipsters who saw the movie in theatre, lose their collective shit.


*Fencing term for the change in one's facial expression when one makes the positive choice to begin an attack, such as, but not exclusively, a crease appearing on the brow. See also: a 'tell,' in poker. A remarkably useless fact when one is facing Darth Vader, cyborgs, stormtroopers, or androids, what with their having armored, artificial, or no faces.
 
Keith&Co. said:
*Fencing term for the change in one's facial expression when one makes the positive choice to begin an attack, such as, but not exclusively, a crease appearing on the brow. See also: a 'tell,' in poker. A remarkably useless fact when one is facing Darth Vader, cyborgs, stormtroopers, or androids, what with their having armored, artificial, or no faces.
Click to expand...

Why I always wear my Darth Vader helmet while playing poker... which is, in turn, why I have a hard time finding games.
 
Some fine entries, but I have to give the nod to...

ruby sparks said:
I am unable to enter this round, because I don't watch Star Trek movies. :(
Click to expand...

In the words of my wife, you Kobayashi Maru'd the hell out of that one! :notworthy:
 
Bomb#20 said:
Some fine entries, but I have to give the nod to...

ruby sparks said:
I am unable to enter this round, because I don't watch Star Trek movies. :(
Click to expand...

In the words of my wife, you Kobayashi Maru'd the hell out of that one! :notworthy:
Click to expand...

Eek. That really really (to quote Shrek) was not an entry, so....thanks...but....:)

.....could you pick one of the entries? It's just that I've already had a go at setting one..........

Hope that's ok.
 
ruby sparks said:
Eek. That really really (to quote Shrek) was not an entry,
Click to expand...
Nooooo! But, it was so wonderfully meta!

so....thanks...but....:)

.....could you pick one of the entries? It's just that I've already had a go at setting one..........

Hope that's ok.
Click to expand...
Certainly not. You leave me only two entries, and it hasn't been 24 hours yet. To quote the Man in Black, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait. ;)
 
And the winner is.... <drumroll>

Keith&Co. said:
Nor is his equipment. The blaster he used fires a bolt with a frequency centered in the Rodian visible spectrum, and entirely outside the human VS. Thus, Han's shot was the first one seen by humans, but was fired as a reaction to Greedo's initial shot.
Click to expand...

(I'm making a strained and blatantly biased decision that "Greedo, a bounty hunter employed by Jabba the Hutt, is a Rodian. A species that is definitively not human." is mere background information for the benefit of people who probably aren't even Star Wars fans, and "When people started to question Solo's morality...what with their having armored, artificial, or no faces." is an entirely separate argument, for the entirely separate topical theme that is either ludicrous, distasteful, politically incorrect, plainly wrong, self-derisory or entirely contrary to popular opinion, that Lucas was justified in re-filming the scene, as a way to, <cough>, "justify" ruling that Keith did not technically violate the "Maximum 3 sentences" rule. :D )
 
Keith&Co. said:
Bomb#20 said:
And the winner is.... <drumroll>

Keith&Co.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks.

And, yes, there was a lot of backgound material, and tyhe footnote wasn't part of the argument.

Okay, um, Defend the Flat Earth.
Click to expand...


Like the fact of a flat earth needs defending.
The best argument against it is that cats would have already knocked everything off it. How lame is that?
 
Of course the earth is flat. There's only one up and one down. Duh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom