Dinner Party Debate

Dinner Party A.1. Jesus2. Albert Einstein3. Nikola Tesla4. Guatama Buddha5. Baruch SpinozaI'd first like to propose that we haven't proven Jesus's existence as of yet. Assuming He doesn't exist, then how would my opponent be able to invite Him to the dinner party? This that, they whole proposed discussion would fall apart, as the scenario my opponent suggested as Jesus as an integral part of this conversation. Even my opponent admits in her very argument that she isn't religious, implying that she *doesn't* believe in Jesus, so she must be aware of the evidence against Jesus's existence. In regards to all of the choices my opponent made, they seem to mesh too perfectly, if that makes sense. She has one set conversation for them to go off of, while my DPA can branch off in multiple ways. The five clashing personalities make it so much more rewarding. Think about it; can you imagine a conversation between a cynical comedian, a flamboyant frontman of one of the most influential bands of all time, a questioner of faith and the bringer of answers towards how we actually became humans, the father of The Constitution (the document that outlines our government), and a peaceful protestor who lead India to independence from Britain? Though this is a common complaint I have about all of my opponent's choices except maybe DPC, I feel it's especially clear here. Dinner Party B.1. Ellen DeGeneres2. Seth MacFarlane3. Amy Schumer4. Jimmy Fallon5. Megan FoxOkay, my opponent may be getting somewhere with her first four choices, but she never really explains why they're funny. What is it about their humor that makes them worthy of this dinner party? At least with my explanation for George Carlin I explained why he'd be invited to my dinner party. (His interesting social commentary, mainly.) Her most basic reasons for invited these four is that they're funny for unspecified reasons and she could smoke with them. Granted, she does give a extra explanation for Ellen and Any, but it isn't really a strong one. It really boils down to "because they're women". Sure, that's a place to start, but just because they're women doesn't mean that they're worthy of an invitation. It'd be another thing if she explained why they're funny, but she doesn't. My opponent's last person, Megan Fox, is only reason brought in for a selfish personal gain. I mean, Ellen's a lesbian. Granted, she's married, but my opponent easily could've just left out Megan Fox and substitute her for a better choice. My opponent also claims that Megan Fox claims that she's intelligent and a deep thinker. The key word in that statement is "claims". We have no proof of this, other than what Megan claims about herself. But then again, my opponent goes back on this argument saying that it doesn't matter if it's true or not. So again, she just proposed invited her so she could possibly have sex with her. Dinner Party C.1. Cleopatra2. Voltairine de Cleyre3. Anne Boelyn4. Marilyn Monroe5. Ruth Bader GinsburgThough these all are intriguing choices, I'd like to point out some hypocrisy from my opponent. Like I'll explain later, in her rebuttals of my choices, she says that my choices were seemingly random. This dinner party isn't any different! Exactly what conversation would these women have? How do they connect? Well, she never explains. Yes, I did do this too, but she makes such a big point against me for it in her defense that it couldn't be ignored. Dinner Party D.1. Stephen Hawking2. Barack Obama3. Elon Musk4. Steven Pinker5. Noam ChomskyI'll admit, I concede to this dinner party. I can't really find too much fault with it except for maybe what I said in regards to DPA and how the personalities mesh. These are, by far, my opponent's best dinner party choices.~In response to my opponent's rebuttals against my choices, she says that most of my choices were random and scattered, but that's the point. You wouldn't know how the conversation would go, especially with all of the conflicting personalities present. Take my choices for Dinner Party B. for example. (Coincidentally the one she seemed to agree with the least.) You have no idea how a conversation between a former rock frontman, two upbeat male actors, a guitarist for one of the most successful bands of all time, and a spoken word poet/ R&B singer would go. In my opponent's Dinner Party B., you have a good idea of exactly how the night will go. There will be plenty of laughs, maybe some music provided by Seth MacFarlane, and Pro might hook up with Megan Fox. That's it. With my examples, there are some many ways the conversation could go due to the multiple clashing personalities making it, in my opinion, more entertaining to observe. Even though I disagree profusely with some of the broad generalizations my opponent made about some of my choices, (mostly with Gerard Way, to be honest. I'd be likely to make a whole Google Document discussing this alone.) I won't go into them due to lack of sufficient character space to go into a rant and for the sake of fairness. I'd like to thank Danielle for participating in this debate with me. So long and goodnight!