The gift of debating and speaking isn't necessarily good.

„WHEN, O Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?“[1] With those words the famous politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero started the first of his four speeches collectively known as the Catiline Orations, often regarded as the best speeches he ever made. The speeches where made to the senate in the Temple of Jupiter Stator and were made to expose the plot of Lucius Sergius Catilina that aimed to overthrow the Roman government along with his allies. The speeches where given over the course of four days and ended with the execution of Catiline's conspirators. Cicero ordered the death of Catiline and although people as high ranking as Julius Caesar thought exile was much better suited for those affected Cicero managed to shift the votes with words. Along with the executions Catiline fled Rome until his death in war when his troops where surrounded by Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer. What makes Cicero's feat that much more impressive is the fact that he did all of this without ever giving out a valid proof. He states that he will give a proof in the speech; he calls upon the witnesses of his own guard and he is incredibly sure of himself: but he sealed in the fate of numerous Romans using the power of his words and essentially saved the republic if the history books can be accounted for. He isn't as us that need sources for every single argument we make: He had no voting column for “used the most reliable sources.” But what if, what if we remember that history is indeed written by the winners. What if Catiline was innocent of the crimes Cicero accused him of? Then, by the gift of speech, Cicero would have successfully murdered one of the higher ranking senates and consulates and was praised a hero for his actions. Let's take on the role of a random voting senate member: Cicero came In and told us that Catiline had tried to murder him on the day of elections. Catiline doesn't like the accusing and reacts violently, who wouldn't, it's a serious accusation in those times. He has no proof and yet you all agree to disband the elections and the consul that Cicero was gained absolute power. Later on Cicero calls you to the temple and delivers a short, to the point speech that is incredibly convincing, condemning all those that defend Catiline, but still provides no 'real' evidence. Catiline vanishes that evening. Cicero responds in his next speech that he has fled to his army and outhouses him as a traitor using that single fact that Catiline had fled the city. For what we know at this point he could have been terrified that Cicero would succeed in murdering him. Cicero keeps going in speeches 3 and 4 and forces you to look at those that tried to help him and outhouses them as traitors as well. The chief priest of the Roman state religion and future emperor, albeit this is unknown to us, along with a large portion of the senate speak up and suggest to exile the traitors but Cicero argues that they are to be executed: Driven by the fact that Catiline had fled and the power of his words you vote for death: No concrete proof had ever landed on the table and yet you are ready to kill someone by the word of one man, a semi-invalid consul. Now, you'll forgive my obnoxiously long introduction to this debate but I felt that we needed a small history lesson before we could begin to show that when it comes to debates the truth isn't the objective; the objective is to make everyone prefer you over the truth. When someone can make you choose him over the truth that man has no limits on his power and is dangerous. His gift of speech isn't good for we cannot trust what he says. The power of words. Let's take a page from the book of Plato in the Socratic dialogue “Gorgias” where Socrates and Gorgias discuss the nature of rhetoric speakers and the true nature of them: That they possess no real world skill but can still convince their man that their skill is superior than other crafts. In one passage of the book[2] Socrates notes to Gorgias that his rhetorical skill must be a thing of marvel, to which Gorgias replies (paraphrased):“On several occasions have I spent time with my brother [a physician] as he was attending one of his patients, who would not allow him to give him medicine nor operate his illnesses. I could however persuade the patient to do those things for me just trough the use of rhetoric” Trough the use of speech Gorgias was able to get a person to prefer him, a rhetoric speaker, someone with the gift of speech, as his doctor over an actual learned doctor. A skilled speaker went against someone’s better judgement and still won: For those are the powers of words. The greatest speakers can make someone doubt their own senses and change their perception of truth. For the general populous being a gifted speaker isn't good, because it gives you a power that you need to be responsible with. So, if I had this power, would there be a limit to what I could do? Would I be able to manipulate others every time? Could I use my speech to rise to power and dictate an entire nation with my speech alone no matter what my message is? I say that I am, and that is because it has happened: one man has indeed shown that it is possible and showed us the true darkness of a great speaker. May I introduce the greatest orator in the 20th century:Commander of the third Reich One round in and I already involved Godwin's law; but this time it's for a reason:How can an artist that was born in Austria become the leader of Germany and indirectly take 11 million lives? By being a genius. The man was twisted, blinded with rage over the loss of WWI and a psychopath, but he was a genius none the less for he knew how to turn people around himself with a few honey coated words. He joined the German worker party, a controversial party, but he quickly made sure that someone noticed him. I quote:“He disagreed with how they [the party] were organised leading him to make a passionate speech. Hitler quickly cemented his reputation as an engaging orator through his passion about the injustices faced by Germany as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. It soon became clear that people were joining the party just to see Hitler make his speeches, which would leave the audience in a state of near hysteria and willing to do whatever he suggested.“[3]A controversial topic in a controversial party and people were joining just to witness the gift that Hitler had: The power of his speech, the debates he could win every time he stepped to the podium. This gift was finely tuned; His speeches where spot on and he made sure that he always spoke to the hearts of those betrayed; and eventually rose to power becoming the leader of the most tragic line of events ever to hit the western world, and it all started with the gift of debate. “the truth isn't the objective; but to make everyone prefer you over the truth.” Debating is wonderful. It lets people state their own opinions and help each other find the truth and why one thing is better than another, but if it where only so simple we would not be having this debate: Like Gorgias, Cicero and Hitler before we can see that a great speaker isn't necessarily the most moral speaker. They can save the nation and they can destroy the nation. They can save a life and they can take millions of them. They control the thoughts and opinions of those around them without the victim even realising it. Even if we look closer to home, right here on the DDO; “IDOE: Satan was the good guy. god was the bad one” and “Is our world merely a flat plate, supported by a shell of a tortoise?” Both topics should be rather one sided, and yet the “wrong sides”, if I may put it that way, are on top. If we where to present the debates to talented orators and have them read the debates to a completely neutral audience with no former knowledge on the subject would we expect them to use their own reasoning and question the orator or would they accept it on the account of his arguments and how they where presented? I'd say that the orator would have the upper hand in this way, “brainwashing” them to a certain degree. Anyone with some minimal knowledge of the world can conclude that there isn't a tortoise in space holding the universe up and by our day-to-day definition of God and satan we know that satan is the bad one; Yet the debates convinced us otherwise, we saw that a skilled speaker needs not the truth, only a way to make the truth less appealing than his own version of it. Even the way the resolution is put forth is a trap, a trick to make the speech more appealing, There is not truth, only how the orator describes it (I'll cover this in my next round). This is what makes a skilled debater dangerous. In conclusionLadies and gentlemen: Is this not wrong? Is it not unfair that someone that has no skills beside the power of his own mind and logic can manipulate those around him to his liking, choosing him over someone with skill? Is this a gift you would like to bestow upon your greatest enemy if you had to give him a true gift? No, for he can use that gift in ways unforetold, given the opportunity and a little preparation. I say that debating isn't necessarily good, and my opponent cannot deny that it has lead to terrible people doing terrible things. Ignorance may be a bliss, but relying on the words of a rhetoric speaker is a dangerous road, and his gift is a gift that you should avoid at all cost, for it is a gift you can never control. 1 ) http://www.bartleby.com...2 ) http://classics.mit.edu...3) http://www.history.co.uk...4)http://www.debate.org...5) http://www.debate.org...