My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Rebuttals: "As per the rules of the debate, my opponent loses, as he broke rules." My opponent is correct--this is what the rules say. "Therefore, a full 7 point score on the ballet is deserved for me." Here there is a logic leap, one that I find to be problematic. My opponent gave NOT ONE ARGUMENT for WHY voters should obey the rules. "Now, the voters might decide to troll and vote against me, but that could be the case for ANY debate." Here is a problem. Constructive critics are not "trolls"--one's debate should be catered to the voters, and not the voters to the debater. "I take it on good faith that the voters will do the right thing, as I do on any debate (just because this is supposed to be a funny debate, doesn't mean the rules don't have to be followed)." Pro gave no analysis of what the "right thing to do" is. Why should voters follow the rules? Pro fails to give any support of this statement, but assumes that this is obvious. However, I will show not only that one need not obey rules as a matter-of-fact (a priori), but also that this assumption is a reason in itself to vote my opponent down. "...my opponent can write as long as of round as he wants, and argue whatever he wants, that won't change the fact that he lost the debate necessarily as he broke the rules, so his last round is useless with all due respect." My opponent suggests that all argumentation, no matter what its content, should be dismissed if a rule is broken. This is a very problematic assertion. For my opponent, rules are more important than critical thinking, and in fact should be ignored if rules are broken. Rules My opponent doesn't want your vote because his arguments are good, or insightful, or wise, or even true; instead, he wants your vote simply because he followed the "rules" whereas I did not. In contrast, I suggest that we take a critical look at what "rules" represent. "Rules" in themselves are instances of artificial sovereignty that give the illusion of powerlessness. Certain social authorities utilize rules in such a way as to instill widespread authority. However, a well-kept secret is that there is no power in rules in themselves. Nelson Mandela was a criminal. In order to fight for justice, Nelson Mandela broke not only the rules but the laws of the government. Nelson Mandela gave a famous speech at one of his trials: "I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." Nelson Mandela was shortly thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment. Nelson Mandela willingly suffered at the hands of authorities in order to bring about justice [1]. He wasn't alone either. The great leaders we admire today suffered persecution so that they could have just the opportunity to defy the unjust authorities--such as Gandhi [2], Dr. King [3], and even Jesus Christ. The rights of black persons came through resistance to the "rules." The rights of females came through illegal resistance. The Underground Railroad was an illegal movement. By suggesting that no argument, no matter what that argument is or its quality, will change the "fact" that the voters and I "must" defer to the rules dishonors the memories of the memories of these brave persons who sought change through resistance to the artificial sovereignty of "rules." The Debate Space If debate is not about effectively following a set of rules in order to win, what is its purpose? What possible reason could there be to defy the rules? As I have stated before, debate is about education, change, and morality. Through debate we can foster critical thinking so it can guide us in a better course of action. Through education, we are able to equip persons with information so that they will be able to make informed decision. Through the critical thinking that debate fosters, we are able to foster a more moral mentality, which will foster more moral actions in the future. Debate has changed my life, more so than any class or job. Through critical engagement with others' points of view, I have changed by methods for making the world better dramatically. Debate not only fosters knowledge, but wisdom. It was this wisdom that the great leaders above advocated for. They could not through their bodies change an unjust world; instead, they sought, through their symbolic actions and words, to change people's minds and hearts. They sacrificed their safety in order to bring about such rethinking, and they were successful. Thus, what is far more important in debate is not following rules, but bringing about a change in mentality. Voters: In prison, Nelson was inspired by this poem [3]: Invictus Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds, and shall find, me unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. William Ernest Henley Let us meditate on the meaning of this poem, and it's significance for Nelson Mandela. Both Mandela and the author of the poem recognized that the power of external authorities are only superficial. One need not follow authorities--the only true captain of behavior is the self. My opponent's argument is one that is based on the idea that the rules are both sovereign over the debater and the voter. Capitalizing on this assumption, my opponent has set up a situation in which his opponent would have a very slim chance of winning. He has two rules set up specifically to apply to his opponent and not to himself. One of these rules demands that every other character be capitalized. My opponent could easily wait for the other debater to make a mistake and then he would theoretically win by seven points in every vote (according to another rule). Even if his opponent manages to capitalize every other letter, his opponent would look utterly ridiculous. As if that's not enough, my opponent made sure to solidify his victory by making a rule that specifically forbids the challenging of rules. I believe in free speech, and I especially believe in the challenging of rules, even rules from sovereigns with much more enforcing ability that my opponent and his "stupid" debate. Whereas my opponent would like to humiliate his opponent and cut off his opponent's free speech, I would like to use this space to proclaim to my opponent, voters, and all of this online community that neither my opponent, Debate.org, nor my government are the captain of my soul. I want to use this space to remind the world that they may do what they believe, not what any authority figure tells them. By braking the rules of Debate.org and my opponent, I am performing an active resistance to the idea of mindless obedience. Voters: You also have the ability to join in on the resistance. You have a choice--you are not limited by the "rules." Your actions should your own ideas of wisdom. My opponent has so far dismissed by arguments as not mattering, and suggested that no evaluation or argument can compete with the authority of the rules. He challenges your sovereignty, but are not you also "the captain of [your] soul?" [1]http://www.nelsonmandela.org... [2]http://www.biography.com... [3]http://www.biography.com... [4]http://www.poemhunter.com...