The gift of debating and speech 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 ofLucius 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 Gorias 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 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. It gives you a persuasive power. Onto debating: debating is wonderful, it let's people state their own opinions and help each other find the truth and why one thing is better than another. The problem is, it isn't. The sad sad fact is that debating has little to do with truth. Debates can be won and lost irreverent to what is true and what is not. The aim of a debate is to be convincing, to convince the larger group of listeners that your position is more valid and more truthful than the pole of your opponent. A skilled speaker can take a seemingly false position and convince the audience that it is true, convince them that a lie is the truth. let's say that I would be the most talented rhetoric speaker ever to be born. Let's say that I had the platform. Would there really be any limit to what I could do? Would I be able to rise to power and for instance dictate an entire nation whatever my message is? I argue that I can and had no limit, because this has already happened before. Ladies and gentlemen, meet one of the greatest orator that lived in the 20th century. Commander of the third Reich One round and Goodwin's law is already broken. But hear me out: Meet Hitler. The artist that rose up and caused the death of over 11 million humans. How could this small town Austrian manage such a feat? Simple, by being a genius.You may have your opinions on the man: he was twisted, enraged and a possible schizoaffective, but the man was nevertheless still a genius whose entire success was based on his vision and orating skill. With a few sugar coated words he managed to rise to power 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 [...] 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 the party and people were joining just to witness the gift 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 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”Debates are wonderful, as I said earlier they have the power to let people share their views, opinions and find the truth. But it isn't so simple, as I've already said. A skilled orator like Hitler, Cicero and Gorgias can let you believe that even the most fallacious of lies are the truth. And in the case of debates, the truthfulness of a seemingly false subject can make or break itself with the skill of those debating: Resulting in irrecoverable results for those involved as I'll go into in the next round where the result of a debate has let to the death of not one, not two, but hundreds of persons. But for now let's look here at the DDO setting. I'd like to point out the following debates:“Our world is simply a flat plane supported by a tortoise” and “Satan is the good guy” [4,5]At the first glance we might suggest that the winner of each debate was con in both cases; the obvious opinion being that neither statement is true. We however find the inverse pole to have won: If we were to make the best orators read these speeches up to a neutral audience we might find that they could persuade them to believable them. Anyone with minimal knowledge of the world sees that neither Con case is correct but with enough talent I could force them to believe me against their own wisdom.Is this not wrong? Is it fair that with logic and power of speech I could make you do what I say, believe anything and indirectly force you to do my will by using rhetoric on those that could force you to do something? No, and we will further see in the next round why rhetoric and debates can affect “real” people in the modern world if the WWII isn't close enough. My opponent will argue that speech, as per resolution, is good in every single case, but we have already seen that even if ignorance is bliss and following the speaker can be a dangerous road, and that is a gift we all need to be sceptical of, before we fall under the honey coated words of the orator. 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...