1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
8 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    I don't think there's enough information here to make a vote.

    For one thing, I don't think Dhirazit wants to execute all Pakistani's. I think he's saying that Pakistan as an entity doesn't have a right to exist. He isn't as much trying to say that the individual Pakistani people are bad, as much as he's saying that the country itself is nothing but a terrorist cell.

    As an example of this, we could say that kids born into the Islamic Caliphate (what ISIS says they've established) are part of an illegitimate nation. It's not that the kids themselves are terrorists, as much as that they belong to a terrorist nation, that isn't even a nation at all.

    That being said, Dhirazit clearly overstated his point. I do think he might have a point though. In a future debate, Dhirazit could prove his point if he sticks to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Pakistani government, and questions,
    a. Did they have a right to exist in the first place?
    b. Do they function as a nation today, or are they merely a terrorist cell in disguise?
    c. Does Pakistan's support for terrorism mean that the rest of the world should stop recognizing them as a legitimate nation?

    In this debate, Michael ends it too quickly for either side to really make an argument, probably because Dhirazit had made a pretty over-the-top statement on facebook. But I think there's a good topic here and I'll look forward to watching it in the future.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8 I didn't actually "debate" him Daniel, rather I refused to because of his stance. I gave him 3 opportunities to change that stance but he stuck to it. I'm not going to debate someone who advocates genocide. End of.

  • a year ago

    https://www.facebook.com/ProfileForPeace2/
    https://tribune.com.pk/story/1192254/kill-terrorists-not-talks-says-mahesh-bhatt/

    The rising tensions between the two countries can be traced back at governments which obviously neglect the citizenry. I had to vote for con, as the evidence to support all Pakistani's as terrorist and deserving of death was obviously not proved.

    • a year ago

      @adam_fitzgerald But that's not this resolution. This resolution was just that Pakistan sponsors terrorism and thus should be ignored by the rest of the world. Pro was starting to prove that but then Con left.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8

      His position was that all Pakistanis are terrorists, but also stated Pakistan government is also terrorist. I don't think he was being clear. But in the comments section his position was all Pakistanis are terrorist.

    • a year ago

      @adam_fitzgerald Maybe this is just me, but I base every vote I make off of whether the resolution has been proven true. If yes, I vote Pro, if no, I vote Con. Now Dhirazit does have some outlandish claims, but he also presented some arguments about the history of Pakistan and how to this day they are a sponsor of terrorism. I'm sure he would have done more too if the debate had gone on longer.

      Con never responds to the actual debate topic, because instead he brings up a side issue that Dhirazit posted on Facebook. But the side question has nothing to do with this resolution. Based on what is presented, Pro is starting to try to prove the resolution, and he didn't have time to get all the way there, but he certainly didn't lose, since there's nothing that Con presents that says that Pakistan either should be globally supported, or that they are not a state sponsor of terror.

    • a year ago

      @sharkb8

      I had to vote con only because of pro's impossible position of proving all Pakistani's are terrorists. But you do have a point however that would require me to question my vote, because of pro's leave of the debate. But pro himself made two points, one was the Pakistan government supporting terrorism and all Pakistani's are terrorists and are worthy of death.

      I think we can agree somewhat that this debate didnt have any "structure" and it was basically pro ranting about Pakistan's terrorism and cons refusal to debate the arguments.

  • a year ago

    The debate could have carried out the truth but I enjoyed no opportunity. The debate doesn't reveal my feelings nor my statement but of all indians
    I like when people criticise me and I like to answer them also
    But debaters must be patient enough to argue
    My sincere apology to Michael if I went outrageous but I went deeply emotional for India is my nation
    I have witnessed people dying due terror attacks
    I cannot tolerate their pain
    Guys don't misunderstand me
    I always keep my nation first
    I would be looking forward an opponent to debate on this topic
    I believe in future one day u will understand my statement