Fynestboi: Jubilating ope ooooooo congrat bossman obinoscopy.....

lol

How is it going at your end?


How are you preparing for the inter-school debate?

Tgirl4real:

lol

How is it going at your end?


How are you preparing for the inter-school debate?

the preparation is going on smothly ma, i hope you join us soon after this family debate......

Contestant 1 – I liked the way you structured your presentation and thoroughly enjoyed reading through your arguments.
I do feel you ought to have spent less time on explaining what marriage was considering the type of audience you were trying to convince/captivate.

You did a great job


Contestant 2 - I enjoyed reading through your arguments. Your view and positions were convincing and I particularly liked how you cited the Mexican legislator to back your stance up. This to me showed you took time your time to research, though outside the box and of course delivered as expected.

The only slight thing I’d advise is for you to work on how you structure your presentation going forward. You need to try and carry the audience through at all times

Congrats obinoscopy!
U strong wellu wellu!
Kudos!


TVO1,
U were simply amazing!
I enjoyed ur arguments very well.
Very constructive and insightful.
Standing ovation for u!
(I lv intellectuals.)

To d judges,
Una be real life judges before abi it started here?
Una do wellu o!
I'm very impressed.
Madam T, u r simply doing what u know how to do best. Kudos too.

Thanks Yellowpawpaw. Thanks for the support and encouragement.

Obinoscopy, I would have liked to see you spend more time backing up your assertions. Your arguments were somewhat superficial. Also, I would have desired more cohesiveness in your arguments. Sometimes, some of your points appeared to just come out of the blue without a strong link to the statements just prior. It would have also been nice to see you acknowledge the negatives of some of your assertions and then provide some form of rebuttal to those problems. That way, it would have reduced the frivolous appearance of some of your arguments. All in all, congratulations on reaching the finals.

TV01, your definition of marriage continues to stump me. You were extremely limited in your defense of your position and your focusing primarily on the children significantly weakened your argument. Your hard-lined posturing ended up being too tunnel visioned. I would have loved a broader perspective. With that said, your delivery was captivating and kept the reader engaged. Thank you for your time and hard work.

Congratulations Obinoscopy. Well done, It was a pleasure.

All the best in the finals.

TV

yellowpawpaw: Congrats obinoscopy!
TVO1,
U were simply amazing!
I enjoyed ur arguments very well.
Very constructive and insightful.
Standing ovation for u!
(I lv intellectuals.)

Stop dat !

I am not an intellectual. Just a Christian who loves truth and wants to see strong families.
But thanks for the encouragement.

TV

ileobatojo: TV01, your definition of marriage continues to stump me. You were extremely limited in your defense of your position and your focusing primarily on the children significantly weakened your argument. Your hard-lined posturing ended up being too tunnel visioned. I would have loved a broader perspective. With that said, your delivery was captivating and kept the reader engaged. Thank you for your time and hard work.

Thanks for your comments.

By briefly outlining how you define marriage and what the essence of it is you can do a number of things;

1. Lend credence to your comments
2. Demonstrate your competency to judge, as presumably you have a personal idea of what marriage is against which you graded mine?
3. And your integrity, as all judges had the opportunity to query during the discourse, but you were conspicuously mute, only to say this?

Don't worry, I won't engage you in any debate. I'm just curious, as I suppose will be others who are following.

So for everyone' enlightenment then.

Thanks again.
TV

TV01:

Thanks for your comments.

By briefly outlining how you define marriage and what the essence of it is you can do a number of things;

1. Lend credence to your comments
2. Demonstrate your competency to judge, as presumably you have a personal idea of what marriage is against which you graded mine?
3. And your integrity, as all judges had the opportunity to query during the discourse, but you were conspicuously mute, only to say this?

Don't worry, I won't engage you in any debate. I'm just curious, as I suppose will be others who are following.

So for everyone' enlightenment then.

Thanks again.
TV

How about we start here.

If I defined marriage simply as, "a polygamous union between one man and up to 4 wives", what would you say about that definition?

TV01:

Thanks for your comments.

By briefly outlining how you define marriage and what the essence of it is you can do a number of things;

1. Lend credence to your comments
2. Demonstrate your competency to judge, as presumably you have a personal idea of what marriage is against which you graded mine?
3. And your integrity, as all judges had the opportunity to query during the discourse, but you were conspicuously mute, only to say this?

Don't worry, I won't engage you in any debate. I'm just curious, as I suppose will be others who are following.

So for everyone' enlightenment then.

Thanks again.
TV

By the way, the bolded is exactly the problem with your definition.

Anybody can claim whatever personal thing they believe and state it as a blanket fact but that will probably not serve them well in a debate situation.

Quick feedback:

Obinoscopy

You made a compelling argument for why marriage should not be a life time commitment if things turn out negatively with numerous examples albeit with a few flaws, such as attributing lack of compatibility, abuse, depression etc. as solely a result of lifelong marriages, rather than identifying the root cause of those issues. You did make clear that you weren't advocating that all marriages be dissolved, but that those entering into it determine their commitment level. While I think you could've been more structured in your presentation, you did provide substantial evidence to support your position. Another major flaw is that you focused solely on adults and not the effects breaking this commitment could have on the children (if any) of the marriage.

Good effort overall - you'd benefit from considering the opposing view's merits in making your argument stronger.

TV01

Excellent delivery style and structure as usual, but I can't help feeling you were debating a slightly different proposition than what was stated. Your excessive emphasis on defining marriage and on themes such as the role of the state and societies that repudiated marriage - all issues largely tangential to the subject of discussion - was glaring. As usual your advocacy for marriage (as you view it) was clear, but you didn't spend enough time challenging the premise that the duration of commitment should be left to those involved. The reference to same-sex marriages was completely unnecessary in this case and factually incorrect (in some jurisdictions at least) in some respects. That said, your focus on the effects on children - linking that to why marriages should be lifelong - was well presented.

If the topic was 'Lifelong marriage of a man and a woman - the optimal child raising construct?' then you'd have won without a contest. You'd benefit from a more focused argument instead of dwelling on valid but ultimately unrelated aspects.

ileobatojo:

How about we start here.

If I defined marriage simply as, "a polygamous union between one man and up to 4 wives", what would you say about that definition?

Nothing at all.

The debate required me to show why marriage should be a lifetime commitment. I thereby defined it, outlined its essence and clearly showed how it serves the spouses, their offspring and society.

And the "idea" I posted falls well within yours.

So, no enlightenment given, competency established or integrity demonstrated.

Please don't bother yourself with further obfuscation.

TV

TV01:

Nothing at all.

Good. If you have no problem with that definition, then you should have no problem with the fact that it would have been judged as poorly as your definition was.

TV01:

Please don't bother yourself with further obfuscation.

I'm hopeful that you will take your own advice from this point on.

'Lifelong marriage of a man and a woman - the optimal child raising construct?'

Now THIS is a good topic for debate.

Tee and RR...are you guys taking notes?

debosky:

TV01

Excellent delivery style and structure as usual, but I can't help feeling you were debating a slightly different proposition than what was stated. Your excessive emphasis on defining marriage and on themes such as the role of the state and societies that repudiated marriage - all issues largely tangential to the subject of discussion - was glaring. As usual your advocacy for marriage (as you view it) was clear, but you didn't spend enough time challenging the premise that the duration of commitment should be left to those involved. The reference to same-sex marriages was completely unnecessary in this case and factually incorrect (in some jurisdictions at least) in some respects. That said, your focus on the effects on children - linking that to why marriages should be lifelong - was well presented.

If the topic was 'Lifelong marriage of a man and a woman - the optimal child raising construct?' then you'd have won without a contest. You'd benefit from a more focused argument instead of dwelling on valid but ultimately unrelated aspects.

Thanks for your comments.

My aim was to demonstrate what marriage is and what purpose it serves. From that, I felt it would be self-evident why it is meant to be a lifetime commitment. I also tired to show that varying it for individual desires was not in the overall best interest, as it's purpose is not simply to validate individual relationships. Perhaps I could have weighted my argument more in other areas - but you probably captured it in noting my "advocacy". I can't be tactical with what I believe to be the truth.

My submission had no reference to same-sex marriage.

TV

^^ The issue wasn't really a case of varying for individual desires, but evaluation of what other means (if any) could deliver the same outcomes desired. For example, you didn't consider that, in certain cases, ending the commitment of man to woman (e.g. in an abusive relationship) would be better for the children so that they are not raised in an abusive environment/develop a negative view of marriage.

In addition, sticking to what you believe to be truth is okay, but when tangential or even irrelevant (e.g. same sex marriage reference and role of the state) it only serves to distract from the point you seek to make.

As for whether or not you referred to same sex marriage, below is an excerpt from your post:

Any re-arrangement of genders violates the definition of marriage as children are impossible in principle and in practice to couples of the same sex. Those who argue that the genders are interchangeable are simply wrong. To claim that two males or two females can deliver the same input as the historical and still almost universally accepted male + female model is not validated by any critical study.

debosky: ^^ The issue wasn't really a case of varying for individual desires, but evaluation of what other means (if any) could deliver the same outcomes desired.

The same outcomes for whom? For children? society? Marriage if varied in any substantive way will not deliver the optimal outcomes to them. If you choose to see marriage as primarily about the two adults involved - which I do not - then discussions about children and society may be considered tangential.

But I also made clear that individuals could arrange their relationships in any way they choose. We do not have to alter - and in a way that diminishes its usefulness - marriage to do that.

debosky:
For example, you didn't consider that, in certain cases, ending the commitment of man to woman (e.g. in an abusive relationship) would be better for the children so that they are not raised in an abusive environment/develop a negative view of marriage.

I claimed no such thing. I only stated that whatever happens the child would suffer. And twice over in instances of serious abuse.

debosky:
In addition, sticking to what you believe to be truth is okay, but when tangential or even irrelevant (e.g. same sex marriage reference and role of the state) it only serves to distract from the point you seek to make.

As for whether or not you referred to same sex marriage, below is an excerpt from your post:

That was not in my initial submission. If it came up in rebuttal, it would only have been to show the dangers of varying marriage to focus solely on adult desires.

I stand by my submission. If others have a varying ideologically position to mine, so be it. It would be dishonest for me to make tactical sacrifices merely to win the debate. But as you get my advocacy, I'm sure you appreciate that.

The thread has been in "open" mode for a while now and no one else has attempted to define marriage, it's essence or it's purpose, let alone align that with it's anthropological history or show how it would serve the same purpose if varied.

I opened myself to scrutiny fully aware that I couldn't "fight & ref" as we say in the trade. Now that there is no more reff'ing going on, anyone who is able can do so.

Oya now?

TV

i thought everyone did well. the quality of their work was top drawer. one can easily tell all the contestants were well prepared for the battle - this is arguably the best debate i have witnessed on this forum. TV01 & lerrie-john were very brilliant & articulate with their points. if only lerrie-john could use the "quote" button well, she could have accrued more points.

that being said, efemena impressed me the most. she deserves to make the final for having taken a very strong position and making it into an even stronger one. as everyone would recall, she executed a delicately maneuvering chess move at the rebuttal stage by taking part of her adversary's argument and turning it to her own purpose.

efe, i want to hire you - i need a 20,000 word essay to present to the WHO to criminalise male genitäl mutilation. my fee is decent, N1 per word.

Abeg Coogar stop that rough play . Male circumcision must go on. No way is an uncircumcised d***k attractive to sh@g

jennykadry: Abeg Coogar stop that rough play . Male circumcision must go on. No way is an uncircumcised d***k attractive to sh@g

Lol

Tgirl

It's not funny oo. Some of us have truck loads of daughters and what Coogar is trying to do is pour sand-sand inside their garri.

His own girlfriend is busy enjoying his circumcised weapon of mass destruction and the boy wants to spoil show for others.

Nice debate!

this one is Interesting. Although no amount of debate will make me change my stance.

Pls, Tgirl, next debate will be circumcised and uncircumcised d1ck! Discuss...

I will Oppose circumcision while Jenny supports it.
Oh well,

Who is in support

TV01:
The same outcomes for whom? For children? society? Marriage if varied in any substantive way will not deliver the optimal outcomes to them. If you choose to see marriage as primarily about the two adults involved - which I do not - then discussions about children and society may be considered tangential.

For the children for example - I'm referring to considering situations where a lifelong commitment (e.g. in the case of abuse) may not deliver the best outcome for the children.

But I also made clear that individuals could arrange their relationships in any way they choose. We do not have to alter - and in a way that diminishes its usefulness - marriage to do that.

Again, you miss the point - it's not about 'altering' marriage, it's about considering (in your argument) whether a specific marriage can deliver what it intended to. If it isn't, have you considered the option of terminating it, or does considering that option of terminating it render it not marriage? Simply saying 'do not alter marriage in any way' does not show you've considered the merits (if any) of the opposing view in a debate.

I claimed no such thing. I only stated that whatever happens the child would suffer. And twice over in instances of serious abuse.

I said you did not consider that possibility in your submission, no one said you claimed anything.

That was not in my initial submission. If it came up in rebuttal, it would only have been to show the dangers of varying marriage to focus solely on adult desires.

It was in your initial submission, I don't see why you are belabouring this obvious point.

I stand by my submission. If others have a varying ideologically position to mine, so be it. It would be dishonest for me to make tactical sacrifices merely to win the debate. But as you get my advocacy, I'm sure you appreciate that.

I wasn't asking you to change your ideological position nor retract your submission. I've just provided feedback on the deficiencies in your argument, specifically its failure to consider the merits of the opposing position.

The aim of a debate is to argue in support/against, while show a rounded understanding of the subject and this includes evaluating the merits of the opposing view.

jennykadry: Abeg Coogar stop that rough play . Male circumcision must go on. No way is an uncircumcised d***k attractive to sh@g

it's not like uncircumcised females are visually-pleasing to the males as well. i cannot count the number of times i have had to wear blindfolds or a ski-mask to complete the task.

Mr Coogar,
I asked u a very simple question two or three days back and I can c u completely ignored it and that made me feel and look stupid.I don't think that to ask someone how he is when he said he is dizzy is a bad statement but I asked the wrong guy else he would hv replied. I'm sure u must hv answered it had it been one of ur "group" asked that.
I don't do group here.
There is what we call simple courtesy.
Its exactly what Dayo did on dat thread where I congratulated him on his marriage.
My moniker became insignificant immediately he wanna reply even though I was d first to congratulate him. Assuming he didn't qoute others I wouldn't hv seen it as an insult to my online personae.
I've been around here a while to c the kind of discrimination that goes on here which is very unhealthy especially from the men.They select whom to reply their posts or channel their arguments to. Others that chips in r completely ignored. Very few of u guys don't do that.
(If u like chew me, ypp cares not. I say it as I c it)


Chilli, one thing with debating on a topic like that is it will turn religious.
So if we can, we will balance that with muslim and christian. Its a good topic but still we won't learn a lot from it.

yellowpawpaw: Mr Coogar,
I asked u a very simple question two or three days back and I can c u completely ignored it and that made me feel and look stupid.I don't think that to ask someone how he is when he said he is dizzy is a bad statement but I asked the wrong guy else he would hv replied. I'm sure u must hv answered it had it been one of ur "group" asked that.
I don't do group here.

this is hilarious.....
what the heck are you talking about? what question? surely i must have missed it. what i meant by not feeling my face & dizziness was because of the voluminous family debate i had to read & judge. it's nothing medical. how can i ignore a whole you? a ripe yellow pawpaw like you? if it was pineapple or mango then you might have a point but pawpaw?? i like pawpaw with all my heart.

abort such thoughts, it's not worth conceiving

There is what we call simple courtesy.
Its exactly what Dayo did on dat thread where I congratulated him on his marriage.
My moniker became insignificant immediately he wanna reply even though I was d first to congratulate him. Assuming he didn't qoute others I wouldn't hv seen it as an insult to my online personae.

i think you are being a bit sensitive.
there's no reason for dayo or anyone to ignore your comments. the lack of acknowledgement is not deliberate. sometimes, there's a lot on my mind & there are other sections(sports, travel, etc) i visit on this forum and they tend to take my time. how many comments can one reply to?

I've been around here a while to c the kind of discrimination that goes on here which is very unhealthy especially from the men.They select whom to reply their posts or channel their arguments to. Others that chips in r completely ignored. Very few of u guys don't do that.

discrimination in the family section?
come on - are you really serious or you are just yanking my chain? i reply everyone especially if my spider senses tell me the poster is a cute female. don't worry, from now on you are going to get bombarded by me with good morning, afternoon, evening, have you eaten? have you slept? have you peed?

(If u like chew me, ypp cares not. I say it as I c it)

i have no teeth to chew with....i can't feel my teeth.

yellowpawpaw: Chilli, one thing with debating on a topic like that is it will turn religious.
So if we can, we will balance that with muslim and christian. Its a good topic but still we won't learn a lot from it.

YPP hi,

We discussed this na.

Yes, if two same religion or two opposite religon argue a debate using their own scriptures ot their own interpretation of scripture, that will probably only edify from a religious point of view. Point taken.

But a religious viewpoint is not invalid and cannot be banned from open discourse. Every viewpoint has an idelogical source, why is a religious one any less valid?

What should happen, is every viewpoint - regardless of source - should be scrutinised and challenged on its merits or practical application.


TV

debosky: For the children for example - I'm referring to considering situations where a lifelong commitment (e.g. in the case of abuse) may not deliver the best outcome for the children.

This statement shows you fail to see the big picture and are attempting to isolate this to a single point.

For starters, we cannot construct marriage as a whole based on atypical or non-characteristic occurrences. And abuse, especially violent abuse, does not typify marriage. Some motorists drink-drive. Do we therefore restrict all motorists to a speed limit of 5 mph as this is the maximum safe speed? If a driver drives drunk, he is sanctioned appropriately. We do not alter the whole concept – especially where no value is added or it proves deleterious – to factor in what is an aberration.

Certainly we can evaluate each individual union on its own merits, but trying to factor in every possible scenario especially for
things that do not characterise marriage would lead to absurdity.

Off course socially marriage can in some instances be ended. The three historical reasons were non-consummation, adultery and abandonment.

More recently we have extreme cruelty etc. Does it mean that because in practice some falter we make it part of the overriding
principle?

The result of attempting to legislate for extremes or incorporate absurdities is usually to render the whole exercise pointless. And to note, not only does abuse not characterise marriage, it’s is still proven to remain the best for children - even with low-levels of conflict. The only real discussion point here is to define abuse or low level conflict.

debosky:
Again, you miss the point - it's not about 'altering' marriage, it's about considering (in your argument) whether a specific marriage can deliver what it intended to. If it isn't, have you considered the option of terminating it, or does considering that option of terminating it render it not marriage? Simply saying 'do not alter marriage in any way' does not show you've considered the merits (if any) of the opposing view in a debate.

Certainly we can evaluate each individual union on its own merits, but trying to factor in every possible - or even a single - scenario especially for things that do not characterise marriage would lead to absurdity.

debosky:
I said you did not consider that possibility in your submission, no one said you claimed anything.

I’ve answered this above. And again if this was about individual instances, there would simply be no debate. You fall short by failing to
grasp what marriage is in principle as opposed to what is permitted in practice. Which is why I grounded it properly first. Once people
properly understand what a principle is, one shouldn’t even have to explain which variations would violate or diminish it.

As clearly outlined, exceptions in practice do not render a principle void. Men + Women = children, is this principle voided because sometimes it does not result in children?

debosky:
It was in your initial submission, I don't see why you are belabouring this obvious point.

I apologise here. My bad. I re-read and stopped at my sign-off. It was foot-noted.

debosky:
I wasn't asking you to change your ideological position nor retract your submission. I've just provided feedback on the deficiencies in your argument, specifically its failure to consider the merits of the opposing position.

I take your point regards, debating style, aims etc., but in every debate I have responded to every single point made in opposing submissions. And I did not find that was always the case in response.

debosky:
The aim of a debate is to argue in support/against, while show a rounded understanding of the subject and this includes evaluating the merits of the opposing view.

And I’d still like to hear a definition and explanation of the essence of marriage that makes mine both antediluvian and poor practice. Any takers?I didn’t think so.

Until then, the truth as I understand it remains out there and undisputed - and strategically that was the whole point.


TV

Happy it wasn't health issue. That same night, up to 4 pple complained of one thing or the other and upon asking them gat feedback except urs.
Still that didn't annul what I just said about favouritism here. I'm a very good observer. Some of us r very sensitive and shy even in a public forum. Its still good to reach out to everybody even if they don't make sense.
*muah* (sorry I was too straight forward)

As for Dayo, his own is worst.
I wish most pple that frquents FS will open up and u will be shocked. Have been around for a long time to know what happens here everyday.

TV01:

YPP hi,

We discussed this na.

Yes, if two same religion or two opposite religon argue a debate using their own scriptures ot their own interpretation of scripture, that will probably only edify from a religious point of view. Point taken.

But a religious viewpoint is not invalid and cannot be banned from open discourse. Every viewpoint has an idelogical source, why is a religious one any less valid?
What should happen, is every viewpoint - regardless of source - should be scrutinised and challenged on its merits or practical application.
TV

No no no!
Its a new topic that Coogar raised and Jenny and Chilli are fueling it.
Sorry u misunderstood that.

coogar:

it's not like uncircumcised females are visually-pleasing to the males as well. i cannot count the number of times i have had to wear blindfolds or a ski-mask to complete the task.

Who cares about looks? As long as the uncircumcised man can remember to brush his finger against one tiny M&M located in a woman's "clears throat" ....we are good to go. Same as an ugly uncircumcised man, as long as he has a good looking, well hydrated, oxygen filled sizable yekini hanging down his leg......Sire, we can always do a face mask

@chillisauce
We go argue tire for that area and if I have to locate you in France and beat the crap out of you to agree with me that a hoodless yekini is better than a hooded yekini, then I will