“I could go for a sammich...SOMEONE BETTER MAKE ME A SAMMICH!!”
“Do you expect me to make a sammich?”
“No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die... *generic maniacal laughter*”
“Is this the article about sammiches? Cause I'm looking for the article on debate. Nothing against sammiches.”
“Topicality is a boating issue”
“For me, debates are like my penis. Too short ”
“For me, debates are like my penis. Too long. ”
“I want to talk about sammiches.”
“Debate? you mean masturbate.”
Debate is a cult known for its attempts to GET MEG TO MAKE A SAMMICH. Its headquarters can be found within the borders of the Ghetto of Mountain brook. Logan and Lee automatically win because Meg is going to make a sammich whether she likes it or not. Charlie wants one too. And assman. And Mastapain. And Mr Potter. And Everbody else. Bad Meg! No biscuit unless you make a sammich! By the way, anyone with the name of John Guzman automatically wins any debate.
The concept of Debate originated in IHOD... which stands for the International House of Debate. This is Meg's house and was where the original gods/titans of debate originated and had the first debate war, overthrowing the evil dictator assmanicus. The IHOD still stands to this day and will remain there until the end of time, aka Senior year. Watch out for the rocks. They grow.
The rules of Debate are simple to learn, but easy to master:
- The players split into two groups, black and white. White places his king next to white's, the pawns on white's.
- To determine who is to go first, a game of Debate is played. The ensuing recursion often becomes the topic for a later game of Debate.
- A topic is chosen. Popular topics include abortion, politics, music, philosophy or Kafka.
- On a player's turn, they need to combine several elements into their Hand. Elements include 'qua', 'ergo', 'Q.E.D.' and the name of any dead Greek guy.
- The player who has taken a course in Philosophy wins.
- If no one has taken a course in philosophy, the player who first shouts "checkmate!" wins. Alternatively, many debaters prefer to use the more convenient "Uno!"
Debate Hand Movements
The Jackoff involves the placement of the left arm in a stiff position with a slightly bent elbow that positions the hand next to the hip. The thumb and forfinger meet to form a circle with the other fingers lined up with the forefinger. The hand is then jerked violently back and forth 6 inches approximately 37 times per nanosecond.
The Lasso involves the placement of the left hand by the side and the right in the air. The hand moves in small tight circles and appears to be holding onto something.
This dart throwing motion is caused by a sudden sense that you have become Donald Trump. The fingers of the right hand come together and repeatedly flare outwards along with the arm as though practicing firing someone for an episode of the apprentice.
This complex movement sanctioned by terrorists. It involves the constant swaying forward and backward but never side to side as sheets of paper are quickly read at a very close distance.
The Chicken involves the placing of the hands slightly forward of the armpits and moving the elbows up and down while moving the head forward and backward, but never side to side.
The Push Up Bra
This complex movement invoves placing the hands palms up, open faced and opposite each other with the belly button in between them. The hands are slowly but forcefully raised to chest level before being flipped over and returned to their original position. The movement is repeated. This movement is used as a distraction to place the focus on the user's midsection rather than the head in order to hide the fact that they have nothing to say, except for ,"Damn..."
Also known as introduction, this technique consists in presenting yourself to your opponent, while trying to make yourself appear as smart as possible and ridiculing him at the same time, examples:
"Hi. *give hand*"
"Hey! How're doing. *shake hands*"
"Heya! Gimme some five! *give hand*"
"Hey. *Try to shake hands but the given hand is taken back in a timely manner* Hey!"
"Ha! Too slow pansy-boy!"
"*Cries in humiliation*"
Also known as argument, this technique consists of saying why you disagree with his opinion on the matter at hand, examples:
"I think you are wrong man. Allah and the jewish God christian happen to worship too are one and the same."
"Yeah, I guess you're right."
"Shut the fuck up and listen dumbass! Allah and the jewish God christian happen to worship too are one and the same! So shut up and live with it, bitch!"
"*pretends that will punch his face*"
"*runs away in fear* NOOO!!! MOMMY!!!"
Also known as "Surprise! Surprise!", this technique consists of saying why you disagree with his opinion on the matter at hand without the "Engarde!" phase (also known as introduction), examples:
"Hey...ahnn...I think, you know, that George Bush is dumb...or something like that."
"Well, he is not. Now where was I...?"
"George Bush is dumb."
"Yeah, yeah, whatever. Now, as I was saying..."
Also known as counter argument, this technique consists of giving the reason why you agree with yourself on the matter at hand, examples:
"Come on man! Kennedy was killed by only one shooter, you know. I mean, what you propose is, like, ludicrous."
"No it is not."
"Yeah, maybe you are right."
"Fuck! I can't believe you fucking believe in that shit! I can't believe I even know one of those nutty conspiracy dumbasses! Just shut up and stop it, bitch!"
This technique has no nickname since it is a debate breaker and there are no known ways of human being survive a debate after suffering a touché. If you ever land a touché, expect to be acclaimed as a hero for generations to come. Bards will sing about your feat and your opponent will be completely broken and probably never will debate again. Examples:
"So you're saying that to protect the liberties of the people we must destroy the liberties of the people and that to twarth terrorism we must terrorize other people?"
"Y...yea...I mean...no? I mean...I mean...*explodes*"
NOTE: In the rare cases a amateur manages to land a touché, it will surely destroy the opponent, only a handful of forces in this world can stop the destructive might of a touché.
"*cries and runs away scared*"
NOTE:Simple, yet efficient. Take note that "Yo' momma", although can be considered a touché, is a flawed one. Skillful opponents can manage to land a counter-touché, which cancels the touché and may bring the debate to a stalemate. (Example of counter-touché: "No! Yo' momma!")
Also known as sputtering nonsense, this technique consists in saying nonsense trying to take your opponent off balance (WARNING: If you fight a skillful opponent, a flurry can be rapidly turned into a touché, for more information, see touché.), examples:
"Ha! You say Bush waged war on Iraq to FREE iraqi people? Then why did Cheney shoot that guy?"
"What does that has to do with anything?"
"Bush wanted to free the Iraqis? Bush's stupid oil-addicted asshole."
"Well...but just because he wanted Iraqian oil doesn't mean he invaded only for that..."
"Oh yeah. He also wanted revenge and some shit."
Also known as mocking, this technique consists of ridiculing the opponent's statements or ways of speaking them. It is usually used to buy time while thinking in a proper uppercut, examples:
"No. My bases don't belong to you."
"*kills him with death laser and laughs*"
"'Are belong to us!? What kind of stupid dumbass are you? Don't tell me, you 'are be' the motherfuckingly blatantly stupid type, am I right?"
A preemptory defence that consists of sacrificing cliche ideas by throwing them at your opponent in order to keep their argument from being able to touch you via insulation and misdirection. They might lose some of their trade-in value from your opponent's attacks, but it's far better than losing the debate. examples:
"I'm right because saving the rain forest helps the greater good."
"You fool, I'm listed under the greater good!"
"Chaos Theory states that we should have never invaded Iraq because if we hadn't, that butterfly over there might have been in a position to flap its wings in a way that would have sent a meteor hurtling towards Iraq?"
"*Gets hit by meteor*"
beating the hell out
This technique consists in, when everything else fails, beat the hell out of your opponent, if he is bigger than you and can easily kill you with his bare hands, read next technique.
If everything else fails, run, go to another country, change your name, send an anonymous letter with your opinion in it to your opponent and smile, you got the last word and lived to debate another day.
Make sure not to let your opponent faint. Once their Debate Points (DP) are low, toss your pokeball. This will insure a greater chance of capture.
Inducing status-afflictions can greatly increase the chance of capture. Therefore, be sure to drug your opponent before a debate.
A simple example of play
This example is intended to show how a game of Debate among amateurs may proceed. This is taken from the 1997 match, Bumblefuck University Men's XIII vs. Clown Enema University Men's VIII. Representing Bumblefuck, and playing White, was Cletus McGroggle. Representing Clown Enema, and playing Black, was Tavistock Achingly.
The chosen topic for this round was the prowess of the popular singer Fatboy Slim. White starts. Comments are in italics.
WHITE: Fatboy Slim's a load of wank.
A weak opening from White, possibly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic. He has clearly not yet learned that this should not be a barrier to the game of Debate. Note the almost total comprehensibility of his hand.
BLACK: What do you mean by 'wank'? Do you mean that Slim is, literally, a pile of semen? Or do you mean something less qua literal?
Black responds with a poorly-judged counterattack, questioning White's syntax and not the actual meaning. The Latin is decidedly tacked on; evidently Black noticed its absence only too late.
WHITE: He's a big tosser, and his music sounds like Plato making love to a dead cat.
White continues on the offensive, with a skilfully-dropped name. It is still worth pointing out, however, that he has not quoted Plato; merely used the name, and this will become vital later on.
BLACK: So you're saying that music that sounds like Plato making love to a dead cat is a bad thing? That it should be banned and people who listen to it rounded up and put into camps?
A skillful counterattack by Black, capitalising on White's lack of quotation. If White had actually quoted Plato's stance on music, Black would not have been able to argue this. White will have to move very skilfully to avoid being compared to Hitler, a move which could spell early success for Black.
WHITE: No, I'm saying that Fatboy Slim's a load of wank and that people who listen to him gargle with horse diahorrea.
A move very characteristic of White's "blind them with verbal abuse" style. For all his obscenity, though, White has yet to quote any dead Greeks, and Black now capitalises on this.
BLACK: But do you have any opinions of dead Greeks to back this up with? As Aristotle said, "Just because you've got an opinion doesn't mean that you have to share it, buster."
A picture-perfect reply. Black has clearly been expecting this move from White, and has prepared for it in advance.
WHITE: Well, is any interpretation of music more than just an opinion? Diogenes himself said that as each person's experiences are unique, ergo their understanding of individual experience is also unique. Q.E.D.
A stunning recovery from White. Not only has he gotten two Latin words into that hand, but he's also quoted a dead Greek. This change from his usual style puts Black completely off guard, as we will see:
WHITE: So by forcing people to adhere to one interpretation of music, you're being almost as bad as Hitler.
White finishes with a Hitler Comparison; not entirely appropriate for this topic (accusing Black of being homophobic or Republican would also have worked) but it does the job. Game, set and moral high ground to White.
The debate hierarchy
After the debate war of 2019, debaters realized they would need to put their biases down in stone, hence the following:
Policy debate>Learning disabled debate>Student Congress>Speech Team>everyone else>George Dubya Bush>Pofo
All debaters who do not abide by this rule are fed to the Sarlaac and/or huffed (whichever is more convenient).
Some popular Debate openings, and how to defend against them
How to debate on any forum when you lack a valid argument
Thankfully, lacking a valid argument to debate against someone is NEVER a problem. Simply attack your opponent using whatever limited means you can. Attack their hobbies, personal beliefs, race, religion, clothing, the city they were born in, ANYTHING you can manage. Attacks based on misspellings in posts is also a valid argument, because if they typed "Amercia" instead of "America", they automatically lose by default and you know it. Remember, freedom of speech is only valid if other people share your views and anyone who does not share them is psychotic, evil and not to be trusted.
How to debate on Sega-16.com and on other websites with retarded fanboys who don't know shit about technology, but pretend they know all, while sitting on their ass all day long.
Lets say your one of the so-called "people" on Sega-16.com, and you state that the SNES cannot handle Pong, because it's CPU is too slow to process two paddles and one ball without major slowdown. All of a sudden, somebody comes on your website and states that you're full of shit, simply because the SNES's CPU is faster than the NES's CPU which is faster than the Atari 2600's CPU and that can do Pong. How dare somebody NOT insult the SNES's CPU! Anybody who thinks the SNES's CPU is capable of doing anything is a moron! Here is how to prove them that your right and they're wrong.
1.) Use anti-logic. See, if your playing a game of chess, your never going to win, so instead of following the rules, knock down pieces, and shit on the board. Anti-logic works like that. For example, his statement "the SNES's CPU is faster than the NES's CPU which is faster than the Atari 2600's CPU and that can do Pong." has lots of "anti-logical flaws" in it. You can correct all his "anti-logical flaws" by stating "but the SNES's CPU is slower than the Genesis's CPU, therefore the SNES's CPU can't do anything the Genesis's CPU can do." Or an even more effective peice of anti-logic is to say "but the SNES's CPU is slower than the Genesis's CPU, therefore the SNES's CPU must be slower than the SNES's CPU." It doesn't make sense, but hey, the rules don't apply to you, because in your honest opinion, the rules don't apply to you.
2) The imaginary friend who is a programmer method. State to your opponent that you have a friend who is the bestest programmer in the world, and that he is so good at programming, everything he says automatically becomes true, just because he says it. If your opponent asks "what games did he work on?," all you have to do is reply, "I forgot, I have to ask him what the name of that game was."
3) The "I'm not a programmer, but I know what I'm talking about anyway" method. This works best when your opponent just happens to be a programming genious, who shows you his addreniline pumping SNES action homebrew indie game he was working on. What you do to defend yourself, is cry like a baby and say "Don't you have any respect for non-technical minded gamers like me. Just because I don't know how to program doesn't mean that I am an idiot!" Then you contradict yourself by saying "But still, everybody with a brain, knows that the SNES is just too slow to handle the type of game your programming on the SNES."
How to debate on Uncyclopedia when facing vandalism from people who care what Internet fanboys on Sega-16.com think
Fortunately, this method of debate is easily countered. Should someody initiate a round of Debate by gaying up Uncyclopedia with an ill-thought-out passive-aggressive rant about Sega-16.com fanboys, the best defence is a well-judged rant of equal but opposite passive aggression in -- and this is the masterstroke -- the exact same article. Your opponent, who almost certainly just logged onto Uncyclopedia to vent their spleen and doesn't read said website or even care with you think, will nontheless be somehow devestated by this witty and incisive repartee. Rest assured that Uncyclopedia's editors place the game of Debate in highest regard, and are unlikely to delete an entry merely because it is of interest to a vanishingly small minority of the population.
How to debate on a Wiki when faced with unfunny self-referential humour
Fortunately, this method of Uncyclopedia posting is easily countered. Simply point out to the VFD editing team that the article is not in fact the consequence of an inadvertently hilarous flamewar but actually just one guy manufacturing a passive-aggressive flamewar pastiche in order to disguise the passive-aggressive comment he intended to post as something sufficiently funny to warrant further inclusion in Uncyclopedia. Rest assured that Uncyclopedia's editors place the positioning of jokes about kitten huffing and endless repetition of the same joke over and over again in the highest regard, and are unlikely to delete an entry merely because it consists of a passive-aggressive rant rather than any new or original content.
Now can you make me a sammich?