I'll have to go for a "nay" even if the proposing team did a really good job.
I appreciated their philosophical and humourous at the same time approach of the motion but i had a previous opinion on that subject before reading the debate and i'm sticking to it.
I liked the argument saying that romantic love was just an idea of what real love should be. Romantism is not something you fell in my opinion. It's not a state of mind either. It's something you work on, you try to create. However the atmosphere you're creating when you seek romantic love isn't an illusion to me because you're really living it.
And the opposing team really defended that idea well. Their argumentation was well structured and developped.
That's why i voted for them. But just keep in mind that the proposing team job was really tough!!!
Congratulation to everyone for this interesting and entertaining debate!
I liked the strategy of the opposing team. Man is always hoping and doesn't want to be turned out that something awesome is just an illusion. They played well on this in the first speech. Farther, they had a powerful rebattle and a good final word.
I found the proposing team less structured and actually i cought one main argument, but it was not really convincing. To be honest i found them also to offensive when relating to the other team.
Finally, i liked the style of the texts very much. I'm hoping that we will entertain you next week just as well as these two teams have done until now.
I think the proposers managed to clarify their position well after an initially confusing opening statement, but I agree with the opposers in finding their vision too schematic and mechanistic. And is an illusion considered as necessary (as they seem to see it) really so illusory?
The opposers' statements were very entertaining (though at times excessively vulgar), and they replied convincingly to their opponents’ points. However, I don’t see how the dithyrambs they offer to the glory of romantic love are at all incompatible with its potentially illusory nature. The thesis they seem to establish is: “This House really really REALLY hopes that romantic love is not an illusion (because that ‘would be quite sad, wouldn’t it?’)”
Conclusion: Overall, both sides did a damn fine job (despite nobody really defining any of the terms). I think this has been an excellent inauguration for the site, and may prove to be a difficult act for the following debaters to follow!
PS: The "Aye" should be seen more as an expression of my own personal cynicism (although I call it realism)than as a reflection of the respective quality of the two sides. Take it as a generational thing, young men!
Nay!
ReplyDeleteThe opposing team has done quite a good job in my view. Yup... Quite a good job... :-)
I'll have to go for a "nay" even if the proposing team did a really good job.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated their philosophical and humourous at the same time approach of the motion but i had a previous opinion on that subject before reading the debate and i'm sticking to it.
I liked the argument saying that romantic love was just an idea of what real love should be. Romantism is not something you fell in my opinion. It's not a state of mind either. It's something you work on, you try to create.
However the atmosphere you're creating when you seek romantic love isn't an illusion to me because you're really living it.
And the opposing team really defended that idea well. Their argumentation was well structured and developped.
That's why i voted for them.
But just keep in mind that the proposing team job was really tough!!!
Congratulation to everyone for this interesting and entertaining debate!
Nay!
ReplyDeleteI liked the strategy of the opposing team. Man is always hoping and doesn't want to be turned out that something awesome is just an illusion. They played well on this in the first speech. Farther, they had a powerful rebattle and a good final word.
I found the proposing team less structured and actually i cought one main argument, but it was not really convincing. To be honest i found them also to offensive when relating to the other team.
Finally, i liked the style of the texts very much. I'm hoping that we will entertain you next week just as well as these two teams have done until now.
Nay.
ReplyDeleteBoth teams were really good but i prefer staying into the world of "bisousnours" beliving that romantic love exists.
Aye
ReplyDeleteI think the proposers managed to clarify their position well after an initially confusing opening statement, but I agree with the opposers in finding their vision too schematic and mechanistic. And is an illusion considered as necessary (as they seem to see it) really so illusory?
The opposers' statements were very entertaining (though at times excessively vulgar), and they replied convincingly to their opponents’ points. However, I don’t see how the dithyrambs they offer to the glory of romantic love are at all incompatible with its potentially illusory nature. The thesis they seem to establish is: “This House really really REALLY hopes that romantic love is not an illusion (because that ‘would be quite sad, wouldn’t it?’)”
Conclusion: Overall, both sides did a damn fine job (despite nobody really defining any of the terms). I think this has been an excellent inauguration for the site, and may prove to be a difficult act for the following debaters to follow!
PS: The "Aye" should be seen more as an expression of my own personal cynicism (although I call it realism)than as a reflection of the respective quality of the two sides. Take it as a generational thing, young men!
Nay!
ReplyDeleteNay ! For the same reasons as Pierre-Louis.
ReplyDeleteBut still, both sides were good.