so here's the thing. either im a sore loser. or the rules of debating changed somewhere and just got included in the all encompassing axiom of 'cool rules'.
0 comments - Post a comment
anyway the title was the motion of the house, and the entire audience got swayed by a guy who said that he was free bcoz he had the gall to get on the stage in torn denims and a coke bottle when all others were too tight to get out of their uniforms.
the interjection went as follows(asked by yours truly) - if i want to get on a bike at 10 pm and go to goa like the guys in my college do, i cant. rape stats etc. so how am i getting my freedom of choice?
his answer - im sorry but you have to have the conviction not to believe the newspaper and take the risk. audience claps (don't ask!)
when he sits back down i ask him if he believed his answer. he says - you mean a girl alone on a bike. yes, say i. his brilliant chauvanistic reply - but girls dont usually want to do that.
ladies and gmen, freedom of the individual is more than what we debated. if the audience can get swayed so easily, what ids the point of them having the freedom of choice? if the lady judge was so flattered by the pre-debate flirting, is she not infact chained by her insecurity as a woman?
debate is about conviction and audience appeal. yes. ill grant you that. but are we so desperate for acceptance that we pick a man who chooses to exhibit a sense of pompous confidence over 9 other contenders who had content that was actually making sense?
seeing the soaring levels of insecurity in america, is it surprising america voted for george bush?
how long will our freedom of thought be chained by our sense of identities and our need for a hero who will glorify us because he makes us believe that just by sitting and nodding at our televisions back home when we are made 'proud soldiers of an anti terrorism war'.
excuse me sir, i think you're sitting on something - oh there it is - your self respect.
how long has it been there, zombie?