Bit of help with preperation for Bertie bashing debate.. (1 Viewer)

[Anarcho Munk]

So i've decided to take up debating this year because i might as well do something worthwhile and productive while i repeat my Leaving. I've never really done it before besides the obvious dinner table debating. I'm a handy enough writer but i haven't written anything substantial in ages and then, when it actually comes to performing it i'm a bit shit...so i'm quite nervous about it.


anyway...the motion is "Bertie should be re-instated as Taoiseach"


So far i've got a spiel on general FF policies, the tribunal and bertiegate, a contrast between green party ethics and fianna fail party ethics, the scary traditional relationship between most rural peeps and their local FF TD, lack of decent fucking infrastructure and money squandered over the Celtic Tiger, as well as some light entertainment such as Bertie the socialist and his make-up bill etc.

But I feel like i'm not really hitting the nail on the head because I can't really come up with a clear concise reason on why he shouldn't be re-instated as Taoiseach other than him just being a general cunt and a waffling idiot.


Any help or tips would be deadly and muchly appreciated..|..|

 

[broken arm]

how long do you have to speak?

 

[dleacht]

You could look at some of his offical political views and attack those.

http://bertieahernoffice.org/speeches.php

Or just some of his actions in the past to prove why he is a bollocks.

http://bocktherobber.com/2008/03/bertie-aherns-lawyer-threatens-irish-political-website

Debating is all about breaking down the points and anticipating what the other side is going to throw back at you. A list of answers thought out always helps as people get pretty flared up debating. It tends to make you forget if you're on the spot.

 

[Unicron]

As I'd view it the Realpolitik of the situation is this.

It'd be political suicide for FF to do it. They're a party who have always seen themselves as being in the business of running the country. They've never really had, or at least in recent times anyway, had any core beliefs (the sloganeering part of me might suggest that "they don't stand for anything except being the right people to rule"), they've just tended to position themselves as reflecting the mood of the people. Which is probably why they've been in power as often as they have been. They cut Bertie loose not because they particularly wanted to (The Dáil isn't like Westminster where a minister will resign gracefully when they get caught, here they hold on to their merc for dear life for as long as they can, and anyway he'd een up tothe same shit most of the others had been) but because they could see the writing on the wall from the public mood.

 

[Anarcho Munk]

how long do you have to speak?

I'm not completly sure yet so i'm trying to gather up as much as I can.


Cheers for the responses Unicron and Exroyalty.

 

[hugh]

... clear concise reason ... other than him just being a general cunt and a waffling idiot.

I dunno .. I'd just stick to that if I were you. It's pretty unassailable as far as I can see.

 

[broken arm]

I'm not completly sure yet so i'm trying to gather up as much as I can.
.

I think the time you have is crucial.

If you have ten minutes you don't want to sound like a moany twat by rambling off all the stuff you don't like. You'll need to construct a solid argument with some key points dotted throughout and a powerful ending that pulls the rug from under your opponent.

If you have 2 minutes it's a straight up sucker punch.

 

[the strange guy]

The man was banging some quare wan with the same name as his
fucking daughter.
The man's a sex pest - QED.

 

[Umfufu]

You should argue that Bertie was fantastic!

It'd completely fuck up your opponent.
He's probably expecting a "Why I like Bertie/Why I Don't like Bertie" debate so he's probably got a list of all the great things Bertie did.

You agree with that list but still argue that this great man shouldn't be reinstated because it's like blaming Cowen for a worldwide recession & would show an uncharacteristic lack of ideas from a great party, etc, you could completely let the air of out of your opponents arguments........maybe.

 

[Jrad (BFB.ie)]

Dont forget to mention that hes a prick.

Tiocaigh ar la!

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Generally, rather than Bertie-specific:

• For context find general examples of leaders that have come back for second terms as party leaders and not succeeded - Maybe mention that the hardcore group of MPs that wanted Thatcher re-instated as leader during the Major years were always regarded as being out of touch with political reality.
• Argue that even in the short time Bertie has been gone the country is facing a different set of realities than the ones he left it with in May and far different from the ones he inherited back in the 90s. Changing times need new thinking and new leadership etc etc. Maybe analogous to Britain recognising that after the war it did not need Churchill as leader anymore, as he was "a wartime consiglieri". Or maybe mention Kevin Keegan's 2nd term at Newcastle, a man that had huge popular success in calmer financial waters but was unable to adjust to more stringent, less independent financial realities.
• They might give you a point for quotng F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby - "There are no second acts in American lives"

That's all I got.

 

[frambosenshmak]

do what broken arm and umfufu suggest

remember this is a man known as the teflon taoiseach so attacking his persona as opposed to his party policies that were never implemented as were promised in the election isnt the way to go. Just cos you're an underhanded unscrupulous prick doesnt mean you cant be a successful taoiseach. politics is dirty business and so is debating it so employ the same dirty tactics.

If you can open big, lauding bertie ahern as a great politician then you take some of the wind out of the opposing speakers sails as umfufu says. Following that with saying its undermining Brian Cowen and FF's uncontested position in power is also going to cut down that avenue too. After all the question is not that you are pro or anti FF its whether Bertie the man should be taosieach regardless of his party affilitation. But then you need to point out key policies he botched that would prevent Bertie from ever being considered a taoiseach again:

1. Under investigation still for tax and donations irregularities and not receiving an audit means like bev cooper flynn he cannot be promoted to a government position. No one can be elected if they have financial difficulties or irregularities (in like flynn - jesus the name really does live up to that phrase doesnt it? - was reinstated after she came to a repayment deal with the banks thus removing her defaulting payments/bad credit rating)

2. The big cock ups under FF rule, and these are many as they have had 2 terms in power anything that was a screw up at the beginning of their tennure has grown from their mistakes now and nobody who came before them. E-Voting machines, poor result in lisbon referendum, the reliance of the economy on one egg in the basket - housing and building trade (again paying service to his cronies it brings in point 1 again nicely), the escalating costs from consultancy and public infrastructure projects, the public overspending and approval of budgets that drove inflation and harmed our competitive edge for staffing costs. the total lack of investment in the areas of science and broadband again removing our competitive edge for attracting big scientific 'clean' industry. Our impending doom as we realise we cannot meet kyoto targets at all and are suffering for our over reliance on foreign fuel sources (unfortunately The greens cant be blamed for this as they only came to power in the last election)

Watch out for health service. thats a tricky one as harney botched that pretty much on her own and ff knew it was poisoned chalice to have that hanging over their party. and look where the PD's are now. You need to stick to specifics that the man put through either himself or by members of his cabinet or party.

As for finishing up you should point to the fact that with so much change going on in world politics at the moment and people trying to remove old accepted attitudes of greed and corruption as the norm why should ireland turn to a man who represents an old outdated way of leading through backroom dealing and scheming as opposed to someone with forward thinking and dynamic cost effective and economically viable principles such as.... Michael O Leary.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

As for finishing up you should point to the fact that with so much change going on in world politics at the moment and people trying to remove old accepted attitudes of greed and corruption as the norm why should ireland turn to a man who represents an old outdated way of leading through backroom dealing and scheming as opposed to someone with forward thinking and dynamic cost effective and economically viable principles such as.... Michael O Leary.

Is this a radio phone-in show?

 

[the strange guy]

"They're scum of the earth, Chris."
"My name's Adrian"

I miss the old FM104.

 

[Anarcho Munk]

Said I'd give a bit of an update on this. The bertie debate went well, it was just a "friendly" debate between local schools though, no real proper hardcore competition like.

Went off and entered the UCC Munster Colleges Debating competition thingy then, first round motion I got was "That This House should ban bloodsports as a form of entertainment". I was proposing and did pretty well. I got to make shit of a load of uptight 17 year old posho's dressed up all fancy.
I was in a team with two of us. I got through as an individual and all the judges said I was the first choice out of everyone so that was a big confidence booster...

I'm into the quarter-finals now, which is tomorrow. I have pretty much damn all written.
Motion is "That this house would not give Jonathan Ross his contract back."
I'm opposing, which means that i think he shouldn't be fired.

Because of the shitty wording of the motion I thought that I was wanting to get rid of him. Had a deadly debate done and all. Now, nothing.

It doesn't really help either that I barely knew who he even was until about a month ago.

Here's what I sorta have so far:

1. Censorship as a form of repression, a link between things in Ireland that were once banned (Joyce etc...) and Wossy.
2. A)How the Daily Mail pretty much sparked off the whole controversy. Engaging in another one of their mindless moral crusades.
B) How many other media institions are jealous, spiteful, or commercially motivated in the demise of the BBC.
3. The rise of conservatism in England,
4. How the initial invasion of privacy has been made far worse, that Andrew Sachs promptly forgave Brand/Ross, and how it is ultimatly pontificating idiots with moral compasses whizzing getting offended on behalf of Sachs.
5. How it is a non-story, Sky News et al giving 10 minute stories on it while people being slaughtered in The DRC.
6. Rebuttal on the inevitability of Ross' £18 contract comimng up; that the way the licence fee works that if you even like just 20% of BCC output that you're still quids in.
7. How everyone complaining is a reactionary auld biddie who thrives off being offended.

And also how X-Factor recieved more complaints than the Sachs incident, because some bint didn't get through, and how there was fuck all controversy over it.



I feel really worried about it all though. I just don't know how to approach it. at all. i know that I have all the above points outlined, but what I have for my debate is all muddled and more like one, big, rambling point rather than 4-5 individual points that I can put to the opposition.

The fact that I've been looking at things from the other way around, and really don't care for Ross and can't see any redeeming factors in him is nerve racking also.

My points above don't seem very strong either...

Any feedback or thoughts would be really really really sound and deadly.

D-day is tomorrow, at 5pm. Gotta start getting the brain into over drive now.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

only two complaints after the original broadcast

the flood of annoyance only came when the press got involved.

 

[Anarcho Munk]

Yeah, i've got a fair bit on that too.

But was it actually only 2 complaints though, or is that exaggeration?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

that's what I have read from a couple of reliable sources. Not sure if it's official.