My Ranking Points
I was wondering, can I be on the SGE debate team? I understand that I must have support as to why I shall be included in the group, so here are a few debates about fairy tale characters and the new background to the website that I recently posted:
Fairy Tale Character Debate:
I opine that the most “lame” and “pathetic” fairy tale sweet heart is Rapunzel. To support my case, I refer to the original Grimm fairy tale, where the price has his eyes punctured and bled shut from being so overlooking to fall into a thorn bush, not the Disney animated Rapunzel much too perfected to fit the kid audience to rack up high prices and make profit.
Now in the original Rapunzel story, a girl named Rapunzel was trapped in a tower, much so as the Disney version. Then she meets a prince, as all fairy tale stories much so do, to show the princess’s lack of ****** effort. But off course, she let’s the prince climb her hair – which by itself seems quite lame – and so on and so forth until her “protector” finds out. Yes, this is the part when the prince is horribly injured, and it seems as though he wanders the whole forest for two years. Two years?! I mean, wouldn’t he bump into so many trees and be knocked out unconscious so many times? Lame right? Plus, two years is such a random length of time, why couldn’t it have been three years or one? Plus, how did the prince eat or drink without seeing his surroundings? I’m pretty sure now your starting to see the plot holes of this story. Also, if I recall the story correctly, I believe all the while Rapunzel stayed in her tower moaning and groaning instead of taking matters for herself.
So in conclusion, this is what I refer to as lame.
New Background Debate:
I was questioning the relations of the new background to SGE – other than its fairy tail resemblance – and the top half of the background did remind me of sleeping beauty, as you, @arian2, stated. Moreover, this was not the part of the background that I questioned, but of the man standing upon the giant. I did imagine references to the third book *spoiler alert!* of when Jack’s Giant and Red Riding Hood’s wolf tormented Agatha, Princess Uma, and Tedros as they were passing by, but it seems highly unlikely that a man would be standing in such a victorious stance above the horrid giant as for a description of that scene. Also, it wouldn’t carry on the motif of famous childhood fairy tales as developed in the first half of the background. So with that settled in agreement that the background includes the tales of Sleeping Beauty and Jack and the Beanstalk, we have ask ourselves the question of “Why?” Sure, this goes along with fairy tales, but what exactly does it refer to in Soman Chainani’s crafted world of good and evil? It would be to broad, just to say that both characters went to the school, I think it brings up a different topic in the series. *Spoiler Alert!* As of in the third book, the group of ****** fairy tale characters included Sleeping Beauty, and I believe Jack as well. And I also recall both Jack and Brior Rose (Sleeping Beauty) were much so in love in the third book, so would that explain the mystifying new background and the choice of fairy tale characters displayed? I believe so, but that’s my opinion. 🙂
Thank you for your time and I hope you consider me debate team material! 🙂
I’m not in charge of the debate club, so don’t get your hopes up, but I think we’re letting more people in. As for the Rapunzel argument, I think “lame” is on a spectrum, and really cannot be argued. I disagree on your stance on the prince, however. This tree argument could just as easily been used for lamp posts in the real world, and there are many blind people out there, including the girl my mom is an aid for, and you don’t see them bumping into things at all times. They use canes to “see” what’s around them, and he could easily use a tree branch for this purpose. As for food- in the original fairytale, he was a prince. It is likely that all his life he ventured on hunting expeditions, which may be how he found Rapunzel. These would make him familiar enough with the woods and nature that he could likely find plants and build traps.
Lame is a statement that I believe should not be used in arguments. The same things could be said of any fairy tale, “she was the only one with that shoe size?”, “the whale swallowed Pinnichio?”, etc.
I like your connection between the story of Rose and Jack, however. I hope to see you in the club!
I understand what your saying, @impossiblegirl, I think much so that “lame” shouldn’t be used as a word in a debate, but I simply was trying to answer the question posted about fairy tale characters as the user stated. To prove my point, the question quoted is as following, “Which fairytale do you think is completely Lane and pathetic (Note: This is just a fun question and please dont get offended by an individual’s choice)And why do you think its Lame:”
From this, you can clearly see that the word used was “lame.” Now truly, you do not have to use the word lame, but I felt it would fit the asked question in writing style other than using synonyms for the word “lame” with words such as implausible or poor. Also, please keep in mind I did not make these debates out of the blue, but used regular SGE questions and turned them into a debate.
Also, I am aware that the prince could have, by all means, used a stick to navigate through the forest or even echolocation, but aid for him is something I must question. Back in the day when these stories were written, they did not have modern assistance, and though he probably could and would have help – with his rank as prince – he was in the middle of the woods. Could there have been search parties? Yes, but the original story made it clear that he was alone in the woods with no assistance. Also, I must question your debate of the prince hunting. Yes, he probably did hunt before, but he had eyesight. In order for a person to hunt, they need to have stealth as well as fast feet, two things capable to a blind person, but yet not an easy task. Hunting is essentially catching your prey, and your prey doesn’t want to be eaten, so I would say hunting as the princes main source of food is highly unlikely.
I also would like to add that I understand and am aware that you can ask questions such as, “So the one frog picked just happens to be the prince?” or “Hansel and Gretel happen to find a house made out of candy?” and they will be stating the obvious, and won’t be a great icebreaker for a debate. I just added a question like those above for effect, not much for full blown discussion; a detail of a main topic.
So in conclusion, I’m not just throwing words out there, I’m debating. 🙂
Don’t forget that upon leaving her tower, Rapunzel IMMEDIATELY ~Woo-Hoo’d~ with the Prince.
In a field.
Right after he had been blinded by the Witch.
Yeah, I hadn’t seen that page yet. I like your argument!
I agree that hunting would be nearly impossible without sight. What I was saying was that he could make traps, rather Than shooting a bow and arrow, as would be more traditional. Traps can be very complicated, but others are very simple, and I have even made some of these in summer camps. They are perfectly capable of catching animals, and are sopimple enough to be built with out sight up if you have experience. I was in a 7 day wilderness survival class at age 8, and feel confident that an adult with even as much experience as I have had over the years (especially someone in the days where the wilderness was more of a necessity) could survive in the wilderness for two or three years.
I wouldn’t call it “lame”, but still, Rapunzel does seem to be a bit hopeless, and really puts us girls in a bad spot… I mean, a brave princess would have escaped her tower. And then she gets the prince and she didn’t do anything… (suddenly I have a hate for fru-fru princesses).
Honey, all fairy tales put us in a bad spot. We’re either evil seductrsses, helpless damsels, or pretty princesses to be won. There’s no in-between.