A Ban is an Act of War.
Debate Rounds (3)
Be it ladies,
Be it gays,
Be it blacks,
Be it pets,
Be it dress
Be it any ban
Ban's be WAR!!!!!!!
What would you ban, fools?
Thank you for this Debate.
I will be maintaining that banning something does not refer to it as an act of War.
For the purposes of clearing miscommunication, I will provide my understanding of the subject.
Act of War (To be shortened to AoW) - Any action (Generally regarded within governments/corporations) between 2 parties, where the instigator of the action, intended for hostilities to occur as a result of their original action. These actions are usually pre-meditated, and have not had a focal point to cause these decisions (It is not a reaction to another's actions).
Eg. Raiding nearby settlements, destroying livelihoods of an opposing party.
Banning or Ban : To prohibit the use, or restrict access to specific points, Usually created by an authoritative figure to their 'subjects'.
My stance on the matter is that generally when a Ban is imposed, it is for a specific reason - So for one to consider this as an 'act of war', is purely subjective - YOU think it is an AoW - This does not make it fact.
I have other defenses here, However that is my main point I wish to push across.
I will end my first round here, and leave Pro to construct his case further.
Thank you again for this interesting debate!
I am not an authoritative figure, I have neither the inclination or the means to enforce any ban presented. (This is part of what I was aiming to raise for this round)
However for the purpose of the argument, and at your request, I will tell you my Answer - And do not judge, I asked 2 days ago if there were any restrictions to your request.
The only thing I would ban on this earth - Is to ban the perception that all Bans are done to affect *YOU*.
I say the above with "you" to not mean my opponent, but to instead aim at the person reading the "ban" directly.
The purposes of 'Bans' are to assist with an authoritative figures' regime, or to assist with safety or sanitary crisis's as they arise.
If a government were to ban the use, sales and storage of fossil fuels, the likely reasons for this occurring as due to the effects it causes on Global warming (Exhaust emissions); It could be due to the fact that it is a finite resource, and the fuel is required to ensure our freight and goods transport are kept alive (thus keeping our ecosystems functioning).
However each 'average joe' citizen will instead look at it that "the man is trying to hold me down" - or that they just want to take all the fun away (Just before they go out for a weekend cruise and use 100L of Fuel). If people were to step back and objectively look at the reason the ban was placed in the first place, the majority of the time, all will agree that it is 'for the best'.
In pre-emptively striking at your counter-claim - If someone were to put a nonsensical ban on, such as "No putting your caps backwards" or issue an edict to remove all pinky toes from the male half of society - Then this is not a problem with Bans, but a defective leader, Which would be dealt with by replacing the offending party - This in no way affects the argument on Bans being used to assist - but proves that it is fallible to greed/corruption/power.
In conclusion, I believe I have effectively defending the validity of Bans, and answered Pro's request on Bans. I have shown that while Bans have been shown to be abused in the past, this is at the originator of the bans' fault - as Bans are simply concepts, that are used by humans.
Thank you Pro, I welcome your response, as this is a very fun debate :)
Severely disappointed by Pro here.
I made one mention of global warming, within the context of an example no less, and yet this is enough for the debate to be dropped by my opponent, no new points raised, and the assumption that I am a 'global wamist' (I believe there are better terminologies to describe someone who believes in global warming).
Perhaps focusing on my debate point here instead of two 'trigger words' used in my round, ironically i have had little inclination to read your first debate, so unfortunatley i was unaware of your struggles, so sorry to not be aware of this beforehand, i would have used a different example.
Regardless I still maintain my position as per my previous round - as this has not been refuted by my opponent here, it is accepted by omission.
My advice for my opponent in the future - don't take an example literally - because it is literally an example....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by geho89 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has provided several premises to support the asserted claim, but does not go into further details or provide any evidence to validate the premises. Con provided several definitions, which Pro does not dispute against and then used a round that was neither enlightening or relevant to support his claims. Con then provided an example to support his premise, which Pro refuted with an irrelevant generalization as well as bringing in a past debate without explaining why it would bear any relevance.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.