The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

A Ban is an Act of War.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 754 times Debate No: 85372
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (1)




Be it pitbulls,
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!
Debate Round No. 1


That was very politically correctly said, now tell us what you would ban/war upon? If you dare.


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 :)
Debate Round No. 2


Have you read my first debate here on this site? To me it is almost impossible to speak sense to a global warmist. All your global warmer friends fly around the globe in the gas guzzling jets, emitting what they preach at us what not to. Sorry, but your logic is balls.



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....
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
As stated before - I keep my opinions open and stay objective to the subject (And I am open to changes). This keeps my vision as clear as possible, however it is not fool proof - nor is it proof against fools!

Also - Apart from you, no one else here I think would be putting my opinion "so high on the pedestal" - That is a problem you are going to have to resolve, as to me - My opinion is my Opinion. How others view them, is completely up to them.

That being said - you ask for my credentials? Fine - please see below :
I am a Human
It has worked for me
I have devised a way to explain my process to others - Such as the previous comments below

Are there specific credentials required to post an opinion?
I feel the above to be sufficient reason to post my opinions - And that is all I need, really.

The thing that may make me appear like i have an "presence" - like some would call others in the past "He has this "presence" about him" - Is that I keep my composure and do not lose my descriptive language to describe my views.

You, on the other hand, are using basic intimidation tactics to try and put me on the defensive foot - You create scenarios regarding our discussion here, inject it to make it sound like it is something I am doing, and attempt to make me falter because I would have no pre-made response for your request.

As I said, I am pretty good at being insulting myself; That also means I have a pretty good resistance - or "Thick skin" - to these types of attempts.

Why not try a new track - TALK to me, RESPOND to my side - LISTEN to my views and try to UNDERSTAND them.
I can assure you - I am doing the exact same thing on my side, so far you are the only one destroying the discussion with your antics.
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
Tell us how you know how we can be so much better, what are your credentials? Just wondering what puts your opinion so high on the pedestal IYHO? Well then? Bring it.
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
So what.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
Is that not what I have been driving towards this entire time - My original responses were to ask for clarification (Open and honest), and was rather nice (I even added a bit of a joke in, as you made this Buddah reference out of no-where) - This is after I was severely disappointed by your lack of Debate tact, You saw the opportunity to ruin a potentially good debate because you were:
1. Losing - I had effectively built my case fairly and I am confident I was at a point where either you could shut down and break the debate, or to accept my point, and potentially grow - That is exactly the same issue I am presented with when I am 'losing' a debate - however I have actually just shifted so it is to accept the point and grow - Arguing gets you no-where.

2. Even after attempting to goad me into submission by making ridiculous and childish claims, you have not for one second showing a single second of consideration as to WHY we are having this 'disagreement' to begin with - You have simply fought for the sake of fighting.

This friend request you have chucked in is ridiculous, on this site we are 'friends' already - However I will not be a part of your claim of 'Reckless' behavior - I have not once lost my 'cool' during this discussion, And have high doubts that this will result in my destruction, unless of course you were to get physical retribution over an online argument - which is pretty petty in my opinion.

So from your last few messages, here is what I agree with :

Be Open and Honest
Be Friendly
Do not do Reckless behaviour
Acknowledge both sides (Your side, and Mine) - then decide what you believe, true it will probably be the same, but be open to change.
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
Humans will destroy themselves, unless we meet and agree to disagree. How's that for drivel? Be open and honest, not Clintonian.
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
Honestly, we should be friends, we are both trying so hard to defeat each other. That reckless behavior, and will result in both of ours destruction. We have one chance to meet, I welcome you. Bring it.
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
An aspiring tyrant says.....that be you.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
Definition of Drivel :

"Blah, blah, da blah blah der blah blah." - Max.Wallace

There is Proof of my Charizard, care to try and find your Charmander?
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
Facts rarely exist, beyond 1+1=2
Posted by Max.Wallace 8 months ago
Blah, blah, da blah blah der blah that what you believe?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by geho89 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.