The Instigator
Ruperttheg
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

All Ginger Kids/Adults should be killed.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,701 times Debate No: 8592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

Ruperttheg

Con

Hello my name is Keenan Harris, and yes I am a Ginger. I know that this topic may sound insane, that no one could possibly justify the killing of these people, but there are those who would see it happen, and those are the people whom I would like to accept this debate. Just today, someone walked up to me and started repeating over and over "Kill the Gingers". Undoubtedly this bought of bigotry was caused by the show South Park's influence, but aside from repeating the same thing, said person failed to give any reasoning for why the gingers must be killed. That reasoning is what I ask from you. If you, like this person, have been swayed to think that Gingers are evil, that they have no souls, I urge you to take this debate and argue for your belief, no matter how bigoted it may be.

For the benefit of this debate, and to prevent confusion, a Ginger Kid or a Ginger Adult is someone with pale skin, freckles, and (most importantly) Red (or Orange) hair.

That was just my introduction, I will let my opponent make the first speech.
Logical-Master

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. I wish him the best of luck and ask the audience to vote in terms of who did a better job at debating rather than vote in terms of their personal biases. Without further ado, let us begin:

In today's case, it is my obligation as the contender to demonstrate the notion that all individuals with pale skin, freckles and (most importantly) Red (or Orange) hair should be killed (keep in mind that this is exactly how my opponent claimed the topic was meant to be understood). In spite of what many believe, demonstrating this notion as being one which should be upheld is rather simple. To do so, I would like to remind the audience of the fact that our planet is well overpopulated with humans. This is bad because overpopulation could lead to the death of us all, given that the planet simply does not have enough resources for more people than it can contain.

In relation to this topic, all individuals with pale skin, freckles and (more importantly) Red (orange) hair should be killed. Fortunately, no specific date is listed as to when these killings should end or begin. Thus, I uphold the notion that we should simply not allow the world to run it's course. Everyone dies eventually, whether it be by malicious or by natural causes. In addition, when taking into consideration the fact that everyone is indeed killed (remember, killing is only the act of depriving one of their life; everyone is "killed" eventually as everyone has their life deprived either by natural forces or by each other), it is pretty clear that the resolution is already being upheld and effectively at that. Just like any other kind of individual, individuals with pale skin, freckles and red (or orange) hair should be killed in order to preserve our species.

I shall possibly provide different arguments that provide different paradigms of this debate in the next round.

Later. :D
Debate Round No. 1
Ruperttheg

Con

Hello again. Before I start the 2nd construct of this debate I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge and representing all the cruel, racist people who would see all the ginger kids in the world put to death. You have quite a job to accomplish because you have to not only prove your side correct, but you also have to disregard all our morals, and codes of ethics, so, I wish you luck. You will, undoubtedly, need it.

My opponent's first point was one that, because our world is overpopulated, the killing of all the Gingers would be just. He then justified this claim by saying that overpopulation could lead to death for us all and since there was no specified time of death for the gingers he would allow nature to run it's course. This blatant revision of the topic would work if the topic was worded differently, but as the topic says killed, and the Webster dictionary defines Killed as, "To inflict or to cause death", you cannot claim that "killed" applies to all death in the world, because not all death is inflicted by something. For example, if someone lives to be 100, their heart would be very weak, and may give out spontaneously, this is neither inflicted maliciously or naturally, and for that matter, suicide, homicide, drug overdoses, and many other things that cause death neither maliciously or naturally, so my opponent's defense just cannot hold ground in this debate. Now onto my next point.

When someone sees the topic "All ginger kids/adults should be killed, they think not of any ridiculous reason my opponent has brought up, but of reasons like: It would be unjust to kill the gingers, ginger's like Thomas Jefferson live on to do great things, and the killing of them would prevent more great people from contributing to society, or killing is immoral, and the intentional killing of anyone is never good. My opponent has failed to address these reasons for fear of alienating you as judges, but as I said in my first construct, I want someone to challenge this debate who can defend the bigoted sector of society who would want us as ginger's dead. LogicalMaster has accepted this debate, so he obviously fits under this category, so why is he not bringing up any points directly pertaining to this topic? Luckily it is only the 2nd round and he has plenty of time to bring up points, so I urge him to do so. Now, onto a point of my own.

All the gingers should be killed. This statement strikes up anger not only in myself, as a ginger, but I am sure that it would strike up anger in any civilized person who has any sliver of humanity left in them. The killing of anyone is wrong! So why would it be okay to kill the red haired people. Just like in Nazi Germany, what started out with some prejudice towards the Jewish and Gay sectors of society soon escalated into a totalitarian dictatorship that oppressed not only the Jewish by putting them into internment camps and killing them, but the gay, Muslim, and almost every other person who was "different" along with the Jewish, Leaving Germany, all white, and all Christian. Today, there are some people in America whom would see the same fate for the Gingers. In South Park, they illustrated that fear, first by mocking the gingers, and then by segregating the cafeteria into ginger, and non-ginger areas. Remind you of anything? If we go so far as to kill the ginger's like the topic dictates my opponent wants to do. Then I say... we are no better than Nazi Germany...

Thank You. For reading. I hope you will do the right thing, and vote for the side your morals tell you is correct.
Logical-Master

Pro

NOTE: In this round, I shall be making use of the tags provided in the following thread: http://www.debate.org...

[b]RE: Burden of proof [/b]

In the beginning of the previous round, my opponent stated that I not only have to prove my side is correct, but that I also have to disregard all our morals and codes of ethics. Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. This is merely an attempt by my opponent to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof belongs too the side which is positing a claim. Since my opponent is the instigator, he is in fact positing (or rather instigating, if you will) the claim in the topic, thus possesses the burden which he speaks of. As the contender, I merely [i]need[/i] to successfully object to his arguments in order to win (doing any more than that is technically unnecessary for me).

[color=blue][b]1) The instigator accuses me of revising the topic[/b][/color]

My opponent claimed that I've misinterpreted the topic since my understanding of the word "kill" is false. He bases this on the [i]feeble[/i] notion that not all death in the world is inflicted by something. However, this is entirely false as this is suggesting that not all death in the world has a cause. For everything effect, there is a cause. Ergo, all death in the world is in fact inflicted by something.

For example, even when looking at the instigator's example, it's pretty clear that the person in questions death was inflicted by natural causes (poor health to be specific). Even when looking at suicide (death which is inflicted by oneself directly), homicide (death which is caused directly by someone else), drug overdoses (just like suicide), it is pretty clear that all of these are in fact inflicted by something else. This just goes to show that all deaths are in fact considered to be killings. Now there is label which all deaths are not given and that is "murder." If I were to make the same argument in favor while basing it on murder rather than killing, my opponent would be correct to object.

[color=red][b]2) The instigator accuses me of failing to address arguments which he didn't actually make[/b][/color]

The instigator seems to have a problem with me not having committed the straw man fallacy in the previous round; he claims that I haven't addressed ideas such as "killing is immoral" or "it would be unjust to kill the gingers since many gingers live on to do great things." However, I did not bother to address these ideas since my opponent didn't actually bring them up and that the argument I have made compromises these ideas while upholding my side of the resolution (in other words, I have taken the path of efficiency). Indeed, my arguments does not challenge morality or place a limit on the amount of good gingers (especially "ginger" women who I may have crossed "paths" with. yowza. :D ) have done.

As far as not having defending the bigoted sector of society, I've done just that (although to be honest-- it is has been well acknowledged that this entire issue from my opponent is simply the result of joking and nothing more serious than adolescent teasing in schools). They wish for gingers to be killed and I've provided in an argument in favor of this. For you see, both myself and the bigots happen to agree with the same result. It's just the means of reaching this result which we may possibly disagree on that are different. If anything, my position caters to the bigots while giving them a means of favoring their position in a way which won't make them outcast to our society (or at very least, not upset my opponent)

[color=purple][b]3) Gingers should not be killed or else we shall be no better than nazi germany.[/b][/color]

Not at all really. If we go by my argument, it is simply insisting upon the status quo (in which all gingers [and all other humans for that matter] are eventually killed). This is not in cold blood nor is it constant unjustified slaughter. It is simply a natural process. If we are going to start claiming what arguments we should be making, then my opponent should be arguing in favor of immortality as it is the only legitimate argument which can be used against my position. As it stands, his current argument does not negate the argument which I've provided, unless my opponent wishes to insist that this long known inevitability is in fact immoral (which I gladly invite him to prove).

And that'll do it for now. Later. :D
Debate Round No. 2
Ruperttheg

Con

Ruperttheg forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Pro

Forfeits are no fun. Pull my entire case across and VOTE PRO. Thanks for the debate. :D
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adolfzz 2 years ago
adolfzz
RFD: Tie
(1) Before the debate I agreed with Con. Why would anyone want gingers killed? Who actually sees Cartman as a guru?
(2) After the debate I was conflicted. Do I want overpopulation? No. Do I think consciousnesses need to be erased to fix the overpopulation problem? No. Is a consciousness a life or is the resource dependent physical vessel the life? I dunno.
(3) Conduct to Pro, Con forfeited a round.
(4) Spelling and Grammar to Con, slightly better.
(5) More convincing argument to Pro as Pro's argument was more or less valid and Con did not refute it directly.
(6) Tie on sources, because no one used them
Posted by adolfzz 2 years ago
adolfzz
i think all gingers should be hung up to a wall and shot or burnt to death. It would be lols k
Posted by adolfzz 2 years ago
adolfzz
yes.
Posted by Octavian 7 years ago
Octavian
LOL. gingers. ha. haha. hahahahahhHAHAHAHAH.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
why is harry potter unrealistic........

because there is a ginger in it with two friends!!!
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD: Tie
(1) Before the debate I agreed with Con. Why would anyone want gingers killed? Who actually sees Cartman as a guru?
(2) After the debate I was conflicted. Do I want overpopulation? No. Do I think consciousnesses need to be erased to fix the overpopulation problem? No. Is a consciousness a life or is the resource dependent physical vessel the life? I dunno.
(3) Conduct to Pro, Con forfeited a round.
(4) Spelling and Grammar to Con, slightly better.
(5) More convincing argument to Pro as Pro's argument was more or less valid and Con did not refute it directly.
(6) Tie on sources, because no one used them.
Posted by Ruperttheg 7 years ago
Ruperttheg
Waaaaaait, I already posted my round... WTF! whatever, Ive already made my point... vote Con. Sorry, I guess my computer didn't process the argument or something...
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
Rupertteg, I don't know how representative of gingers you really are, considering you're not Catholic.
Posted by Ruperttheg 7 years ago
Ruperttheg
Indeed I am... I was kidding that all gingers hate the sun, but I was serious that it's somewhat unhealthy for us to be in the sun. That is without sunscreen.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
your kidding and serious?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RupertthegLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
RupertthegLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
RupertthegLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ruperttheg 7 years ago
Ruperttheg
RupertthegLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70