The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

All things considered its best to let children play in trafic

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 7 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 906 times Debate No: 35751
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

round 1 is for accept for con. I give argument in round 2
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

My argument is good and simple.

Children today no know how to be patient and many of them have autism making them slow. If we let kids play in traffic it increases their ability to wait, solve problems, timing and reaction skills. The stupid kids will die and the smart ones will rise through the ranks and become intelligent. There would be less autistic people. Autism has risen bc playing in trafic isnt acceptabe.

I am good yes?
Mikal

Con

Point 1

(1) This is illegal and would be considered pre meditated murder

If parents were to allow there kids to do this, and ones "reaction time" and you put it where not fast enough, the child would perish. When they ran an investigation on the matter, the cops would be aware that parents are allowing this to happen. Key word being allowed. Due to the available facts, it would be obvious to cops that this was intentional which resulted in the death of a child. Everyone is aware of the danger from this, and actually parents have went to jail for this very same thing. They also went for not paying attention to their child, which would be under child neglect. Due to the fact that this is intentional and not unintentional, it would be considered pre meditated murder. I will also ask con to cite his sources that show this would improve reflexs. A specific study done about the effects of children playing in traffic.

Closing.

There is no good to come from this. There are other way to improve reflexes among children that will not get them killed. Baseball, basketball, table tennis, tennis, hockey and so many others that I would not be able to name the all

This is illogical, illegal, and just all around wrong.

http://www.wisegeek.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

Who does con think hes kidding? The debate is it should be allowed this means by law. Cops wont care f it was allowed. THey would carry the body out. The murder point is dumb and it should be regarded as legal. It means we change the law you know


I dont need a source saying it makes reflexes better. It obvious! duh if you throw a ball at someone they get better at catching it. Same with trafic! Sports wont do nearly as good. Look at autism rates! more sports didnt mean less autism. Some people takes them a lot to learn how to play a sport. Playing in trafic is natural.
Mikal

Con

Pro as not shown anything to show this is legal, and I have shown that it is by sources. As i stated prior to this there are far better ways to improves your reflexes that do not result in death


However if they did make this an olympic sport and made people sign papers acknowleding the danger. It would be entertaining. They could set an age requirement. That could be a better argument instead of let kids, die because they are mentally ill.

Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Con said he agreed it would be awesome

so i won this. I know its not legal but we debating if it should!
Mikal

Con

I conceded it would be awesome if adults were allowed to do it with regulations in place. That is not a concession since we are discussing children.

In closing we know that while it could improve reflexes, there are better ways to do this which are also safer. In addition we also know that this is murder. So the whole basis of this debate is illogical and I am no slapping myself in the face for taking it. Thank you to anyone who actually tolerated and read this from the start. You have my deepest condolences.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
I think Anti-atheist may be simply trying to troll.
Posted by KB240o 3 years ago
KB240o
Wow I've never seen one debater so arrogant & almost inhumane. They're kids man they need protection. How about I throw Anti-atheist in a 4 lane highway.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Seems like PRO was just not taking it seriously.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Anti-atheistMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Some errors in S/G from pro, also bad arguments from him, and con at least had a source.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct point because Pro asks, "Who does con think hes kidding?" Pro's punctuation also needs improvement. I also think Pro's argument needs improvement. Pro hastily thought Con agreed on Round 3. However, Con was actually talking about the adults, and not kids, as Mikal said on Round 4. He said, "I conceded it would be awesome if adults were allowed to do it with regulations in place. That is not a concession since we are discussing children." Sources also go to Con. While Con did not use too many sources, we must keep in mind that Pro did not use ANY sources at all. At least Pro used one source, and that's what matters here.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering rag vote. Denying someones personal opinion. He stated that Con was calm while getting trolled and had better arguments. You can't counter someone because you don't like their personal opinion
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Chapule: I see nothing positive from pro, yet the low quality of the vote makes Chapule look like an alt voting account from someone. "no idea if this was a troll debate but since it was not stated everything to Con due to Pro not being able to counter anything." Read the damned voting standards, that is ARGUMENT, not everything. "Also sources to Con since he had one" without even explaining why a single source is not automatic victory in that area, didn't you just give con everything because he won argument, are you actually saying this should be a 9 point vote, the 7 points, plus an extra 2 from sources? That is not how voting here works. Let me know when you've re-voted, so that I can switch my vote to favor con.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
Anti-atheistMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no idea if this was a troll debate but since it was not stated everything to Con due to Pro not being able to counter anything. He countered it with fall intuitive logic, while Con kept calm and showed why everyone one of Pros stances made no sense. Also sources to Con since he had one