The Instigator
debate.unique
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,735 times Debate No: 5008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

debate.unique

Con

As you can see, this debate is 3 rounds.
Then in my round 2, I will contradict my opponent's notions on the debate ...debate on.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.

Since I am speaking against the topic and you are in favour, I think you should be starting.
gahbage

Pro

I think YOU should start, because you're the instigator... but whatever.

I support "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind". I would like to limit the topic to aardvark eyes, and "the whole world" shall be the entire aardvark population on Earth.

Since all aardvarks have an even number of eyes (two), taking away two eyes at a time will surely make every aardvark blind.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 1
debate.unique

Con

I would like to contradict your statement.
The statement is "AN eye for AN eye will make the whole world blind." You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark.
As far as only one eye is concerned, taking one eye from an aardvark doesn't make the aardvark blind.
Let's take this argument further ahead of the literal sense.
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." promotes the idea against tit-for-tat.
But tit for tat is the only system that works in the real world, no matter how idealistic our aspirations might be. It is necessary to act against any wrong doing.
Tit for tat is necessary in a just and equal society. Let me give you an example. A criminal who kills could either get the death penalty, or life in jail without parole. The criminal has lost the maximum amount of rights as possible, just like the victim. On a smaller scale, a robber would get fined or a year in prison, to compensate for the violation against the person robbed. So, an eye for an eye means proportionate justice.
gahbage

Pro

"You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark."

When I said "two eyes at a time", I meant one from two different aardvarks each. Eventually, every aardvark would go blind. The statement that is the resolution implies that "If the 'eye-for-an-eye' system CONTINUES [or is used for everything, for example], then the whole world will go blind".

I did limit the resolution to the literal sense, so that is what we are debating...
Debate Round No. 2
debate.unique

Con

If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place.....
Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind?
So, as I have already stated, "an eye for an eye" is mandatory in a just society. If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc.
_______________________________________________________________________

Why do you want to limit the resolution to the literal sense? I don't think that would make the debate much interesting.
________________________________________________________________________

P.S. Let's debate more on this topic. I am starting a new debate on the same topic since I feel that 3 rounds aren't enough. I request you to accept the new debate immediately.
gahbage

Pro

"If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place....."

The statement implies that the whole world will go blind if people continue the "tit for tat" system.

"Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind?"

It's a figure of speech...

"If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc."

No, there would just be different punishments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by george.cataloni 1 year ago
george.cataloni
"[..] Better yet, an eye for two eyes and an ear and a spleen and maybe an new shirt because this one is covered in entrails! HYAAAAHH!!!" - Bas Rutten
Posted by debate.unique 6 years ago
debate.unique
well, we could do that. but the resolution says "An eye for An eye........." so that's not quite possible.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Take both eyes out. Not just one, when you retaliate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 5 years ago
gahbage
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pappu 6 years ago
pappu
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by anwesha_padhi 6 years ago
anwesha_padhi
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 6 years ago
Labrat228
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by debate.unique 6 years ago
debate.unique
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
Rezzealaux
debate.uniquegahbageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03