The Instigator
Cheore
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Are snakes good?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 102194
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Cheore

Pro

This argument is purely opinion, I'm just going to say why snakes are amazing and why I love snakes, and then whoever can say why they don't.

Snakes are amazing, they are adorable, have you ever seen a snake? People normally associate snakes with scary fangs and even the untrue slimy skin, I will admit when I was younger, I thought snakes had slimy skin. That is far from the truth, snakes have smooth skin, I mean, if rubbed the wrong was it can be rough(which is very uncomfortable for the snake, so don't do that) Dear god, they even have adorable puppy mouths!! My science teacher once had a snake named Precious, he liked to go inside people's shirts, or if you were wearing a hood he would go in your hood. Snakes can actually be wonderful pets as all snakes are not venomous, where I am from, most snakes are actually non venomous. So where my opinion stands is that snakes are wonderful and adorable.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Counter-Arguments

1) At no stage does Pro link any of his/her arguments to the resolution. None of his/her arguments argue why "snakes are good". Hence, Pro fails to affirm the resolution.

2) Pro admits that his/her argument is "purely opinion". Therefore, this renders his/her entire argument a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy (http://dictionary.sensagent.com...)

3) Pro never defines what "good" is. How can Pro prove that "snakes are good" if we don't even know what good means?

For these reasons, Pro never comes close to fulfulling his/her BoP required to affirm the resolution, hence there is no reason to vote for Pro and Con wins by default.

Negation Case

I will define "good" as 'upperclass', as found here under definition 2a (https://www.merriam-webster.com...).

Since snakes cannot earn money or political power (when has a snake run for office?), they cannot become upperclass.

Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 8 months ago
Zarroette
Who would listen to a 15 year old kid about burdens? The only burden here is you living under your parent's house, draining their money.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Pro: This was a terribly worded topic, and this "argument" would be better placed in the forums.

Con: You misrepresented Pro's burden; and you could've easily explained why snakes weren't "good" even under the standard, reasonable metric of what constitutes a "good" snake (e.g. deaths related to snakebite, subjectivity).
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
No.. They eat birds,(bad)..I eat cows, (good).
Posted by Cheore 8 months ago
Cheore
I don't really get what you are getting at here? But it's probably me just not understanding correctly, sorry!! But I didn't mean to seem like I was trolling at all, I just wanted to have something nice and simple for a first 'debate' although it was not a debate at all, seeing as I only wished to talk about snakes, I'm really sorry if I seemed rude at all!!
Posted by Jonbonbon 8 months ago
Jonbonbon
*as in
Posted by Jonbonbon 8 months ago
Jonbonbon
That's why I called it pseudo-troll. Not troll a site in you're saying something ridiculous to get a reaction, just troll as in "not serious."
Posted by Cheore 8 months ago
Cheore
It wasn't really a troll, I wanted to know peoples opinion on snakes, for I am a snake enthusiast haha.
Posted by Jonbonbon 8 months ago
Jonbonbon
This is essentially the debate:

https://youtu.be...
Posted by Jonbonbon 8 months ago
Jonbonbon
On one hand, Cassie destroyed you. On the other hand, this was clearly a light-hearted/pseudo-troll debate that didn't need to result in a brutal smack down.
Posted by Cheore 8 months ago
Cheore
As I have never debated before, this has given me information for future debates, thanks. Though I would say, isn't this against the rules? As you just debated a 'noob' when you are very experienced, taken from the very thing I read when I made this account http://www.debate.org... "-noob sniping: A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record." And while you have not won yet, it's obvious you just came here to win, isn't that correct?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
CheoreZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Opinion topic, equal burdens. Pro's case lacks a lot of links, in terms of the metric required to assess whether something is "good," and fails to go beyond the subjective assertion, as Con points out. Con's case, however, isn't compelling either because the definition of "good" is definitely not within the obvious context of this topic, and is an unreasonable standard to assess whether snakes are good by. From the perspective of fairness, Con's case fails as she doesn't explain why snakes are only "good" if they follow the definition of "good" as upper class, misrepresenting Pro's burden. Tie.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
CheoreZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, Pro admits his argument is "pure opinion", thereby making it a bare assertion fallacy. Because of this, I cannot accept anything Pro offered. On the other hand, Con successfully defined "good", and showed us how snakes don't fit the definition of "good" (namely how snakes have no ability to earn money).
Vote Placed by TheDragon5 8 months ago
TheDragon5
CheoreZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that Pro never defined the key term ("good") and therefore could not successfully link his argument to the resolution. He just listed a bunch of opinions of his, without any plausible evidence And debates are not for opinions. Con effectively defined "good" and linked it to the resolution, so she wins Arguments. Con also used reliable sources, such as Merriam-Webster and dictionary.sensagent) whereas Pro used no sources at all. Con wins.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 8 months ago
zmikecuber
CheoreZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. Pro doesn't defend the resolution and Con points this out. You can't have a debate if you just post your opinions and don't even pretend to present an argument. Con demonstrates why Pro fails to uphold the resolution. Arguments to Con. Everything else is tied.