The Instigator
mrtimn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Are the people abusing their power and forcing companies' hands about useless issues?

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...
DeFool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 37884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

mrtimn

Pro

I have seen many news reports about pathetically stupid complaints to department stores and the Government in general. People are complaining about JCPenny advertisements, stating that they are insulting the poor. Isn't that the whole point of a retail store? To appeal to people with money? There were people people complaining about one of Dr. Phil's posts on Twitter asking a question on the subject of drunk sex. They forced him to take it down. What ever happened to complaining about sensible things like Syria?
DeFool

Con

Many thanks to PRO for instigating this discussion.

I understand that PRO is arguing that, far too often, marketers are asked to modify their sales pitches in order to appeal to consumers. I do not agree, and shall argue against the resolution. In this, I am confident in my view that PRO will carry the Burden of Proof, while I will simply challenge his argument.

I look forward to hearing the full argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
mrtimn

Pro

Actually, the argument I am making is not just about market systems, although they are included. The point is that the public are abusing their freedom of speech in North America. I believe that Libertarianism has gone to peoples' heads, and they have become too fussy about everything in general. Freedom itself is being abused in the sense that many people think they can complain about whatever they want and they will get whatever they want.

Thanks to CON for contending this argument, and I hope my point is now clear.
DeFool

Con

Many thanks to PRO for such a timely response.

The brevity of the presentation allows me to analyze it line-by-line:

"The public are abusing their freedom of speech in North America."
-This is an unsupported assertion.

"I believe that Libertarianism has gone to peoples' heads, and they have become too fussy about everything in general."
-This is not an argument, but rather, an opinion.

"Freedom itself is being abused in the sense that many people think they can complain about whatever they want and they will get whatever they want."
- Who feels this way? Certainly most North Americans do not agree that they can "have everything they want" if they only file a complaint with a nearby department store.

PRO has expressed an opinion in R2, and a heartfelt one at that. However, there is no argument. There are no supporting premises, no conclusion, no sourcing, no logical constructs... nothing that can be discussed in a formal debate setting.

Even a person who strongly supports such conclusions cannot use this particular presentation as a tool to explain why they feel this way.

My task here is to challenge an argument in support of the resolution. Since no such argument has been presented, I have little work to do as of yet.
Debate Round No. 2
mrtimn

Pro

I may not have cited sources, but I have provided examples of the issue. This debate is not about a resolution, but more of a debate over whether or not the public is taking advantage of their liberties and if this is an issue that should be resolved.

I would also like to point out that although CON has analysed my previous arguments, he has failed to provide a full argument as of yet. My arguments may not be set up in formal debate setting, but at least they are arguments.

It is mankind's very nature to be greedy, even more so when we have almost everything we need, and we are a very prosperous nation, therefore it is a problem that should be addressed.
DeFool

Con

Okay class, please take your seats. Today we will be covering a few more things on the subject of “Burden of Proof,” does everyone know what that is? Someone raise your hand.

Yes?

  • Burden of Proof is held by the side making the affirmative case in a reasoned debate.”


Exactly, very good. Does anyone know why that is? Why can’t the critic to the affirmative case hold the “Burden of Proof?” Can anyone tell me? (Waiting…) Ok. Then, I’ll explain. If the critical side, or the negating side in a reasoned debate is given the Burden of Proof, then this would trigger an “Appeal to Absence,” or an “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy.

Can anybody tell me how?

Ok. It’s simple. Let’s say that I am the” Affirmative Side,” and I am making a positive claim. You, as the critic, do not have any reasons why that positive claim is true. But, can you just argue that, "because I do not know what the good reasons that I am wrong are – those good reasons must not exist?" No, of course not. That is a classic “Appeal to Ignorance.”


Let’s put it another way. Let’s say that I make the positive claim that a green elf is standing on my head right now. As the side making the affirmative argument, I am the “Affirmative Side,” I carry the Burden of Proof to show that there really is a green elf standing on my head. If you were to mistakenly accept the Burden of Proof, as the critic, then you would suddenly find it very difficult to ‘prove’ that there is no green elf standing on my head… no matter how ridiculous the claim might be. You can’t see him, or feel him or detect him, but you also cannot prove that he is not there beyond any doubt.

Yes?


  • “So, like, if I say I have psychic powers, then I have to prove that I really do… not wait for people to prove that I don’t?”


Right! Exactly. That’s what debaters mean when they say you have the “Burden of Proof.”

(Walking to chalkboard…)

Ok, now let’s analyze the following statement.

“The point is that the public are abusing their freedom of speech in North America. I believe that Libertarianism has gone to peoples' heads, and they have become too fussy about everything in general. Freedom itself is being abused in the sense that many people think they can complain about whatever they want and they will get whatever they want.”
Can anyone tell me what this says? Yes?

  • “Is it saying that North America has too much freedom of speech?”


I can see how someone might get that from this passage. (Writing on chalkboard: “too… much… freedom…. Of… speech”) Anybody else want to take a crack at this? Ok, how about you?

  • “It says that freedom is being abused because people are using it to get everything that they want. And they are too fussy.”


Ok… but we have to take the “fussy” comment out, because that is irrelevant. It says that “People are trying to get everything they want by using their freedom of speech…” right? Do we all agree that this is what it says?

Ok, is this an argument? (General shuffling) No, not really, is it? It’s an opinion, isn’t it? It’s an opinion, not an argument because there are no supporting premises and no concluding premise, right? Everybody understands how that works, correct?

Ok, but let’s say that there is a subtle argument hidden in here….

P1: Libertarianism has gone to people’s minds
P2: Because of this, people think they can get anything they want if they complain
P3: Therefore, North Americans have become fussy



Who has the burden of Proof?

  • “The Affirmative Side.”


Right… and which side is making the Affirmative Statement?

  • “The side that says that Americans ARE trying to use their freedom of speech to get everything they want.”


Great! Yes – that is the Affirmative Side. And that side is saying that Americans are trying to get everything they want by using their freedom of speech. Now, what would a critic who wants to challenge this need to do?

(Silence…)

Do they have to do anything? No, because the Affirmative Side has given absolutely no supporting evidence or logic to back up that statement. Until that happens, the critic can’t do anything except argue that “Americans aren’t trying to get EVERYTHING they want by complaining.”

  • “That’s hyperbole!”


(Chuckling…) Yes, that is hyperbole. So to prove that “North Americans are not ONLY using free speech and fussiness in order to get EVERYTHING they want, what do we need to do?” This is easy, you know this… yes?


  • “Just give one example of any North American person not fussing or complaining or getting something from their free speech rights.”


Yep. That’s all it would take to prove an affirmative case that supports the premise that “Not ALL Americans are trying to get EVERYTHING they want by abusing their freedom of speech.” So, buying a case of beer would be an example of an American not abusing their freedom of speech in an effort to get everything they want. That part is done. But, let’s focus on the “Burden of Proof.” It is not SUPPOSED to be held by the critical side of the resolution, is it? The Affirmative Side has that.

  • “What if the Affirmative side refuses to accept the Burden of Proof, and insists that the Critic prove the other case?”

We did that already.

  • “Oh. Well, what if they refuse to accept the Burden of Proof?”

It doesn’t matter. Sometimes the Affirmative Side will try to argue that they don’t have to prove anything, and won’t acknowledge the Burden of Proof.

That is why we have judges.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
mrtimnDeFoolTied
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 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 didn't make any relevant arguments and his resolution was not clear. I gave conduct to Con because he was ready to learn and address the debate. Pro did not listen to the correction in round two when his opponent actually tried to help him realizing Pro was completely outmatched. Great lesson expressed in multiple ways from Con in round 3.