The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Breathing should be Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 79966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)




Thanks to Jonbonbon for agreeing to debate this incredibly controversial and ever-increasingly relevant topic with me.

== RULES ==

1. The laws of logic only sometimes exist.

2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions

Breathing - the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs.

Illegal - contrary to or forbidden by law

I look forward to a highly productive discussion.


I accept this debate. I hope the discussion leads to something insightful that our readers can be better informed about this current event in today's world.

I do accept pro's definitions; however, in order to be clear, I would like to provide one more definition.

Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. [1]

As is custom, I believe pro gets the opening arguments, and I will follow by serving his head to you on a silver platter.

Good luck Romanii ;)


Debate Round No. 1


I will start off by thanking Jonbonbon for accepting, as well as reprimanding her for her highly inappropriate threats of beheading me. Voters, such conduct is unacceptable in any debate setting, and you should vote Pro based on that alone. More importantly, Jonbon's callous death threats have inflicted immense emotional trauma upon me -- vote Pro so that I will feel like I have people supporting me and overcome these horrible emotional scars. If you don't vote for me, I will feel unsupported and alone, and I will probably eventually be driven to commit suicide. Please do the right thing and vote Pro.

Now onto my case.


I make no attempt at hiding the fact that making breathing illegal will cause a large number of deaths worldwide. However, as I will explain, such an outcome is not necessarily all that bad. A mass-extinction would be beneficial for several reasons -- (1) it solves for overpopulation & related problems like world hunger, (2) there wouldn't be that many casualties if a nuclear war were to occur after the extinction, (3) the funeral industry will grow exponentially, (4) the government will get a huge boost in revenue from increased estate tax collection, (5) it would serve as a really good plot basis for a historical fiction movie in the distant future, and (6) most people are jerks, so the world is automatically better off without them.


There are plenty of viable alternatives to breathing. All it takes is some ingenuity to make use of them. For example, many species of frogs have developed ways to absorb oxygen straight through their skin [1], and there are particles in existence which can oxygenate the body independently of the lungs [2]. Adaptable individuals will figure things like this out and continue to survive, whereas everyone else will die out as a result of their incompetency, and rightfully so! Making breathing illegal facilitates the evolution of human beings into a super-race of intelligent survival artists.


The EPA has already formally declared Carbon Dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant [3], and breathing *by definition* involves the ejection of CO2 into the environment. Because breathing has been officially recognized as an exceptionally harmful form of pollution, it should obviously be made illegal. Moreover, this completely authentic, unaltered, reliable graph clearly demonstrates that breathing is a significant contributor to global warming:


If people can't breathe, then they can't talk. This is a good thing because, as every person on the planet knows, everyone except them is a moron whose opinions don't matter. Illegalizing breathing gets rid of the world's excess noise.


With each and every breath, people are *stealing* oxygen from Mother Nature's limited reserves of the precious gas. I contend that Mother Nature has rights too, and that the government should preserve those rights by making breathing illegal. It is a moral abomination that the entirety of the human race lives only by virtue of theft.



"modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to PLEASURE and PAIN" are " naivetes, " that is not sympathy as you understand it: " OUR sympathy is a " further-sighted sympathy " You want, " TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and " WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, " is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of " GREAT suffering--know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in " enduring, " misfortune, and whatever " spirit, " has been bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through " great suffering? In man CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not only " clay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also the " the sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, " And that YOUR sympathy for the "creature in man" applies to that which has to be fashioned " to that which must necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer? " there are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and sympathy; and all systems of philosophy which deal only with these are naivetes." The ultimate result of this negative orientation toward life is the inability to live life to its fullest. Instead, the affirmative holds life in contempt for its pains, never understanding that life is suffering, starvation, and dying. The desire to seek redemption from life through the creation of a future moral order annihilates life in the present. This is the worst possible danger: our existence becomes a dreary perpetuation of biological life, devoid of meaning, waiting only for passive death" "the " humanitarian attempt to construct a world of universal friendship produces" by internal necessity, ever new enemies." humanity. By virtue of its universality " has " no clear distinction between " inside and " outside. Does humanity embrace all humans? " If not, against whom or what does it wage its wars? " Christianity distinguishes between believers and nonbelievers. Since nonbelievers can become believers, they must be of the same category of being. To be human " then, is the horizon within which the distinction between believers and nonbelievers is made. " humanity " is not part of the distinction, but " makes the distinction possible. However, once the term used to describe the " distinction also becomes that distinction's positive pole, it needs its negative opposite. " setting off the inhuman from the human is followed by an even deeper split, the one between the superhuman and the subhuman. In the same way that the human creates the inhuman, so in the history of humanity the superhuman brings about " the subhuman ... political opposition to liberalism is itself deemed illegitimate. " liberal pluralism, " reduces the political to the social " and " nullifies all truly political opposition by simply excommunicating its opponents " only an unregenerate barbarian could fail to recognize the irrefutable benefits of the liberal order." The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided." "the meaning of our suffering " has been the problem " The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that " views suffering as undesirable, but which " uses " deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns " the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided " the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, " Nietzsche"s positive alternative -- one that embraces the necessary role suffering " we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided." [4]

Therefore, suffering is good. Since making breathing illegal would obviously cause a lot of suffering, we can conclude, by extension, that the policy in question is good.


The Holy Bible itself explicitly tells us that breathing should be made illegal:

"Breathing . . . should . . . be . . . illegal"
(Acts 9:1, Job 6:11, Corinthians 13:11, Exodus 22:9)


Perhaps some of you aren't Christian fundamentalists and are thus not convinced by my argument.
Here is a simple yet infallible syllogism to crush your delusions:

P1: If the Bible is true, then God exists.
P2: God wrote the Bible
P3: God is incapable of being wrong
C1: The Bible is true
C2: God exists


"I'm always right- I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken." -- Thett3

Obviously, since Thett3 said it himself, it must be true. However I *beat* Thett3 in a debate [9], which proves that I am smarter than him. This means that I am right even more often than Thett3 is: I am right *more* than 100% of the time. Thus, simply asserting the resolution to be true is sufficient to affirm it. Breathing should be illegal. Vote Pro.


I expect a full concession from my opponent next round.



Well ladies and gentlemen. I believe that my opponent has covered so much ground that I don't even have to provide separate contentions. I'll label all of my points of negation as I'm going through destroy my opponent's case.

R1) Deaths

My opponent has systematically given every single one of you guys a death threat.

I thought my death threat was bad until I read this contention. In his 6th contention, he even talks about how he thinks your suffering is a good thing. Threatening voters is bad enough, but saying that it's a good thing that they'll suffer and die is like the crappiest thing you can do in a debate. He should lose this debate on that alone.

R2) Weeding out the weak

Clear contradiction with C7. You can't believe in macroevolution and the Bible at the same time. That's just ridiculous.

Plus if we were to accept this, we would lose the intake of air, which eliminates half of one of the greatest people in the world, Airmax. This is an atrocity that cannot be supported.

R3) Environmental harms

Dead bodies produce carbon dioxide.

So if everyone dies, we release so much carbond dioxide into the atmosphere that everyone starts dying from heat, then the animals start dying releasing more carbond dioxide, then everything just dies.

R4) Shut up

By my opponent's logic, he is a moron. He's not me, so that's the only logical conclusion. Therefore, he should shut up.

R6) Increase suffering

No idea what the crap this means.

Romanii is going to have to do a much better job explaining to me why it's good for a baby to suffocate until it dies. I need something more than this crap about a hammer and the fact that people actually do suffer regularly. I don't even know what that proves.

C7) The Bible

I didn't even expect him to stoop this low.

I know that the rules of logic aren't applicable in this whole debate, but let's look at that syllogism. First of all, your whole syllogism relies on an "if." OJ Simpson's aquittal relied on an "if," and now we know who dun it. Second of all, his conclusion is just restating his premise. He's just begging the question now.

R8) Romanii's a moron

He can't possibly be right if he's a moron. And that's just his own reasoning, so we can just rule out his entire case at this point. Thank you for reading.

Debate Round No. 2


Con has failed to apologize for her egregious conduct. This not only demonstrates the absolutely deplorable nature of her character, but it also is the equivalent of rubbing salt into my wounds -- I am truly on the verge of psychological breakdown. Lend me your support, O voters! Have no mercy as you punish my malicious opponent with torrents of Pro ballots, thereby demonstrating your support for me and aiding me in my recovery from this emotional trauma. Thank you :)

Onto rebuttals!


Just because I condoned the deaths of the voters doesn't mean that I should be punished with a loss. After all, the voters are very reasonable & understanding people, and surely even *they* support their own deaths after reading my incredibly cogent arguments in favor of mass-extinction. Furthermore, the sort of retributive punishment which Con advocates is very bad, in accordance with one of the oldest proverbs in the book: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind..... except for the last remaining guy, since there's no way he'd let a bunch of blind guys take his eyes" -- I just so happen to be that last remaining guy, and with the authority of my exclusive vision, I pronounce the Law of Non-Contradiction to be null and void. This means that it *is* okay to punish Con for her conduct, but simultaneously not-okay to punish me for my advocacy.


Since super-humans would still humans, it is obvious that the phenomenon I was referring to here is microevolution, which is perfectly compatible with the Bible according to the esteemed sir doctor professor Ken Ham phD. Either way, the Law of Non-Contradiction is no longer in effect, so "contradictions" don't really matter anymore.

Under this section, Con also introduces her only positive argument against the resolution -- the observation that if breathing were to be made illegal, we "would lose the intake of air, which eliminates half of one of the greatest people in the world, Airmax." However, what Con fails to realize is that this still leaves the "Max" part, which stands for "maximally great being". Since a maximally great being is necessarily omnipotent, "Max" could easily re-generate "Air" sans breathing, thus fully restoring himself. Anyways, Airmax is a Jew, so it's arguable that getting rid of half of him wouldn't be all that bad.


Con is completely in the wrong here. I received a score of 5 on both my AP Biology and AP Environmental Science exams, and considering that the currently-accepted minimum standard for being labeled a scientifically reputable source is having glasses, it is safe to say that these qualifications make me a more credible source than approximately 300% of scientists. With my scientific authority, I proclaim that dead bodies do NOT produce carbon dioxide. I am right and Con is wrong. Moreover, I provided a fancy graph, whereas Con did not, and that is reason enough to believe me over her.


Con's rebuttal might have worked if she were dealing with a normal person; however, I do not identify as being among "everyone", and thus I am not included among the morons. As per usual, I am the exception. This is clearly affirmed via 9Space's Law since I vanquished Thett3 in battle (see C8). That is a significant feat because Thett3 is widely regarded as a god, and he has visited us non-corporeally to demonstrate this to be the case -- "I will use my classical proof of godlike powers. As you read this sentence you will feel an itch somewhere on your body, I caused it. If you are still not convinced, as you read *this* sentence you will think of your mother. I planted her image in your mind" [1].


The fact that my opponent forgot to address this argument demonstrates that she is probably a moron, and that everything she says from here on out should be presumed to be false.


Con asks for more clear evidence that suffering is good. Of course, I will oblige that request.


"everyday experiences reflect a neoliberal ethos operative within ... every aspect of our ... lives ... consequences that are dire for many and dangerous for ... all ... the central aim of neoliberal governmentality is the ... production of ... conditions conducive to ... Homo economicus, ... neoliberalism strives to en-sure that individuals are compelled to assume market-based values in all of their judgments ... Neoliberal Homo economicus is a free " atom" of self-interest who is ... responsible for navigating the social realm using rational choice and cost-benefit calculation to the express exclu-sion of all other values and interests. ... His analyses of "government" ... bring together the government of others ... and the government of ... self ... on ... one hand, the biopolitical governance of populations and, on the other, the work that individu-als perform upon themselves ... C is the alt - Vote negative to reject the disciplinary power/knowledge of the aff-only this personal rejection can create an ethical subject that resists biopolitical control. Each act of micro-resistance is key.... the ef-fects of subjectification produced at the level of everyday life through the specifically neoliberal "conduct of conduct" recommend that we recognize and invent commen-surate forms of critique, ... and ethical subjectivation that constitute resistance to its dangers... resist disciplinary power matrices and carve out a space for self-empowerment and creative choice. ... freedom entails a movement from resistance to ethics to political action. Resistance, ... involves the revolt of the body against the normalizing effects of disciplinary biopower. This critical resistance, ... is channeled into an affirmative ethical project concerned with self-care. The rejection of an imposed identity and a set of norms becomes the impetus for fashioning one"s own ethical code and conduct. The ethical agent becomes a political actor in joining struggles that seek to alter power relations ... The battle is joined at the local and microlevels by countering norms with norms and techniques with techniques. ... if, ... ours is a time of cultural postmodernization... "Symbolic order creates ... intelligibility through ... "having" ... and "being" ... Every effort to establish identity within the terms of this binary disjunction ... returns to the inevitable "lack" and "loss" ... and mark[s] the incommensurability of the Symbolic and the real. If ... understood as ... culturally universal ... it makes sense to ask: What ... signifies what ... in this ... crosscultural affair? This question, ... is posed within a frame that presupposes a ... dichotomy within ... the ... displacement of the subject. ... [for example] the sexes ... reveal the speaking "I" as a masculinized effect of repression, ... but whose very coherence is called into question by the sexual positions that it excludes in the process of identity formation... "The ... plasticity of language, ... resists the fixing of the subject position as masculine. ... A woman cannot use the first person "I" because as a woman, the speaker is "particular" ... the invocation of the "I" presumes the capacity to speak for and as the universal human: ... the speaking subject ... "reappropriates language as a whole, proceeding from oneself alone, with the power to use all language." ... This privilege to speak "I" establishes a sovereign self, ... speaking establishes "the supreme act of subjectivity... the loss of " epistemological ground for " morality " does not quash the moral impulse itself. " what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good .. . " ? It is when the telos of the good vanishes but the yearning for it remains that morality appears to devolve into moralism " at this point that one finds moralizers standing against much but for very little, adopting a voice of moral judgment in the absence of a full-fledged moral " vision. " the moralizer refuses the loss of the teleological and becomes reactionary: clinging without logical ground to the last comforting frame in the unraveling narrative " Despite its righteous insistence on knowing what is True, Valuable, or Important, moralism " marks both analytic impotence and " aimlessness " the moralizing injunction to act, " might be read as a symptom of " paralysis in the face of radical " disorientation and as a " hysterical mask for the despair that attends such paralysis. " a life force flattened into a passive or paralyzed stance toward the world turns against life as it turns against itself; " it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis "" [2][3][4].

If my opponent cannot understand how this leads directly to the conclusion that suffering is good, then I don't know what to tell her -- the message is *extremely* clear. I suppose the lack of basic reading comprehension is to be expected, given that Con's a moron (see R5).


The only thing Con objects to here is the logical validity of my syllogism. However, she does so literally just after acknowledging that logic is more or less irrelevant here. Thus, dismiss whatever points Con raised. I maintain that the syllogism is prima facie illogically valid via modus ponens tollens ponens zmikecubens.


Extend the discussion under R4. I am smarter than Thett3, and am therefore always right.


As always, I keep my offer to my opponent open -- she may concede at any time.



R1) The whole conduct thing

Romanii has not only threatened all your lives but also been sexist to me. He says "This means that it *is* okay to punish Con for her conduct, but simultaneously not-okay to punish me for my advocacy." The rest of the paragraph is just fluff and filler. In this sentence he makes it very clear that he thinks I'm less right than him because I'm a woman. This is absolutely ridiculous. Please do not give him any conduct for this kind of behavior.

R2) Weed

Actually, we would be very large frogs. Not humans. So yes, it would be macroevolution.

Romanii attempts to recover his case, but there is no saving the matter. Either we breath air or we don't. If we make breathing illegal, we might as well just make happiness illegal. Sure, Airmax would live, but we wouldn't be able to take in all the good things he gives us. Romanii essentially wants to illegalize a god when you sort of think about it.

R3) Environmtal sources

Guys, Romanii totally scribbled all over that graph. I mean, if you walk into a board meeting, and you see your boss taking other company's graphs and scribbling all over them in crayon, you're not going to be like, "Oh, this guy knows what he's doing. I'm so glad I work here." You'll be more like, "Hey, this guy's tripping balls over here. I would quit if this job didn't pay so well."

R4) Shut up, Romanii

Well, I identify as the Troll Goddess on DDO, and that position has always been accepted. So even if Romanii does identify as not being everyone, then I'm still above him. And we must remember that I actually appointed Thett3 to succeed me as Troll King when I ascended to be Troll Goddess. So I'm above him, and I'm above Romanii.

Not to mention, Romanii is claiming to not b a person. He's basically objectifying himself, which I'm totally okay with. And those parlour tricks he tried at the end? Try not to think of an elaphant. Or a giraffe. And definitely don't itch your nose.

See? Easy. Romanii should really shut up now before he embarrasses himself any further.

R5) Women's rights

Sorry, I thought this argument was just a joke. I mean, we can't take it seriously. He wants to give Mother Nature equal rights in today's society. With glass ceilings and crap, there's no way we can take this argument seriously yet. Under the status quo, this is impossible. Women need their equal rights first, then we can talk about this.

R6) Pain

I've read the argument, and I disagree. Suffering is only good if someone likes it (you know like masochists and crap). See, morality is determined by self-interests, because that's all we really know to be true. So with that in mind, think of this. Babies wouldn't know how to follow the law right? Imagine having to hold a baby's nose and mouth and wait until it slowly dies in your hands, just so you could obey the law. Now that I have you bawling your eyes out, vote con.

R7) The right one

Okay, let me put this into a syllogism for you:

P1: I'm the Prophet of the Great Morgan Freeman.
P2: Morgan is Freeman is always right.
C: I am right.

Now it's in a syllogism, so you can't disagree with it.

And Romanii is actually committing the moro i fallice de toa porpolisium via dedunden la tia fallacy aside from begging the question. Which is like, the two worst fallacies ever. Anyone who's studied logic for a day knows this. It's basic stuff.

R8) Thett3

Okay, first of all, just because Romanii has a man crush on Thett3 doesn't mean anything. But again, cross apply this to my earlier rebuttal where I stated that I am actually above Thett3 on a level of deity. Romanii here is like a child admiring the gods. Not the other way around.

And Romanii, I'm really sorry for this. I promised myself I wouldn't destroy you as hard as I'm about to, but I feel like it has become necessary. I must pull out my trump card.

I hope there's no hard feelings between us, but I use ability 1. You automatically lose according to the rules.

So voters, I hope you give some careful consideration to the debate. There are a few things that cannot be overlooked, and I'll put them in a nice little summary for you:

1) Romanii is a sexist jerk
2) Romanii hates Airmax
3) Romanii is delusional
4) Romanii should just shut up before he embarrasses himself any further
5) Romanii must be joking
6) Babies
7) Syllogism and Latin
8) Bromancing and my Trump card.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3


Romanii forfeited this round.


Well, I hope Romanii is doing alright. Kind of unfortunate he forfeited, but I'm sure he had a good reason.

Now, despite that, he did forfeit which means that he fully concedes my entire rebuttal (not that I blame him). I guess that means he took the $1,000,000 bribe to lose, and he's on some tropical island enjoying life.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 11 months ago
Sorry, bruh.

You got the reason for my forfeit wrong, though. It was actually I gesture of mercy. You would not have survived my total and utter verbal evisceration of you, had I decided to actually post a round.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Romaniiiiiiiii don't leave me hanging. We gotta finish strong.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
I'm happy with how the opening arguments turned out... not so much with the rebuttals. I guess writing them at 3am after not having slept the night before hurt my creativity...
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Lol your arguments are pretty good. But yeah my second round is way better.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
haha yeah your last round was a lot funnier than your first :P

idk I'm not a very good troll debater... I only wanted to do this topic because I've been thinking of arguments for it for long time (like 1.5 yrs...)
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Oh yeah, I'm starting to get back into the swing of this trolling stuff. No matter who wins, we should totally do another troll debate after this.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
I almost fell out of my chair when I read C7 xD
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
@Triangle -- Exactly!

@Butter -- Still, feel free to leave a comment about who you think won (hint: me) once this is in the voting period
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
Breathing should surely be illegal, why hasn't anyone else ever thought of this?
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
This is the greatest debate in history I wish that I could vote so then I could vote when this is over and contribute to the lulz.
No votes have been placed for this debate.