The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
J-A-Moore
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bryan Mullins, The Shriner's Necrophiliac Society: Children were having sex with dead dogs

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 106599
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (50)
Votes (0)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

First, let's say we interview a Shriner's hospital child patient, or Alec, for example, you'll ask him "what do you think is cute and can help you do anything you want it to?" Alec responds "A dog or a puppy" and you respond "what would a dog or a puppy do for you?" Then, he responds "fetch me a ball or help me get to where I want to be" then you'll argue and prove that disability isn't even a thing, like saying "If you were really "disabled" or if it was even a thing, that wheelchair would have to be required, but it wouldn't be required because you're not "disabled," you have sex with dead dogs just like every other child patient does here, at Shriner's Hospitals For Children." Alec would freak out or even cry because they knew what they were doing, but at the same time, failed to make an excuse to avoid the truth.

Here is an interesting fact however, Since each Shriner's hospital has 162 rooms, then there are 22 of those hospitals; and, they've been around for about 96 years [1], they've had sex with 342,144 dead dogs.

Sources:
[1] https://www.google.com...

[2] https://m.youtube.com...
J-A-Moore

Con

Burden of proof:

It is an established rule of logic that a person who makes a claim, has a burden to prove their claim.
(pro) has made a VERY outlandish claim, and he has not backed it up with any sources. What links he has provided serve only to establish the date at which the Shriner's Hospital has been founded; and to play Music.. which is in my opinion, a bit creepy.

Absurdity of the claim:

It's an absurd claim. people are having sex with dead dogs in Hospitals run by a charity group. What sane person would consider such a thing let alone act on it? And for there to be such a wild and socially unacceptable thing happening by such a large organization would require a cover up of massive proportions. Is that a reasonable assertion.. The answer is clearly No.

Demand for Pro to produce credible sources:

In light of the unreasonable claims, I demand (pro) provide sources supporting their claim.

Debate Round No. 1
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

This is just a theory, it's not like I'm saying it is fact, it is just a theory. You don't just attack a theory for being a theory. Let me quote you in simple terms. "Burden of proof:

It is an established rule of logic that a person who makes a claim, has a burden to prove their claim.
(pro) has made a VERY outlandish claim, and he has not backed it up with any sources. What links he has provided serve only to establish the date at which the Shriner's Hospital has been founded; and to play Music.. which is in my opinion, a bit creepy." Does the founding year not have to do with the calculation I made? It does have to do with the sum, if it didn't, you would obviously know that I made up a random number, which would be blatant. Which I did not make a random number. The numbers all add up, you don't just attack a theory for making sense.

Reinstating the calculation for the refutation of Con's overestimated claim:

"Since each Shriner's hospital has 162 rooms, then there are 22 of those hospitals; and, they've been around for about 96 years, they've had sex with 342,144 dead dogs."

162 Rooms per hospital/ Number of child patients
X 22 hospitals
X 96 Years Estimated History
------------------------------------------------
342,144 Dead Dogs!

Let's define Necrophilia.

Necrophelia:
"sexual attraction for or sexual intercourse with dead bodies Also called necromania, necrophilism" [1]

The Burden of Proof counterclaim is not necessary to just attack a theory without being proven yet. It is to counterclaim something that is obviously opinion, which in this case, doesn't necessarily need to be used.

Let me reinstate my theory after making all of this clear to you. "First, let's say we interview a Shriner's hospital child patient, or Alec, for example, you'll ask him "what do you think is cute and can help you do anything you want it to?" Alec responds "A dog or a puppy" and you respond "what would a dog or a puppy do for you?" Then, he responds "fetch me a ball or help me get to where I want to be" then you'll argue and prove that disability isn't even a thing, like saying "If you were really "disabled" or if it was even a thing, that wheelchair would have to be required, but it wouldn't be required because you're not "disabled," you have sex with dead dogs just like every other child patient does here, at Shriner's Hospitals For Children." Alec would freak out or even cry because they knew what they were doing, but at the same time, failed to make an excuse to avoid the truth."

Sources used in debate:
[1] https://www.google.com...

[2] https://m.youtube.com...

There is no burden of proof, it is just a theory, So vote Pro!
J-A-Moore

Con


Pro's argument was a non argument. He really just repeated his opening statement. His final retort that it's " just a theory" is childish.
Debate Round No. 2
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I did. Thanks!
Posted by Youngastronomer 6 months ago
Youngastronomer
You won this debate though.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
At least it is a tie. It is still proven FACT.
Posted by Youngastronomer 6 months ago
Youngastronomer
Not good.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@dsjpk5 come on.
You have no respect.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
I was asked to vote on this debate. I respectfully decline.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Anybody, please vote pro!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@J-A-Moore What? Lol.
So, you're saying that you can't prove your own arguments?
While I can prove mine.
Your comment made no sense at all.
Posted by J-A-Moore 6 months ago
J-A-Moore
You cant prove a negate. Pro showed no evidence than insisted he didn't have to. If you voted for pro you're a kook :p and I don't hold back from saying so.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@youngastronomer It's okay, someone else will vote. Good explanation though.

@Nataliewardwood No, I'm just saying that they do that to dead dogs, I'm against what they do to dead dogs.
No votes have been placed for this debate.