The Instigator
Josh_b
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MoralityProfessor
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
MoralityProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,438 times Debate No: 43580
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

Josh_b

Pro

This is a fallacy debate using all fallacies.

Voting for this debate is based on the adequate use of Fallacies not the actual content of the Debate as identified in this Forum:
http://www.debate.org...

Round one is for Acceptance
--The acceptor of this round must provide a reasonable claim of the Key to starting new relationships which is not Charm.

Round 2 is for imperial evidence
Round 3 is for Refutation of the opposing debater
Round 4 is for Conclusion and appeal to voters

No Rebuttals.
Do not Identify the fallacies you are using in the Debate.
MoralityProfessor

Con

I will be arguing that honesty is the key to starting new relationships.

As defined in the rules, my arguments will be presented in the next round.

Looking forward to an intriguing and fallacious debate (because intelligent people are interested in such thought provoking discussions.) :D
Debate Round No. 1
Josh_b

Pro

Prince Charming is the most widely known Disney Prince. There a ton of other Disney Princes, but none are so prevalent as Charming. That is absolutely because charm is the most sought after quality in starting a new relationship. No one looks for phillip, or eric, or florian as a character trait when starting a relationship, they just aren’t important. Every girl wants a Prince Charming. You must be curious as to why. You want him because Disney tells you that you want him. Disney tells every single girl that they are poor and worthless and no one will ever want them unless it happens to be a rich single bachelor who has a TV show on their network channel ABC. You can have all the men you want, Disney says, but don’t even look at them because they are old dogs trying to catch a cat, or mice beneath your feet. Disney doesn’t tell you the reason why Cinderella was such a catch for this Chief of Charm. It’s her nature to be on her knees all the time…scrubbing the floor.

But I digress; let’s talk about the real meaning of charm. Charm is a puppy waiting be picked up. It’s so cute until it pees on you. Charm is the feeling you get right before you vomit. Charm is the moment when everything feels so right and you have no idea why. It happens when a guy tells a girl makes fun of a girl for having big ears and then asks her on a date. How could a guy possibly know to make fun of the one thing a girl is sensitive about and then have the nerve to ask her out? It’s charm.

Josh_B, why are talking so bad about charm? Didn’t you call it the key to starting new relationships?

I did call it the key to starting new relationships and it is. The three fundamentals according to a Seventeen magazine October 1949 are vigorous aliveness, appealing to good looks, and the ability to meet life gaily. So if you aren't alive, skinny, and gay, you can't start a new relationship.

http://www.virtuousreality.com...;

MoralityProfessor

Con

I used to believe that charm was the key to relationships. Then I met a well-respected scientist who proved that all good relationships are founded upon principles of honesty. Based on tremendous fortitude and integrity that any good-hearted person would admire, he came up with the following statistics, (backed by much of the scientific community):

He calculates that the President of the United States is the most influential and respected man in the world. George Washington was honest, and we all know this indisputable fact from the famous story of when he admitted to having chopped down a cherry tree. He later became the president of the United States. Presidents of the USA have been known to have approval ratings of even up to 90%. (http://www.gallup.com...) If people approve of you, you can make good relationships. So if you're honest not only can you make good relationships, but you will even become the President of the United States of America, and even get a 90% approval rating!

Honesty is for the righteous and the irrelevant.

We know that people lie in their graves. They lie in bed. Lying is very prevalent in society. But we must say 'enough is enough'! We must face adversary in the face! We must be strong and worthy! Lying is for losers! I mean, frankly, who wouldn't want to be honest? Only a dishonest person would, and we all know that dishonest people can't be trusted. Besides, whoever doesn't agree with this premise can just emigrate to another country.

I personally have experienced moments in my own life when telling the truth was beneficial to me (like writing answers on tests) and I have gained so much from being honest that doing anything else, especially in relationships, just isn't worth it. You might end up with someone who thinks you like tuna fish if you don't tell the truth. And that would be tragic.
Debate Round No. 2
Josh_b

Pro

I am totally insulted. This was a debate about using fallacies, not about using your professor from college. No true professor would ever claim honesty as a key to starting relationships. He certainly must be as susceptible to dementia as any other person if he says something so ridiculous.

Honesty was a really good subject for a debate concerning the key to sustaining good relationships. Unfortunately, the key to starting relationship is either charm, or respect. And since honesty is neither charming, nor respectful, it is not the key to starting relationships.

Honesty is the same as death, and therefore only dead people can start relationships with honesty. Every president that has ever been a minister to France claims that “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” Can you see how they never talk about the key to starting new relationships?

Honesty is completely subjective to the best evidence that can be provided. If you provide the best evidence, charm will always be the most honest answer. Honesty is manipulative, and self serving.


MoralityProfessor

Con

Before we look at my opponents arguments, let's take a look at who exactly Josh_b is. He recently voted on a debate where he wrote, 'I... care for vote bombing.' (http://www.debate.org...) So we can see that he is the type of person who likes vote-bombing, making anything he says unreliable.

In addition, he clearly uses fallacies in every one of his arguments, providing further reason to distrust his logical authenticity.

Basically, Josh_B's main argument boils down to the ridiculous assumption that if charm isn't the key to relationships then we will have to terminate the production of Disney movies. That's nonsense, as I will allow Disney to continue producing movies even if truth is the actual relationship builder. I will allow this because Disney can then come out with another movie with a character named 'Prince Frank', who tells the truth.

The vast amount of arguments my opponent presents ensconce an amalgamation of ostentatious idiosyncrasies, indubitably designed to imbue a premonition of disconcerting diffidence, thus causing me to capitulate to his arguments. It will not be effective, though.

Besides, how do you know charm is the key to relationships if you haven't tried honesty? And if you have tried honesty, then you would know charm is not the key to relationships.

The major problem with my opponent's argument is that, ultimately, most people would rather have authentic relationships with a small number of people then artificial charming relationships with everyone.

"Charm.... is... no...t... the key to starting a new relationship."
My opponent ultimately concedes the debate to me in Round 2, and his arguments are ridiculous to a degree of deserving medals, so I don't actually see a point in addressing his other arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Josh_b

Pro

Voters should vote for pro on this debate because it is clear that he has no Idea what he is doing, but he has shown great skill in refuting con's arguments and at minimum, he has been fair and considerate of arguments presented by con.

Pro doesn't seem to know what he is doing but he has been called a professional by other debaters in debates of this category.

Con may or may not be a professional

Either the case that pro is not a professional and deserves points in conduct for continuing to challenge con on this issue or it is the case that pro is a professional and con is not a professional, so pro deserves points in argument as well points in conduct.

Con defers to pro's previous arguments as being called a professional, therefore subjecting her own arguments to that of pro's. Thus making the case that pro is a professional and deserves both conduct and convincing argument points as per the previous conclusion. or it is the case that con's deference is unreliable because pro is not a professional and con is still subject to pro's previous arguments, thereby making Con unprofessional and points being given to Pro in the category of reliable resources, convincing argument, and conduct.

Pro and Con both believe in Disney and agree that Disney has created Prince Charming, but has not created Prince Honesty. If Prince Frank is created, he will not be Prince Honesty, and he will be in a perpendicular relaxed position, just as my opponent is. Girls will still fall prey to Prince Charming, end up in horrific, abusive relationships if voters choose to vote for Con.
MoralityProfessor

Con

First, I would personally like to say that I have been having a hard time recently because my dog went missing. It's been very difficult adapting to life without him and his big ears, but I've slowly been putting the pieces back together. This debate was one of those stepping stones to get involved with society once more and for that alone, deserves at least the conduct points, if not arguments as well.

As I'm sure the sharper of readers will immediately notice, Pro has consistently failed to provide good reasons why charm is the key to good relationships, thus proving my point that honesty must be.

Pro mentions in the first round that 'if you aren't alive, skinny, and gay, you can't start a new relationship', and I'd like to point out that Pro thinks he can win by stating the obvious. Clearly, because we are discussing the key to 'new relationships', then, by definition, that implies we're talking about people that are alive, skinny and gay. I'd like to ask Pro in the future not to state obvious facts, for example, 'herring is a fish', and 'red is a color', just to fill up character spaces.

In addition, if Pro is taking a position against honesty, then everything he says in unreliable. Bear that in mind when voting.

I implore all intelligent voters to delve into the most intimate depths of their hearts and seek out the truth that lies within by voting for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Thank you bsh1 for your vote, it was indeed appreciated. I agree that my last round was too serious - constructive criticism never hurts. (Well, it does when taken the wrong way, but I don't think I took it the wrong way.)

Thanks to Josh_b for debating with me. I had a lot of fun and really appreciate your kind words. Touch".

As per your request, I will try leave a summary explanation of my arguments later this week. Thanks!
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
Thank you BSH1 for your vote. My goal in the first round was to create a positive from a negative, which ended up having a very angry connotation to it. I was really nervous about its assistance to my argument, but I thought, what the the hell, it also argues to emotions.

I am receptive to Con's winning, I really like the combination of contextualization, suppressed evidence, straw man, declared bias, illogical creation of a bias, no true Scotsman. and word twisting in con's second round.

I think MoralityProfessor also did an excellent job of refuting my statements through fallacious argument. This was a fantastic debate and I'm ultimately pleased that it was included in TUF's weekly DDO updates. Congratulations MP, you deserve it.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Kind of. He's not really missing. He belonged to our neighbors but lived with us. Then we had to move and couldn't take him with. That was two years ago, though. So I'm okay now. :D
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
What a great appeal to emotion, is your dog really missing?
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
What a great appeal to emotion, is your dog really missing?
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Sounds good. By the way, you really had me going there for a minute, with your 'I am totally insulted' bit. I was trying to figure out what I could have said that would offend you when. I remembered it's a fallacy debate.... Heh... :D
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
I'm going to give round three time to sit, while its amusement wears off. touche!
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Certainly
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
Thanks for a good first round. I like your tactics. After the debate can you leave a summary explanation of your arguments in the comment section?
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Alrighty. I look forward to the debate. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Josh_bMoralityProfessorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: LMFAO...that debate was hilarious. Source to Con for using them. Args to Con--he had better fallacies, e.g. "lying" in grave...lol. Con was a little to serious in the final round, which I felt went against the spirit of the thing, so I will grant Pro one point for remain true to the theme. Good round!