The Instigator
retroz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
uniferous
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Choose the topic

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 84479
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

retroz

Con

Round 1: List 4 topics
Round 2: I choose which one we should debate... You Accept
Round 3: Constructive for both sides
Round 4: Rebuttals (No new evidence unless contrary to opponents point)
Round 5: Voters
uniferous

Pro

I am Pro all of these


Topic 1: Pro is not a bird

Topic 2: Pro is not an ant

Topic 3: Pro not a Rhino

Topic 4: Pro is not an elephant

Since I am Pro, I will argue that I am not a bird / ant / rhino / elephant. My opponent must argue that I am (whichever one he/she chooses).
Debate Round No. 1
retroz

Con

I will take topic 4

You are going to be very angry at me for what I am about to do...
uniferous

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 2
retroz

Con

Thank you to my opponent for these not so wonderful topics

As my opponent did not specify what type of elephant he is (literal or figurative) I will decide to argue the figurative side of things.

P1- the Republican Party"s mascot is the Elephant
P2- While part of a group you are called what the mascot of that group is
C1- If you are part of the Republican Party, you are an Elephant
P3- My opponent is part of the Republican Party
C2- He is considered an Elephant

P1- This is common knowledge, but here is a history lesson" In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled "The Republican Vote." That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

Source: http://www.factmonster.com...

P2- This has no statistics to back it up, however using examples we can show this".

Example: Sports Teams
If you are a part of a sports team, you are classified by their mascot" For example, if you play for the Anaheim Ducks, you are a duck. While you are each individually recognized by name, you are a duck, your team is called the Ducks.

Example: Colleges
If your alma mater is a college say, Virginia Tech" Then you are a Hokie. If you went to USC then you are a Trojan while you may not be from Troy and a Hokie is not a real thing" You are considered the mascot because you were a part of a group.

C1- So, since the Republican Party are the Elephants, and if you are a member of a group, you are classified as their mascot... Then, if you are a member of the republican party, then you are an Elephant

P3- My opponent is a member of the Republican Party
Saturday, January 03, 2016
10:21 AM
Online:Right NowName:- Private -
Updated: 1 Week Ago
Gender:Prefer not to say
Joined:3 Weeks Ago
Birthday:- Private -
President:Donald Trump (Republican Party)
Email:- Private -
Ideology:Not Saying
Education:Not Saying
Party:Republican Party
Ethnicity:Middle Eastern
Relationship:It's Complicated
Income:Other
Interested:No Answer
Occupation:Not Saying
Looking:Friendship, Networking
Religion:Jewish

From <http://www.debate.org...;

C2- So my opponent is an Elephant

Good Luck to my opponent!
uniferous

Pro

An elephant is an animal [1]. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an elephant to learn English and it is equally difficult for an elephant to learn English [2]. Since it is impossible for an elephant to physically speak or write it is therefore impossible for me to be an elephant. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based argument:

P1: Elephants are unable to speak and type
P2: This has been typed by me
C1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant.

Assuming that we are referring to the argument in an offensive sense (ie. calling somebody an elephant as an insult), them I am also not an elephant. Since my opponent does not know me, he has no justified reason in which he can refer to me as an elephant. My opponent is a believer in God and of an Abrahamic faith (which I am too), so we can find similarities with eachother (on top of our age). This means that if he calls me an elephant in an insulting way, then he essentially insults my characterists/beliefs and by doing this he insults himself [3]. No sane person insults themself [4]. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based structure similarly to how I did so previously:

P1: My opponent does not know me.
P2: Insults are personal.
C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me.

P1: Based on our limited knowledge of eachother, we are similar.
C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.

Apologies for the brevity of my round however at this point there is not much that I can add due to the fact that this debate essentially revolves around a series of truisms that all fall in my favor (sorry about that). I understand that my opponent has argued based on the Republican Party however since this is for my case and arguments I will not refer to this at the current point in this debate. I will do so in my rebuttals.

Thank you for initiating this debate. Vote Pro!



[1] https://www.google.co.uk...;
[2] http://www.findingdulcinea.com...;
[3] http://gulfnews.com...;
[4] http://www.mind.org.uk...;
Debate Round No. 3
retroz

Con

My opponent's first claim is true,but is not on the grounds of this debate. So, the first claim of my opponent while true should not be influencing the decision. (unless my case is fully rebutted)“

P1: Elephants are unable to speak and type
P2: This has been typed by me
C1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant."

My counter: I never said he wasn't a human, I said he was classified as an elephant due to the fact that he is a Republican.

Rebuttals:

Claim:
“P1: My opponent does not know me.
P2: Insults are personal.
C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me

"Counter-Claim: I have not made an insulting remark in my case
Counter-Evidence: Read my case
Counter-Warrant: This ought to be regarded as irrelevant

Claim:
“P1: Based on our limited knowledge of each other, we are similar.
C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.

”Counter-Claim: Irrelevancy
Counter-Evidence: First, I never insulted anybody…
Second, just because two people are similar does not mean one cannot insult another. If I were to make a Holocaust joke, I would insult my opponent (most likely), but it would not make me insane as my opponent says, nor would I be insulting myself.

On top of this, look at a source provided for that paragraph link 3 discusses an unprovable idea"When suppressed concerns and feelings, such as lack of self-esteem; self-defeating thoughts and behaviours; guilt; and anger, for example, are not treated or dealt with, the person uses insults to unleash anger" (link 3 discusses projection, releasing your emotions on another person, but there is no proof that we do that, as that is an ego defense mechanism and there is no proof that Freud's theory of Id, Ego, and Super Ego is true)and Link 4 is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with insanity or insulting

Counter-Warrant: This is irrelevant

So, just look at my opponent’s argument, all strike through portions of his argument are things that ought to be disregarded orare irrelevant

An elephant is an animal [1]. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an elephant to learn English and it is equally difficult for an elephant to learn English [2]. Since it is impossible for an elephant to physically speak or write it is therefore impossible for me to be an elephant. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based argument:

P1: Elephants are unable to speak and type
P2: This has been typed by me
C1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant.

Assuming that we are referring to the argument in an offensive sense (ie. calling somebody an elephant as an insult), them I am also not an elephant.(my argument is not offensive thus this is irrelevant) Since my opponent does not know me, he has no justified reason in which he can refer to me as an elephant. My opponent is a believer in God and of an Abrahamic faith (which I am too), so we can find similarities with each other (on top of our age). This means that if he calls me an elephant in an insulting way (I did not, so this is irrelevant), then he essentially insults my characteristics/beliefs and by doing this he insults himself [3]. No sane person insults themselves (as I did not make an insult, this is irrelevant)[4](source provided is unrelated to topic). I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based structure similarly to how I did so previously:

P1: My opponent does not know me.
P2: Insults are personal.
C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me.
Read Rebuttal 1 as well as my explanation of the refutations of the paragraph.

P1: Based on our limited knowledge of each other, we are similar.
C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.
Read Rebuttal 2 as well as my explanation of the refutations of the paragraph

[1]https://www.google.co.uk......;
[2]http://www.findingdulcinea.com...
[3]http://gulfnews.com...
[4]http://www.mind.org.uk... (source provided is unrelated to topic)

I cannot refute the beginning of his argument as it is true...

However,his second paragraph can be refuted...
A: I never made an insult thus his second part is irrelevant.
B: His sources are unrelated or do not exist
C: IRL his argument does not make sense...
"Second, just because two people are similar does not mean one cannot insult another. If I were to make a Holocaust joke, I would insult my opponent (most likely), but it would not make me insane (defined:the state of being seriously mentally ill)as my opponent says ("No sane person insults themselves"), nor would I be insulting myself."

As, my opponent must fully rebut my arguments and prove that he is not a figurative elephant (which he has not yet) and I must rebut his arguments and prove that he is a figurative elephant (as I have)

Therefore, I urge a con vote
uniferous

Pro

Just before I begin I would like to apologize for the short argument. I have been extremely pressured for time however I believe that this argument is sufficient to refute my opponent's claims.

My opponent claims that I am a member of the Republican party. This is true but my opponent fails to acknowledge that the fact that I support a very specific part of the republican party [2]. To be particular I support the group known as Thomas Jefferson Republicans [1] and they are represented by an OWL not an ELEPHANT.

Owl

Since my whole opponent's argument rests on the fact that I am an elephant because I am a member of the reblican party, they lose this debate because my opponent generalizes what the Repulican party is and who they really are. This basically means that my opponent loses based on this short argument alone since their entire argument rests upon this sole point. My opponent does not know about me and what type of republican party that I support. Furthermore, they generalize what the Republican party is and they fail to acknowledge that it comes under many names and has many symbols depending on what part of the rebulican party you support.

Vote Pro because I have proven that I am not an elephant in the following ways: I am not a literal elephant, I am not an elephant in an offensive way, I am not an elephant in a political way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://conservative.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 4
retroz

Con

Last Round was a Rebuttal... No new points can be brought up, my opponent created a whole other argument. Arguing that he is a Jefferson Republican, not a Republican (there is no relationship between them [1]). Even if you do consider that piece admissible, my voters round will show why Con has won.

He said "This is true but my opponent fails to acknowledge that the fact that I support a very specific part of the republican party" He didn't support the JRP at the beginning of this Debate... Plus, "There is no relationship between the JRP and the Republican Party, and the JRP is only active in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee."
[1]
So his argument is flawed because the JRP and Republicans are not related.

Now, look at his sources for his last argument, He offers his profile where he says he is a Jefferson Republican (which just magically changed to fit his argument), he offers a Wikipedia link to the Democrat-Republican party (which is the predecessor of the Jefferson Republican Party) , and a Conservative Wiki link to the Whig party [2]. So what is he a Whig, a Republican, or a Democrat-Republican (Jefferson Republican)? He seems a little confused to me.


Finally, my opponent just made himself a liar in this argument... He claims that he is a republican, then says he is a "Thomas Jefferson Republican" but those are descendants of the Democrat-Republican Party...But, the Owl is the symbol of the Whig party. (just look at source 3) So he says he is a republican, but he is a JRP. Whether or not Democrat-Republicans and "JRP's" are the same is questionable and does not matter, the truth is my opponent lied about what he is in his profile. Funny how he decided to change it to fit the needs of his argument.

By definition, a liar is a person who speaks false statements

Remember, pro always has the burden of proof if it is not defined.

So, since my opponent lied in this argument, that is enough to cast a shadow of a doubt on all of his arguments. This is because we cannot prove that his statement is true or false.


Thus, you must vote Con because the Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof as he may be speaking a false statement (as he did in his profile by claiming he is a Republican, not a Whig or a JRP (which was an option at the beginning) or a Democrat-Republican, or even just putting other), and he cannot prove that he is telling the truth. Thus, there is a shadow of a doubt on whether or not he is an Elephant. Thus, Con wins.

This is not a new argument (I can't stress this enough), this is merely me showing why Con won, Con won because my opponent lied and because he had major flaws in his "rebuttal" (new argument), and there is no proof that he isn't lying about him being a part of the JRP (kind of suddenly, don't you think?)... It clearly said "Republican Party" on his profile (as shown in an earlier argument) and if he lied about that, there is no proof that he isn't lying about being a Jefferson Republican. Thus, Con won.

[1] http://usconservatives.about.com...
[2] http://conservative.wikia.com...
uniferous

Pro

I argued that I was a Jeffereson Republican which is a type of Republican [1]. I have supported the Jerrereson Republican party for a long time and the fact that I put my political ideology as Republican is permissable since:

a) JRP counts as Republican [1]

b) I didn't realize that the JRP was a separate option until this debate came along and I checked again. Even if you do not buy this, you still don't vote me down because as I cannot stress enough. JRP = Reblican.

I am a Jeffereson Republican which is a republican. A more informal name for my party is The Whig Party, which is a party of similar ideology and image connotation representation but is smaller [2].

The owl is the symbol of the whig party AND the JRP [1][2].

My opponent has consistently claimed that I have not fulfilled my BOP when the BOP is clearly on him. It's con's burden to prove that I am an elephant. Since I know what I am, this means that I have less to prove than con. This means that Con's the person lying. Not me as he has consistently complained about.

Con has made consistent assertions throughout the debate with absoloutely NOTHING to verify this by.

"While part of a group you are called what the mascot of that group is" Con.

He then says when attempting to prove this:


"This has no statistics to back it up, however using examples we can show this" Con.

This is insufficient. Con creates examples and produces something with little - no explanation of why I should buy this and why it is true.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://conservative.wikia.com...;
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
Sources for my rebuttal are here:

http://allpsych.com...
Definition of insanity: Oxford Dictionaries
Posted by uniferous 11 months ago
uniferous
Interesting ...
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
This round is an acceptance round... Why don't you just post "I accept" so we can get this debate moving
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
This round is an acceptance round... Why don't you just post "I accept" so we can get this debate moving
Posted by uniferous 11 months ago
uniferous
I think I know what you're going to do. Are you going to argue elephant as in an offensive (rather than literal) way?
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
Bulls*** topics lead to bulls*** arguments... And I am ready to bulls***
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
What about the sides? I assume you'll be Con and I'll be Pro whatever topic is chosen?
Posted by moneystacker 11 months ago
moneystacker
only reason I might not debate you is because you seem like an LD debater. LD debaters are crazy good when it comes to information and with the amount of time between debates you would just beat me off research alone. I was congress/PF all day didn't touch LD.

However I will watch this debate will be interesting :).
No votes have been placed for this debate.