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

Cones should be left on statues' heads.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 40659
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)



This debate is about whether cones placed on statues should be left there, or taken away.

"Mummy, mummy! Look at that cone on the statues' head that hasn't been removed as of yet!" says a boy who doesn't live near said statue. "Let's go to see the statue!" he continues, with as much enthusiasm as ever. "Alright," says Mum "We can go, but it's coming out of your "5". So boy and Mum go on a 12-hour flight, see the statue and go home. What the cone has terrifically done here is increase tourism and give the people who rent out the aeroplane seats a bit of extra pocket money.

"bwahahaahahaha!" boomed your typical teenage muppet, who had woken up five minutes ago and had already churned out that sentence thirteen times because he laughs at pretty much everything. "Donald, Darnel, come on! Let's see what the name of this loser is who only gone and got a cone on 'is 'ead!" and so Bert, Donald, and Darnel found out who that statue was of, liked his name and spent the rest of the day researching that person in books they borrowed from the library and will give back before the due date.

However, what if he didn't have a cone on his head?

"Hi guys" said your typical teenager. Him and his friends walked past a statue.

It looks like cones bring educational, financial and touristic value.

Thank you.


Challenge accepted.
Pro states that "this debate is about whether cones placed on statues should be left there, or taken away." And - forgive me for this, for I am but a newbie - I agree in part with his main point, that the cones should remain on the statues. My view clashes with Pro's in one respect. While it is never explicitly stated in his opening statement that Pro wishes for the cones to be left on the heads of statues, it is definitely implied and, indeed, the topic of the debate is "Cones should be left on statues' heads." So I will argue that the cones should be removed from the heads of the (supposedly humanoid, or at least of animal resemblance) statues and reattached to the crotches of the statues in the style of a penile substitute. I hope that the fact that the cones will have to be temporarily removed qualifies this argument as a valid one and one that is relevant to the question.
Pro described the three main advantages of cones on the heads of statues as "educational (value), financial (value) and touristic value." I believe that placing cones on the heads of statues - in terms of these advantages - is a concept that is simply outclassed by that of attaching those cones to the crotch area of statues.
The first advantage, educational value, is implied to be the product of curiosity. However, with my proposal, the curiosity factor would remain and the cone would also provide a good entry point to the world of sex education for children who are old enough. Those children who are truly too young to be educated about sex would usually not enquire about the positioning of the cone and, in the unlikely event of an enquiry by a child who is considered to be too young, the age and relative innocence and gullibility of that child can be used - in conjunction with quick thinking and inventiveness - to give a feasible answer not related to sex. Those who are not too young would ask and should then be introduced to the basics. Thus the cones have an effective 'screening process' that efficiently filters out those too young to learn about sex. For the purposes of this debate, I hope Pro does not spend too much time challenging my beliefs on sex education, but - in short - I believe that people should learn about sex at a young age (before puberty) so that they can accept it and understand their responsibilities before the age of hormones, excitement and challenging norms and values sets in. This subject is, however, meant for a separate debate and I cannot do it justice in a single sentence.
The second and third advantages I shall combine for the purpose of convenience. The steady deterioration of the generally accepted definition of the word 'phallic' towards 'anything roughly cylindrical', or just 'long and thin' in modern culture gives the cones a certain aspect of suggestiveness. While there is no guarantee, it would seem that statues depicting nude figures receive a lot of popularity and fame. If the records were carefully studied (assuming, of course, that the records actually existed and if not, that Pro would take my word for it), positive correlation would be found between the fame of a statue and whether or not it depicts a nude figure, with some of the most famous statues in the world being of men and women exposing intimate body parts. . In Pro's argument, it was stated that the cones would bring "financial and touristic value" simply by being attached to the statues. I, meanwhile, strongly believe that attaching the cones to the crotch area would intensify their effect and give a more favourable outcome, in terms of "financial and touristic value."
Therefore, we can see that removing the cones from the heads of statues and reattaching them to the crotch areas is more effective than leaving them on the heads in virtually every way that Pro expressed.
Eagerly awaiting your response.
Vote CON
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent thinks that we should leave the cones on the p*n*s of a statue, but I think he is wrong.

My opponent says that doing this will educate children on sex and stuff, but he is not correct. Some parent will say "Oh, the pornography of it all!" and remove the cone altogether and put it on a road or something. Also, some stupid kid (what I mean by this word is the slang for 'child', not the normal definition that normal people use which means a baby goat) will walk into it and poke his eye out. That's why I don't go outside anymore.

Also, we shouldn't put the cones on the p**** because that would mean removing it and then reattaching it on the statues' *****, and removing a cone from a statue costs lots of money [1].

According to the guardian, according to the council, it costs "100 to remove a single cone, and it's easy to figure out where that money goes.

Labour to remove the cone - "0.23
Lunch break - "15.00
Extra money to the council - "84.77

So you see, we really don't want to unnecessarily waste money, especially when it's going to the council.

Thank you.



Pro gave three basic points in his reply.
The first point was that parents " will say 'Oh, the pornography of it all!' and remove the cone altogether and put it on a road or something." This rather vague point fails to take into account that what is basically only the implication of a phallus cannot possibly compare (in terms of the objections of people to 'the pornography of it all') to those statues which portray actual nudity and yet even those, for millennia, have not only been tolerated, but celebrated. Therefore, the belief that a parent would object to a traffic cone on the crotch of a statue, but not the countless famous statues which were alluded to in my last point (such as the Venus de Milo or the Thinker) that show actual nude figures and in some widely celebrated statues (such as Mannekin Pis of Brussels) the depictions are of more than 'simple' nudity.
The second point is that "some stupid kid...will walk into it and poke his eye out." Now, this point is almost beyond my reach, as there is so much wrong with it that I find myself unable to pinpoint the fundamental issues. The point suggests that a horizontal traffic cone represents a danger to people's safety and while this might've been arguable, the example used is frankly irrelevant. Firstly, there is little that would cause a child to come into contact with these traffic cones which would be halfway up a statue (which are sometimes actually on raised plinths and are usually - in any case - separated from the crowds of people) very obvious and sometimes very difficult to reach. Secondly, a traffic cone is not actually sharp or thin enough to take an eye out, generally. Therefore, unless the child in question is as tall as a Cyclops and has an eye the size of a Cyclops too, the cones cannot actually harm them at all.
The third point had my opponent state the expense of removing cones and pull a "RECEIPT" from nowhere, stating no sources for the receipt or any proof. The initial point about "100 being the expense of removing a cone is, according to the very source that Pro gave, simply a claim from the council. Even if we accept this as the realistic cost of removing the cones, which it isn't, the proposed plan is to simply reattach the cones.
I believe I have addressed all of Pro's main points, however, I would also like to request that Pro provides proof for the validity of the receipt mentioned. I need hardly remind that, as both Pro and Instigator, you do have burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.