The Instigator
Hud4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

David Cameron is most likely going to assinated by someone by the election

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 3 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 68578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Hud4

Pro

Please state your ideas
TN05

Con

This debate is on the topic "David Cameron is most likely going to assinated by someone by the election". Assination is defined as "When a person accidentally kills or murders another person by sitting on their face with their a**".[1] David Cameron is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.[2] The next UK election is to be held sometime this year.[3] Accordingly, my burden is to demonstrate that it is at least somewhat improbable that David Cameron will be assinated this year.

Let's examine what circumstances would allow David Cameron to be assinated. In general, the primary methods for killing are shooting, stabbing, choking, and punching - sitting on someone's face probably comes near the bottom of the list. That being said, it has happened before.[4] However, per the definition of 'assination', it is not sufficient to simply crush someone by sitting on their face - it must be accidental. This eliminates some very reasonable possiblities (like a group of Muslim extremists kidnapping Cameron and crushing his face) - almost all of them, in fact. I cannot find a single recorded instance of someone accidentally dying by having their face sat on. It just doesn't happen. Ergo, it is very unlikely that this will happen to David Cameron, especially prior to the election, which means that this resolution fails and a vote for CON is warranted.

References:
1. http://www.urbandictionary.com...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Hud4

Pro

Hud4 forfeited this round.
TN05

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Hud4

Pro

Hud4 forfeited this round.
TN05

Con

I extend my arguments. Vote Co !
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Before I saw your picture, I was tempted to accept... But as a fellow geek... You may want to change the resolution to include the word "attempt," and fix the spelling issue. Most assassination attempts in fact fail, only a successful one gets referred to an so and so was assassinated.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Hud4TN05Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Con. Pro clearly misspelled *assassinate* in the resolution, and also failed to use punctuation in the only round he typed in. Con had no such errors. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any case whatsoever, completely dropped the BOP. Con, on the other hand, presented a clear case as to why it's improbable that such a thing would happen. For this reason, I award arguments to Con. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources throughout the debate, whereas Con did. This is a clear, and rare, 7-point win in favor of Con.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Hud4TN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling goes to Con
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Hud4TN05Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF