The Instigator
dweyand07
Pro (for)
Winning
53 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,411 times Debate No: 3731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (20)

 

dweyand07

Pro

I would have to say that Deaf people have better eye sight than hearing people in many situation.

I would like to say good luck to my debator.
Logical-Master

Con

Good evening. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like the voters to vote based on who provided the better arguments. If you happen to have a simple bias against the kind of argument I am about to use (and it is not refuted by my opponent), I would suggest that you not vote and carry out your complaints in the comment section. For everyone else, let us proceed.

In today's case, I shall attack the claim "Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does" on two levels.

First, let us focus on the word "does." According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "does" is defined as "Third person singular present tense of do"(1) Thus, it is quite clear that the topic is suggesting that the term "people" is singular, but I insure you that it isn't. Through observing dictionary.com, the term people is clearly a plural term(2). These facts alone would suggest that the resolution is impossible.

Second, let us focus on the claim as a whole. My opponent provided no form of clarification in round 1, thus I must rely on my own comprehension for clarification. Looking at how it is phrased, it suggests that there are no exceptions when comparing deaf people to people who aren't deaf. This is my opponent's downfall as there are indeed exceptions. For instance, not all deaf people have sight. Helen Keller is a good example of deaf person who couldn't see nor hear (3). Therefore, since not all deaf people have sight in the first place, such a claim as the resolution cannot be made with any sort of validation.

With these two points being noted, the contender of this debate is victorious.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dweyand07

Pro

Yes I know Helen Keller was Blind and Deaf.

As the topic said "Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does," but I did not say ALL deaf people. I was only referring to deaf people who can see. (I know I did not say that in the first round)

Most people who was born deaf have one sense better than everything else. Most common sense that was better than other is eye sights because we are requires to watch everything around us.

Hearing people really don't depend on their eye sights that much compare to Deaf people. As I'm saying, we depend to use our eyes to see the cars coming, lights going on/off, objects moving, sign language, lip-reading.

Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see.

How many of you guys are hearing and does not depend on the sights to know what's going on?
Do you just listen to everything to see if you can figure out what's going on?
Or you always look around trying to figure it out?
Logical-Master

Con

It's time to D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-uel!

First, it must be noted that my opponent COMPLETELY dropped my argument which concerned the usage of the word "does" as shown in the resolution. As I had pointed out, this argument was a clincher for this debate as if it is to be accepted, then the resolution MUST be recognized as impossible, hence winning me the debate automatically.

Second, my opponent responds to my second argument by suggesting that he didn't mean to suggest ALL deaf people. Ladies and gentleman, we must keep in mind that my opponent provided ABSOLUTELY NO CLARIFICATION in round 1. For that matter, he gave NO ARGUMENTS, thus gave me permission to determine the direction this debate would go in.

Furthermore, even to pacify my opponent by letting this unjustified clarification slide, his argument is still erroneous. He says he is only referring to the deaf people who can see, but if we compare a near/far sighted (or any other form of eye impairment) deaf individual to a non-deaf individual with nigh perfect vision, it is quite clear that ALL deaf people who can see are not superior to all non-deaf people who can see.

In response to this claim: "Hearing people really don't depend on their eye sights that much compare to Deaf people."

. . . I will say that just because hearing people don't depend on their eye sights as much as deaf people, it doesn't lead us to the conclusion that non-hearing people have better eye sight. In other words, this is non sequitur.

To elaborate, lets say two guys purchase two of the same cars from an automobile shop. The first guy uses his car daily whereas the second guy uses his car twice a week. By my opponent's logic, the first guy would have a better car, despite that there's nothing inherently superior within the first guy's car.

Now, if my opponent meant to suggest that the lack of a certain sense made the other senses stronger, then this idea does more harm than good to his argument.
For instance, if a non-deaf individual loses his/her sense of smell, touch, or taste, his/her other senses would increase. This would suggest that both deaf and non-deaf people can potentially have equal sight, which is contrary to my opponent's case, considering that he is advocating that there is no equality..

In the next round, I'd like my opponent to expound on the following claim:

"Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see."

What is there to suggest that hearing people ALWAYS depend on what they hear rather than what they see? Furthermore, the fact that there are many visual learners within the non-deaf population completely disproves this baseless assertion.

In response to: " How many of you guys are hearing and does not depend on the sights to know what's going on?"

It would appear my opponent was more interested in a discussion than a debate. Unfortunately, questions such as this one will have to wait until after this debate. In the comments section perhaps? At any rate, I will answer each. Personally, I utilize my sight as well as my hearing. In fact, when I play games such as Dance Dance Revolution, I strongly rely on my eye sight to get high scores.

>>>Do you just listen to everything to see if you can figure out what's going on?>>>

No, I listen, smell, hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on.

>>>Or you always look around trying to figure it out?>>>

As suggested above, I don't do one or the other. Rather, I utilize all of my senses.

I now await round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
dweyand07

Pro

Alrighty, last round.

You said, "What is there to suggest that hearing people ALWAYS depend on what they hear rather than what they see? Furthermore, the fact that there are many visual learners within the non-deaf population completely disproves this baseless assertion."

Now, look what senses you said you used, "No, I listen, smell, hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on."

See my point? You don't use your eyes to be able to look.

Also, "1. For that matter, he gave NO ARGUMENTS, thus gave me permission to determine the direction this debate would go in."

Not really no, the debate would stay with the topic, and I know you are using the 'Confusing tatics' and forcing people to think that I'm giving you permission to change the whole course of the debate which I never did. Don't try to use any tatics to change the whole meaning of debate.

Now, seems like you only using your eyes sight for enjoyment, "In fact, when I play games such as Dance Dance Revolution, I strongly rely on my eye sight to get high scores." But, it seems like you don't use it to know your surrounding area, or knowing what's going on around you.

Why in the world would somebody compare this topic to "DareDevil" ? DareDevil is not real and it's made up from comic books.

You also said,

"In the next round, I'd like my opponent to expound on the following claim:

"Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see.""

You're giving me any view on how to expound my claim, therefore, I can not tell you what you want to hear.
Logical-Master

Con

Time to end this!

Now, I did indeed say that I listen, smell hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on. In all honesty, this is no more than a typing error as I meant to state that I relied on my eye sight as well. However, this would have been superfluous as it's quite clear that I rely on my sight. Proof? How else would I be using debate.org, and sight that requires individuals with eye sights? Thus, you can't really penalize me for this typing error due to the obvious.

Now my opponent attempts to justify his mistake of not having made any arguments during round one by suggesting that the debate would stay in topic regardless of his actions. Ladies and gentleman, this is my opponent's attempt to suggest that I have veered this debate out of topic. However, as you can see in round one, I replied STRICTLY according to the resolution, so this implication is clearly erroneous.

Moreover, I may have taken this debate in a direction which my opponent didn't foresee, but there is no problem with that. If my opponent wished to keep this debate in the direction which he was foreseeing, he should have provided arguments in round 1 for overall clarification.

My opponent concludes that I only use my eye sights for enjoyment, but this was not what I was suggesting by claiming that I strongly rely on my eye sight for games such as DDR. Rather, my point was that my eye usage could surpass its normal abilities when I actually relied on them more than usual to know what's going on. But as for needing them to know what is going on around me at all times, I don't believe this was part of the question.

DareDevil was mentioned in the comment section and was perhaps mentioned out of jest, so there's no need to take this into consideration.

As for giving my opponent the view I want him to expound his claim on, I have done no such thing. All I wanted to know how he could claim that hearing people always depend on their hearing rather than their sight. As suggested and shown in the previous point, this is obviously false (especially due to the word "always."

Now, why should you vote CON?

Your vote should primarily go towards the CON ballot since PRO dropped my points concerning the wording of the resolution. The conclusion on both of these points was that my opponent's position is impossible, thus the victory would be given to me by default. Even if you have an inherent bias against this kind of argument, you surely cannot ignore my opponent not having even attempted to rebut it.

Next, the main downfall to my opponent's argument is usage of absolutes such as "always." I had even provided him with an opportunity to clarify what he meant, but to no avail, he really wishes to insist that deaf individuals ALWAYS have better eye sight than non deaf individuals. As I've pointed out with my 20/20 vision example, this claim is clearly fallacious.

These two reasons are the primary reasons to vote CON (in other words, there are more in the debate).
With all that said, I'd encourage you to answer my opponent's questions he brought up in round two via comment section as he is no doubt interested in other people's input.

I thank my opponent for the debate and thank the voters for reading. Till next time. CYA!!!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"I am deaf and i can say that once you lose one since you focus on the other senses"

Yes, I would imagine that you would focus more because you don't have another sense occupying your attention and causing a distraction. However, PRO claimed that deaf people have better eye sight as a result of being deaf. That is not necessarily the case. My eyesight is vastly better than my deaf sister-in-law. Perhaps that's what PRO was trying to get across, but failed to do so.
Posted by dweyand07 8 years ago
dweyand07
I'm sorry Yraelz, I didn't mean to be negative to DareDevil. I honestly like that movie too. DareDevil is different story compares to this topic if you know what I mean?
Posted by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
I am deaf and i can say that once you lose one since you focus on the other senses
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
I didn't particularly like either argument, but CON's position seemed stronger, especially in light of the fact that PRO neglected to give any evidence to support his position beyond anecdote.

If I were debating PRO, I would have mentioned that the Deaf do not necessarily have a better ability to see. That is all on an individual basis. What I suspect he was trying to get across is that when somebody loses one sensory component, like vision or hearing, they tend to compensate with the senses they do possess.

But that does not mean they have better hearing or vision or whatever the case may be. That just means they MAY pay attention more because their other sense or not preoccupied by another one. For instance, a blind man in a park may pay attention to the sound of the birds more acutely, whereas someone with both sight and hearing may not consciously be paying attention to the birds.

That, however, does not mean the blind man's hearing is superior by some sort of default.

I can tell you this much: My sister-in-law is deaf. I can assure you that my vision is superior to hers, as she requires glasses to function and I have perfect vision according to the opthomologists. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

There is no evidence to suggest that the deaf can see better.
Posted by Chuckles 8 years ago
Chuckles
pro presented no evidence although neither side did particularly well. i'm not voting on this one
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I backed you all the way dweyand07, I supported your contentions, read your profile, cheered for you in other debates, made a fan club based on you, even named a baby after you!

But then you turn around and say something like this:

"Why in the world would somebody compare this topic to "DareDevil" ? DareDevil is not real and it's made up from comic books."

You made me choose a hero dweyand07.... I thought I had chosen two perfect individuals and then you say that. Well you know what dweyand07, DareDevil could beat you any day! And he is real! So guess what!? I'm voting Con!

I shouted my LOVE at you and you threw it away as if you couldn't even hear it! (Bad pun....)
Posted by dweyand07 8 years ago
dweyand07
You didn't offended me in any ways.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Sorry if you found any of my comments concerning deaf individuals offensive. Believe me, it wasn't my intention to offend.
Posted by dweyand07 8 years ago
dweyand07
Letting you know, I'm hard of hearing (other word, deaf). I grew up with hearing family, I'm the first deaf person in the generation. I notice that I noticed a lot of things, and I meant A LOT of things compare to my families. They didn't know anything about it until I told them.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
You could also tell judges that you're deaf during debate tournaments and that your opponents lose by default for not using sign language.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ninja34 7 years ago
ninja34
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by NecroFEELYAH 7 years ago
NecroFEELYAH
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by dweyand07 7 years ago
dweyand07
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
dweyand07Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30