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

Deaf vs. Blind

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ca2005 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 98773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Hello! For this debate there will be a few rules set out. If you break one these rules, the judges will have to remove a point from the "conduct" section of the vote. Here are the rules:

First round - Pro: Rules, acceptance
First round - Con: Acceptance
Second round - Pro: Argument
Second round - Con: Rebuttals, argument
Third round - Pro: Rebuttals, (optional) argument
Third round - Con: Rebuttals (only if Pro decided to make an argument last round), (optional) last argument

If you accept this debate, you will be in the blind position. In other words, you think being blind is better than being deaf.
I am in the deaf position. In other words, I think being deaf is better that being blind.

Every source you use must be listed down. If something is an opinion, there won't be any need for that.

I have nominated these people to judge this debate:

Here are the nominated judge's accounts:




If my opponent suggests another judge, please list it on your acceptance round. If my opponent wants one judge removed, I will also do that.

Good luck Con, I hope we have a nice and fair debate. :)


I accept with my ears wide open and eyes tight shut.
Debate Round No. 1


If you are deaf, you can communicate directly in two different ways:
  • Sign language
  • Talking

Sign language is the common way to communicate in between deaf people. Knowing sign language is a benifit because when two or more deaf people are talking to each other in a public place, probably nobody will understand them. They could be talking about anything, while nobody understands. This is a way to keep things private. When you are blind, you probably use verbal comunication, so anyone could eavesdrop on anything you are saying, and you won't be able to see if the are there.

Talking could also be an option to communicate. It is true that deaf people can't hear themselves, so there is no way that they can make sure they are talking right. But if they get help from a hearing person, get oral therapy or get a hearing aid, they can learn. That makes them open to two ways of communication; a private way of communicating and a public way.

What I'm trying to say here is that deaf people have two ways of communicating directly, while blind only have one.

In the US, there are 38,225,590 deaf people. That means deaf people have plenty to relate to and socialize with. Blind people have 23.7 million. Yes, they have a lot of people, but deaf have more.




I commented without any reply that Round One's structure makes no sense because of the way that Pro is thought to go before Con. Due to this, I am taking the liberty of assuming that when it says 'Con' it means Pro in the structure.

I shall not rebut the points directly but as one big point. The 'communication' and 'community' aspect are intertwined despite being different at face value. Both are based on the idea that more is better. To begin with, this is a qualitative debate, not a quantitative one. This means that this debate should revolve around the following form of research:

Yet, in the entire debate put forth by Con, not a single deaf or blind person's feelings nor observations of their quality of lives is brought up.

I will now explain why, in this qualitative debate, more is not better and the entire angle Con is using is not relevant.

When you design a machine designed to communicate effectively with other beings and/or machines, you would design it to communicate via the least methods possible and with the least effort possible.

The reason that this is true is because if you were, for instance, design a being that communicates outwards via sign language, text or speech and inwards via sign language and lip-reading or text the being would be wasting 2 methods that it has stored in its memory and had brain neurons wasted on maintaining the talent for every time that it spoke. On top of this, since very few people speak sign language and since people who were deaf (either from birth or prior to fully getting an accent) struggle much more than most to learn how to verbally communicate outwards as they cannot hear their own voice, only feel it. for lip-reading, even if all deaf people could lip read, it is estimated that lip-reading only allows around one third of a conversation to be understood due to words that don't involve lips being frequently spoken, it can only really be done by someone who has not habits of touching their face, turning their head or in any way disruptiing the lip-reading process.

As for the argument that there are more deaf people than blind people and that this means they can socialize with more people. I firstly find it amusing that Con strongly insinuates that deaf people can only socialize with other deaf people since this seems to debate against their own side but since this is wrong for both deaf and blind people (as both can socialize with others, they just severely struggle to socialize directly deaf-to-blind person), I can dismiss the point on that angle alone. For the sake of thoroughness, I am going to take this a step further and point out that even if deaf only socialized with deaf and blind only socialized with blind, there is firstly the need for Con to prove that more socializing equals better social life (as opposed to quality socializing with a select few regularly) and secondly, Con needs to prove that humans have somehow overcome the estiamted psychological maximum of 150 friends (

Now for some constructive arguments supporting the idea that blind people have it better than the deaf do. Communication is actually an interesting point; the blind not only can experience day-to-day communication with non-blind individuals a lot easier than deaf do as nothing such as 'sign language' needs to be learned by either party, but they can experience other aspects of communication that the deaf will simply never experience. This includes tone of voice, speed of talking and any other vocal elements. This can be countered by body language being a deaf-only experience but the blind can experience their communication over any medium (if you have text-to-voice software, even digital text becomes no barrier for the blind). On the other hand, body language can only be read in-person and not by any other means of communication.

Following on from that, this highlights that the blind have more options in how they deal with other people. They can both text and voice chat due to text to voice software but voice-to-text software not only doesn't always pick up voices so well but deaf people simply don't annunciate everything correctly (meaning that it's a lot harder for them to compensate than blind people in life communications-wise).

Blind people not only have to learn less in terms of means of communications (sign language, lip reading and how to talk) but they also don't have to try nearly as hard to justify their drawbacks to others. Deaf people can often seem either retarded or rude to people who do not know they are deaf due to not knowing how loud they are, not hearing anyone who talks to them for an angle they can't see and sounding like they can't talk properly (often people with Down's syndrome speak similarly to deaf people for totally different reasons Blind people are often obviously blind, either due to sunglasses (or their actual eyes never looking at a fixed spot as well as the lack of fully formed pupils.

Blind people tend to have increased experience of both touch and hearing, deaf people only get increased sensitivity to sight, not to touch.
These increased sensitivity allows blind peopl to remember both sounds and touches of scenarios and things a lot better than other humans and furthermore allows them to experience aspects that many don't (sight is a commonly focused sense in any given situation, it is why blindfolding is a much more enjoyed kink than earplugs) highlights that the experience of the blind is in a way erotic and intriguing because of the unusual increased sensitivity they allow for touch and hearing. On the other hand, almost no one is turned on by wearing earplugs, not nobody just very few and this is because very few people feel like hearing is a mundane thing to have increased experience of.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DumbellDoor 1 year ago
Posted by DumbellDoor 1 year ago
I assume your debate structure got pro and con mixed up...
Posted by ca2005 1 year ago
Yes I am sick. I am deaf. So? This topic isn't bad! It doesn't bother me. I'm pretty sure it doesn't bother anyone else. You probably just joined this website, stop trying to be in charge.
Posted by ca2005 1 year ago
So? :/
Posted by ca2005 1 year ago
Haha, lol.
Posted by The_Debater1.618 1 year ago
Are you sick or something? To debate on this topic??? Is this a topic at all, and wtf are you talking about?? Please for the good of this site erase your profiles or don't do this kind of debates anymore
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
you're too darn strict!
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
You know what's weird I just noticed? The "accept the challenge" button is still available to me even though I am a judge. I imagine if I try to accept the debate, it probably won't let me though. Still, I have to wonder why the button is still even there for me.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.