The Instigator
CrashBluey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
chewster911
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Do people who can't defend themselves deserve to die?

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 1 vote the winner is...
chewster911
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 64886
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

CrashBluey

Pro

I believe that people who can't defend themselves shouldn't deserve to live because if they can't defend themselves then they can't defend anyone else rendering them useless.
chewster911

Con

First of all,this topic is not debatable,because it is nonsense.

Second of all, Pro for this debate stated himself as a "Pro" which means that he is for the death of people who can't defend themselves,and automatically looses the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
CrashBluey

Pro

I'm sorry.
I wrote die instead of survive.
The topic is supposed to be : Do people who can't defend themselves deserve to survive?

If we keep saving people who can't defend themselves then that will cause more deaths. Picture this. A group of people is running away from a raging forest fire and a fiery log falls down in front of them. They all jump over but one of them can't. He is to weak. Logs keep falling down and he gets trapped. Would it be really worth going back to get that one person so the whole group can die? In that kind of situation, it would be every man or woman for him/herself. Any incapable people in the group will slow them down and lead to their demise.
chewster911

Con

It is pretty contradictory. Making a mistake like this will cost points.

Since Pro already started,i will follow (although i don't know how will he be able to counter)

No human deserves to die unless he/she has commited something unforgivable and sentenced to death by the moral court. This is only in the case of murder.

Now to counter Pro's argument:

Question by Pro: If a log fell onto an individual too weak to save themselves,would it be worth going back to save that person?

First of all,Pro did not use the right term (deserve) for this in the title,but did in the question. That term is "worth". Is that individual "worth" saving if the whole group was sentenced to doom? People cannot know what will happen,and our conscience (because of our nature) tells us to save the person in trouble,and this depends on how much
that person is worth to us. If the person has little worth to someone,in most cases that someone will abandon that person for their own life. If the person has a lot of worth to someone,then i can say (with full confidence) that in 100% cases that someone will try to save that person,even if they put their life at risk.

So to answer: No people don't deserve to die unless they committed a 1st degree murder. And to answer the question for "worth" you have to look at the situation and think subjectively: "Is that person worth saving to me? Is there any good that will come out of me saving this person?" and similar questions. So to question "Is he/she worth" the answer is: It depends of whether that person means something to you or not.
Debate Round No. 2
CrashBluey

Pro

CrashBluey forfeited this round.
chewster911

Con

Looks like Pro forfeited.
Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
CrashBluey

Pro

CrashBluey forfeited this round.
chewster911

Con

Have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
The topic is extremely arbitrary and it's a yahoo questions type topic. It doesn't make sense because the word "deserve" is wrong to use in this way. I explained why this is so. Yes i did penalize,because the debate is unnecessary. I do not know how anyone can prove that people "deserve to die" if they can't defend themselves. If the instigator used a word like "worth" in the title then it would be a different situation. Since instigator did not,the topic seemed absurd to me. I went along with it when instigator used the word "worth" in the second round.
Posted by wayne.workman2012 2 years ago
wayne.workman2012
I understood that before I posted, however these are the words you said.

And you also penalized your opponent for elaborating on his debate topic.

'Deserve to die' is essentially the same thing as 'Deserve to survive', because arguing that if one can not jump over a fiery log, the "they don't deserve to survive" statement is essentially the same thing as saying "they deserve to die".
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
wayne.workman2012 - It's the person him/herself has a lot of worth to someone,not the thing that the person owns.
Posted by wayne.workman2012 2 years ago
wayne.workman2012
"If the person has a lot of worth to someone,then i can say (with full confidence) that in 100% cases that someone will try to save that person,even if they put their life at risk."

Perhaps someone's father is very wealthy, and him dying would have a lot of 'worth' to his son, therefore his son would want him to die.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
No, they don't 'deserve' to die based on their apparent weakness. No one is the best at everything and there is always someone better. Let's use your own analogy that a group of people are running from something, let's say a pride of lions the group had been filming. There's one lion for each person in the group except for one and each person has different top speeds. Who survives? The fastest person, right? Well Usain Bolt can run at 30 MPH (48.3 KPH) and an average Lioness can run at 50 MPH (80.5 KPH), so not even the fastest man in the world can outrun a lioness. So wouldn't the chasing lions only go after the slow runners? What if the fastest runner was closer to the charging lions? What if the fastest runner was carrying a lot of expensive camera equipment? What if the lions, as they're prone to do, pounced on the group before they could react and all but the fattest and slowest of the bunch survived due to there being no lion to take him down? That's the weakness part.

Humans are smart, generally, and it is this intelligence that has allowed us to subvert natural selection by protecting the weak and sick, allowing them to live longer and in less pain. Our knowledge of medicine, morals, science gives us the tools to aid and possibly even fix the injured and broken, instead of leaving them by the wayside. We should be moving closer together as one big species family, rather than dividing ourselves.
Posted by Libertatis 2 years ago
Libertatis
can you elaborate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
CrashBlueychewster911Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture