The Instigator
SeelTheMan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Apollo.11
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Apollo.11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,040 times Debate No: 22691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

SeelTheMan

Pro

I must prove that I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams.
http://www.debate.org...

Con must prove that I did strawman in my debate with 16kadams.



"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

http://www.nizkor.org...;

1st round - acceptance
2nd round - arguments
3rd round - rebuttals
Apollo.11

Con

I accept. I don't want to end my 12 debate winning streak, but you did bluntly straw man.

Clarification:
I will clarify that you did post A straw man argument. I do not have to argue that your entire argument was a straw man, as per your resolution.

NO SEMANTICS.
8000 character limit.
No comments in the comment section during or AFTER the debate.
No new arguments in the third round.
No trolling.
No disobeying my rules.
No semantics on my rules.
No disobeying the rule that dictates no semantics on my rules.
No semantics on that statement.
No rebutting any of my arguments...kidding.

I have 1 minute left to submit, so i'll stop typing now...
3...2...1...
Debate Round No. 1
SeelTheMan

Pro

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams #1 argument was "It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function."
I then used his argument and plugged in examples of things using his own logic and argument, would make things immoral.

The main reason people are thinking that I posted a strawman was that 16k said "A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action."

He is saying that his argument only fits into this definition of faculty. So, he is trying to say only something as in a biological thing, or human organ could fit into this definition. He is saying because I used manmade objects in my argument, it does not apply to his argument. This is false.

The reason I did not strawman was that in his round 2 arguments, he gives two examples. The first example is him using his #1 argument and plugging in a bicycle to classify as good or bad (Good and bad are the same thing as moral and immoral.)

"Another example contradiction used was a car, [1] I will provide a second example as well, a bicycle. We can also classify a bicycle good or bad, it is good if it moves forward when you pedal and the two wheels work correctly to propel you forward. We can call it bad if it does not work in the motion of bringing you to point A or B. The bike is good if it fulfills is faculty or bad if it does not. This, like above, applies to this in the same way. As homosexual acts to not fulfill the faculty, we can assume homosexual acts can be classified as bad."

He uses this example of a bicycle and uses his own argument to justify whether or not it is moral or immoral(good or bad.) He then posts another example. This example utilizes the same method of plugging in a man made object into his own argument and saying whether it is good or bad. For this example, he uses coke.

"Now, lets use an example. As contradiction used fast food [1], I will use coca cola. The purpose of drinking is to quench thirst, so with this information most sodas will actually go against this purpose as they dehydrate. This is also a refutation to the pleasure argument, as my opponent may claim this is the purpose of sex. This is false, although drinking coke, for example, has pleasure to it, it does not fulfill the purpose of drinking: hydration."

So now, he has used two manmade objects and plugged them into his own argument and told us whether it was good or bad(moral or immoral.) I then did the exact same thing as he did, and I plugged in examples of manmade objects into his argument. Using his argument, I told whether these objects were moral or immoral.

Therefore, in no way did I misinterpret his argument, because I used his argument the exact same way that he did. I did not use a strawman.

Thank you,
SeelTheMan
Apollo.11

Con

NOTE: Once again, all I have to do is show that ONE of my opponent's arguments was a straw man. That is all I need to do to fulfill by BOP. Pro must refute ALL of my arguments to win.


The Actual Argument (in the debate):

1. It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.
2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.

Premise 1:
"Point 1: It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.
A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action. [2] In this case, sex. So, before we can assume homosexual acts are against this faculty, we must ask what is the purpose of sex."

16k even gives a definition for faculty and links to its definition, which is defined as followed:
"an ability, natural or acquired, for a particular kind of action"

My Opponent's Arguments (in the debate):

"Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
therefore, these things are immoral ......."

In other words:
P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. "Thing" X is not one of those functions.

Therefore, "thing" x is immoral.

Premise 1:
This is in concordance with 16k's argument and not a straw man. I concede this.

Premise 2:
I have six objections to premise 2. I will dispute six of your "thing" x's.

1) "Wildlife Habitat"

In other words:
P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. Wildlife habitat is not one of those functions.

Therefore, wildlife habitat is immoral.

First of all, 16k was talking about "use a faculty against its proper function." That is an ACTION. You list objects. Objects for actions are incompatible with his argument. Homosexual acts aren't objects. Therefore, you have misrepresented his argument. That is a straw man.
16kadams EXPLICITLY STATES: "A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action."
One cannot commit an object, only an action.

2) "Cork"

P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. Cork is not one of those functions.

Therefore, Cork is immoral.

Same reasoning as #1.
-
But perhaps Pro meant using cork. This is not stated in the debate, and thus, cannot be used as a defense.
But for the sake of unnecessary argument, I will refute that.

P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. Using cork is not one of those functions.

Therefore, using cork is immoral.

Premise 2 is false. Utilizing resources in your environment is not only a human function, it is absolutely necessary. Pro has misconstrued 16kadam's EXPLICITLY STATED definition of a faculty.

3) "Cider"
P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. Cider is not one of those functions.

Therefore, Cider is immoral.

Same as #1.
-
But perhaps Pro meant drinking cider.

P1. Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
P2. drinking cider is not one of those functions.

Therefore, drinking cider is immoral.
Except drinking does fit under 16k's explicitly definition of a faculty.

4) "Animal Bedding"
Same as previous ones.

5) "Scenery"
Clearly a straw man. Scenery is neither a material object (assuming your argument is correct, which it isn't) nor an action.

6) "Fruit"
The purpose of fruit is to be eaten. Straw man.

Another of My Opponent's Arguments (in the debate):

1) Government is immoral under 16k's argument
Government is not a faculty. Straw Man

2) Exercise
Body movement is a faculty and a proper function. Pro's definition of a proper function is incompatible with 16k's argument. Straw man.


Rebuttals (THIS debate):

I. Objects.

A. "He uses this example of a bicycle and uses his own argument to justify whether or not it is moral or immoral(good or bad.)"
False. 16kadams is describing THE ACTION of moving from point A to point B:

"moves forward when you pedal and the two wheels work correctly to propel you forward. We can call it bad if it does not work in the motion of bringing you to point A or B."
--16kadams


B. "For this example, he uses coke."
False. He uses THE ACTION of drinking coke, not the object coke. This was one of your straw man's in the debate.

"it does not fulfill the purpose of drinking: hydration.""
--16kadams

Conlusion:
I have pointed out 8 of my opponent's straw man arguments. I need only successfully defend one.
My opponent's arguments themselves were straw mans in THIS debate.

___________
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SeelTheMan

Pro

SeelTheMan forfeited this round.
Apollo.11

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
You think it's appropriate for you to vote here, 16k?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
it paused...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Pointed out eight xD wow. Learn 2 count.

Six rebuttals to one argument =/= six straw men. Your rebuttals were all against one argument. It's one strawman there, two strawmen below.

Last I checked, 3 =/= 8
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
VOTE CON

lol
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
NOTE: I GAVE REBUTTALS IN ROUND 2 AS THEY WERE NECESSARY FOR THE COGENCY OF MY ARGUMENTS. WITHOUT THEM, MY OPPONENT WOULD SIMPLY HAVE POINTED TO HIS REBUTTALS AS AN EXAMPLE OF OBJECTS BEING USED. mac
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I defined faculty, so as of my renewed reading I think pro strawmanned.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Good luck Apollo. You'll need it.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
I do agree with Pro's argument.

But there was straw man in there
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
apollo, I thought you would agree with pro :P
Posted by SeelTheMan 4 years ago
SeelTheMan
extremely necessary
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tarkovsky 4 years ago
tarkovsky
SeelTheManApollo.11Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Sans_the_Ander 4 years ago
Sans_the_Ander
SeelTheManApollo.11Tied
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: FF. Plus Seel, you really did strawman.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
SeelTheManApollo.11Tied
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 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: FF = all of cons arguments and rebuttals dropped. FF = Conduct. 1/2 rounds of argumentation is an FF... So it crippled pro. CON wins, even excluding my bias.