I should win this debate
Debate Rounds (5)
This round is the acceptance round, do not post your argument upon accepting. The next three rounds are debate, the last is closing argument.
Pro has a dog named Mordecai, so obvious he should win this debate. Pro has a self-cleaning oven, that also leads one to believe that the winner should be Pro. The address of Pro's house is 1, and the street Pro lives on is First, these two factors combines to insure the definite and deserved victory of Pro. In this debate, Pro has chosen the funnier picture to represent him as his avatar, thus proving that Pro should win this debate.
Coffee requires three packets of sugar, not two, which means that Pro should win this debate. The Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around, so of course the winner is Pro. Pro should also win for the simple reason that Frankenstein was THE NAME OF THE SCIENTIST AND NOT THE MONSTER.
There is no reason why Con could beat Pro in this debate.
"Because SUVs release more emissions than an average car, they are criticized for doing more damage to the environment. " Posted on Autos.com Editor in Car Buying on October 7, 2013
"However, the size of the SUV is a major drawback because it can roll over if the driver takes a sharp turn." auto.com
"SUVs are expensive to insure. Insurance companies take into consideration the likelihood of accidents, the higher repair costs, and the fact that an SUV will damage another car greatly if involved in a crash. On average, insuring SUVs will cost owners about $100 US Dollars more than ensuring small-size cars." Wisegeek
Pro claims to own an expensive laptop. Despite desktops having greater bang for their buck in terms of processing power versus cost. "However, if you want the most bang for your buck and portability is not necessary, a desktop is likely the best choice especially if price is important" computerhope.com
Also a desktop is easier to repair and upgrade than a laptop. Con hereby states he/she owns a desktop. Clearly Con is more savvy in his/her purchasing decisions.
Pro probably makes more money than Con, thus Pro should win this debate. Con cannot and should not win this debate, because he does not own (A an SUV, (B a laptop, or (C a dog named Mordecai.
Not only that but buys cars from manufacturers who failed to stop slave labor in Brazil.
" The good news is today the pig iron industry has committed to changing its ways- all seven pig iron companies in the Brazilian state of Maranho agreed to not source wood charcoal that comes from slave labor, forest destruction or invasions into indigenous lands. For years the industrys progress or efforts to address these issues was ineffective and only symbolic." Greenpeace.org
"General Motors owns: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. GM owns a controlling interest in Opel and Vauxhall in Europe and Holden in Australia. (The U.S. Treasury Department is in the process of selling off the remaining GM stock holidngs.)" consumerreports.org
"There are still a handful of companies in neighboring Para state who have not signed any commitment and continue selling pig iron (with all its negative impacts) to the U.S. Weve found that the worlds leading auto brands, such as Ford, GM, Nissan, and Mercedes, have been using steel made with this pig iron. " Greenpeace.org
Pro buys a SUV from General Motors. Con owns no car. Clearly Con should win the argument because Con holds the moral high ground.
While Con reads Greenpeace to obtain the information needed for consumer decisions, Pro uses his mind to calculate how much it will cost to own a Chevy Suburban rather than say, not to own a car at all. Pro relies on his own judgement and wealth to make personal financial decisions. Con only considers the 0.0000000001% effect on the climate while driving a car, and the "support" for a company that "enslaves" workers in a far away land that was worse off before GM got there.
With greater intelligence, as well as a dog named Mordecai, Pro should definitely win this debate.
"Conclusion: Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity." Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):123-132. doi:10.7326/M14-1651
Con cites more sources than Pro. Con cites a scholarly peer reviewed source. Pro cites no scholarly peer reviewed sources. Pro makes distasteful statements about more material wealth being grounds for superiority. Con shows consideration to environment and people in other countries.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: As instigator, Pro has the burden of providing a debatable resolution, and as instigator and proponent he has the burden of proving the resolution is true. Pro offers no relevant reason why he "should" win the debate. His cited reasons are irrelevant to why should win. Having failed to meet the burden of proof by failing to provide a single relevant argument, Con would win without saying anything. No case prima facie case has been presented, so nothing needs to be refuted. Both debaters should find something useful to do with their free time. Maybe learn to skip rocks.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.