The Instigator
orangemayhem
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If This House had a time machine it would kill Emily Bronte

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...
orangemayhem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,031 times Debate No: 34780
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

orangemayhem

Pro

Full resolution: If This House had a time machine it would go back in time and kill Emily Bronte before she wrote Wuthering Heights

Format of the debate:
Round One
is for acceptance only, or querying of definitions.
Round Two is for opening substantives and rebuttal.
Round Three is for closing substantives and rebuttal.
Round Four is for rebuttal and summing up with no new substantives.

Ground rules:
This is a semi-troll debate
No semantics about the fact I haven't put the diaeresis on Bronte's name
NO FORFEITING. Only take this debate if you're committed
48 hour response time with 1 month voting period
6,000 characters maximum per round

Definitions:
Emily Bronte: The English novellist and poet who lived between 1818 and 1848.
Wuthering Heights: The single worst book ever written, published in 1847.

This debate assumes the existence of the time machine and mankind's willingness / ability to use it.

I look forward to a pleasant, engaging debate.
LaL36

Con

First time on a troll debate so let's do this!!!!

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
orangemayhem

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting. In this Second Speech for the Proposition, we will set out the practical parameters of the motion before introducing our first substantive arguments.

Parameters of the Motion
This motion assumes that mankind has somehow invented a functional time machine, which is capable of going both backwards and forwards in time. This debate is about whether or not humankind should give someone the authorisation to go in the time machine, with a gun, and go back to August 1845. At this point Bronte would be shot once, in a way that would make her death painless and instant. Proposition will seek to prove that this would do a great favour to humanity; Opposition should either refute or counter-prop.

Substantive I: This would save Bronte from a painful death
Before we address her writing of Wuthering Heights, which we consider to be nothing less than a crime against humanity, we would like to talk about the fact that Bronte met a very painful end. She died of tuberculosis in December 1848 but did so in an extremely painful manner. She was known to grow weaker and weaker by the day to the point where her condition became completely debilitating [1]. This motion, however, dictates that Bronte would be shot once and die instantly. We would thus allow her a much more dignified death, and a less painful one at that.

Substantive II: There would be few negative effects on the timestream
The Bronte family is a somewhat tragic one in that each member of it died very young - all of the Bronte sisters died before the age of thirty, for example. For this reason, Emily Bronte never had any children and was one of the last surviving members of the family at the time of her death. Therefore, we believe that killing Emily Bronte before she wrote Wuthering Heights would not lead to any 'grandfather paradox'-style repercussions which would be negative. If we were to kill Emily Bronte before she had the chance to write Wuthering Heights the side effects would only be positive ones - i.e. that this awful book would never have been written (see next substantive).

Substantive III, part (a): Wuthering Heights would never have been written
With all due respect to Miss Bronte, she was blatantly a psychopath, and this is reflected in her only novel. This is a novel which, for example, features a major character lynching a small dog; includes borderline incest; and contains graphic scenes of grave-robbing and necrophilia. So basically, Bronte was pretty messed up, and this is reflected in her writing. There are numerous good things that would come out of Wuthering Heights never having been written, which will be explored now. In essence, Wuthering Heights is the sort of incredibly damaging book that we should prevent from ever reaching the masses.

Substantive III, part (b): Controversy at the time would have been avoided
At the time of original publication, many thought that Wuthering Heights was little short of vulgar [2]. Stories even emerged of people vomiting and entering convulsions having read the book. My source cites an article in Graham's Lady Magazine saying that it would be an achievement to read the first twelve chapters of the book without developing suicidal tendencies. The conclusion we reach is that this book is nothing short of harmful and, frankly, evil. Had this miserable work of literature never been inflicted on the world, many people at the time would not have been so sickened, and many people would be spared the misery of reading it, both then and now (see part (c)).

Substantive III, part (c): No student would ever have had to study Wuthering Heights
Apart from the kid at the back of the class who likes to shoot things, no student has ever enjoyed analysing Wuthering Heights, both due to its graphic and disturbing nature and the fact that the plot makes very little sense. People drop dead like flies at a rate which in no way reflects the death rate of the time (albeit that the death rate then was higher than it is now). Many parts of the dialogue are written phoenetically, except badly - they are meant to resemble the Yorkshire accent but require a great deal of deciphering. The point is that no student should ever have to be examined on what they have learned from this pile of rubbish, the single most bizarre and nonsensical work in the history of English Literature. I've been there. It's not fun [3].

So, to conclude this speech, we have demonstrated that Wuthering Heights has brought nothing but misery and shame to the world, and for this reason it would be better if it had never been written. We have also demonstrated this will have very few negative side effects on the main timestream. For all these reasons, the Bronte's death is a necessary step forward for humanity.
LaL36

Con

"her writing of Wuthering Heights, which we consider to be nothing less than a crime against humanity"

And murder is not?

"This would save Bronte from a painful death:"

"We would thus allow her a much more dignified death"

How so? No one could think of a reason to kill her. Assuming the person does not get caught it would just remain a mystery why he killed her.

On another note, a death of tuberculosis is not that bad it terms of dignity. She will be remembered as having a tough life and still being the author of a classic of American literature.

Also, note that this would cut off her life 3 years early

"There would be few negative effects"

I would like to point out that even if Pro is right that we should kill Emily Bronte, his house should not be the one to do so simply because he has lied. Source? This quote of his "If we were to kill Emily Bronte before she had the chance to write Wuthering Heights the side effects would only be positive ones". This is not the same as "few negative effects".

We could not just send a liar wandering back in time with a gun. He says he wishes to Emily Bronte but he could be lying and is really going to make sure Germany wins World War Two. Who is stop him from doing so?

"Wuthering Heights would have never been written"

Pro simply states his opinion on the book.

"In essence, Wuthering Heights is the sort of incredibly damaging book that we should prevent from ever reaching the masses

There are plenty of damaging things that kids are watching right now. Taking away this one book that not that many people read everyday would not make such a difference.

Pro neglects to mention the contributions the book has given. If the book wasn't made, people who sold the book would lose out on that money they made. In addition, the two movies of Wuthering Heights would not have been made. One of the movies was nominated for the award of Tokyo Grand Prix. http://www.imdb.com...
And the other one has won various awards. http://www.imdb.com...

To summarize, without Wuthering Heights, those movies would not have been made and those movies provided entertainment and money for many.

"Controversy at the time would have been avoided."

My opponent forgets to state his source as he says in the comments. His house is not even responsible enough to state sources. Who says they can take on such a responsibility of killing Emily Bronte or just going back in time?

What misery? People found it disgusting but you have not proved that vommiting occured. And you claim that there is misery now. This is simply an opinion. There are lots of people who liked it.

"No student would ever have had to study Wutherin Heights"

"Apart from the kid at the back of the class who likes to shoot things, no student has ever enjoyed analysing Wuthering Heights"

Most kids don't even enjoy reading or analysing books nowadays. And so what should we still kill an innocent and kill the moveis that were made out of it?

The rest of my opponent's paragraph is simply his opinion on why the book is bad.

"we have demonstrated that Wuthering Heights has brought nothing but misery and shame to the world"

You have lied again. My sources say otherwise.

My arguments:

Pro, you have not even proven that your house is qualified to carry out such an act. Who knows you won't just trip on the time machine and break it after you kill Emily Bronte? Then you will be stuck in 1845. Who is to say you won't end up killing someone else? Who is to say that someone won't take the gun away from you? Who is to say that someone else won't destroy the time machine?
Debate Round No. 2
orangemayhem

Pro

Aaaand props to my opponent for trolling as schizophrenically as a demented penguin -_-
(Following the Imabench Doctrine, treating a troll debate seriously is kinda a forfeit...)

"And murder is not?"
Murder is the lesser of two evils in this case. And seriously, it's EMILY BRONTE, NOT MOTHER THERESA. You cannot claim that killing this dire specimin of "humanity" is a crime against humanity as a whole. (Indeed it is a favour to all those who might have otherwise read her books).

"... still be a classic of American literature."
SINCE WHEN IS THE NORTH OF ENGLAND LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES?
My opponent's USA-centric view of the world shows that he must live in America, rendering his points about crimes against humanity irrelevant as his country is in no position to preach.

"Tuberculosis is not that bad in terms of dignity."
Granted, but when she could die in the prime of her youth after being assailed by a mysterious assassin who subsequently disappears into thin air - a dignified, mysterious death of the poor 'innocent' damsel - it pales into undignified insignificance.

"He has lied..."
Reread my argument. My precise quote was "there would be few negative side effects". This is NOT the same thing as "there would be a few negative side effects". I never acknowledged that there would be any significant negative side effects ("few" and "a few" mean very different things), and even if they were they would be insignificant compared to the benefits. A fact you have yet to efficiently rebut.

"We could not just send a liar wondering back in time with a gun..."
I have demonstrated I am not a liar, you just mangled my words, therefore this point is invalid. Anyway, if we assume the time machine already exists and we go with your US-centric view of the universe, it's not exactly difficult to get a gun and then jump in the time machine... besides, I never said that I would be the one to go back in time. This is another assumption from Con. For the record my plan was to use a pre-trained robot that would self-destruct having shot Bronte, therefore guaranteeing that the right thing would happen.

"Pro simply states his opinion of the book."
Given the lack of any literary-based criticisms of this book from Con, I'm willing to assume he's never read it (in fact, if he thinks it's American, I'm certain of it). So how is Con's opinion any more valid than mine? Between the two of us I'm the more trustworthy source.

"There are plenty of damaging things that kids are watching right now..."
My opponent (not having read the book) has been unable to respond to my list of unacceptable themes which play out in this book. I have already demonstrated why reading Wuthering Heights is just as damaging as watching graphic scenes of murder or weasel pornography.

"The two movies of Wuthering Heights would not have been made."
For one thing, in this alternative timestream, the book would never have been written either, so nobody would miss the films. For another thing, I turn this point - the films glorified Wuthering Heights, thus encouraging more people to read it, it is a damaging book therefore people shouldn't read it (uncontested by Con) therefore the films are a bad thing. Case closed.

"His house is not even responsible enough to state sources."
Your house is not responsible enough to read the book before launching into an impassioned defence of it, so...

"You have not proved that vomiting occurred."
[4] [5]
This is a TROLL DEBATE. You do realise that, right? Sources are not the crux of troll debates.

"This is simply an opinion. There are lots of people who liked it."
Judging from the lack of any source, isn't THAT just an opinion? I've cited sources detailing the stir it caused. All you've given me is IMDB.

"Most kids don't enjoy reading and analysing books nowadays."
When it comes to sources, you are SUCH a hypocrite. This is an opinion which you haven't backed up. Besides, the number of students choosing to study literature at higher levels would suggest that many young people do still enjoy reading books and analysing them. Wuthering Heights, however, is a pain in the backside to analyse and, as a book, is just pure evil.

"You have lied again. My sources say otherwise."
1. It's bad conduct to accuse people of lying when they haven't.
2. My sources also say otherwise, and personally I trust a leading daily newspaper and Charlotte Bronte's biography quite a bit more than the IMDB. Wouldn't you agree?

Response to Pro's arguments
All of Pro's arguments ASSUME that I would be going back in the time machine. This is an ambiguity that I will take partial responsibility for, as I should have been more specific in the parameters of the motion, although 'This House' usually refers to the government and not to the individual speaker. The use of the robot, however - and my opponent should feel free to amend his arguments to reflect this - guarantees that we only kill Bronte. Pro have already demonstrated how this will not cause chaos through time and lead to a grandfather paradox. The robot will self-destruct, the people in the past will not know how to operate the time machine (we'll put the instructions in Korean) and it will just remain a relic.

I'm pretty much at the end of my character allowance now, leaving me with no more room to add in another substantive even if I wanted to. Pro has successfully rebutted on everything Con said and shown that his arguments are nothing more than a layer of assumptions, hypocricies, and a mangling of my own words to support his argument. Con's substantives all assume that I am a lying madman (disproven) and that I myself would go back in time (incorrect). Therefore no decent case remains for Con.

[1] Elizabeth Gaskell, The Life of Charlotte Bronte, p281
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk......
[3] CIE IGCSE English Literature syllabus
[4] My grandmother, age 17
[5] My own IGCSE English Literature class, a member of which went out to vomit after we read the bit where the dog was lynched
LaL36

Con

Alright with two hours to spare my internet crashed so I lost my argument. I don't have time to continue. I could be lying but point is I am forfeiting this round.
Debate Round No. 3
orangemayhem

Pro

WHAT?! What part of 'no forfeiting' is beyond these people? Excuse me while I cry. *cries*

I will now discuss the two points of clash in this debate (PoCs), before wrapping up and passing you back to Con. I remind Con that he cannot post any new arguments.

PoC1: Is this house qualified to go back in time and kill Emily Bronte?
Pro have easily proven this beyond reasonable doubt. Con have tried to assert that I am a manipulative, power-crazed madman who should never be let near a time machine and would cause global historical havoc given half a chance. Pro have successfully refuted this: we have pointed out that nowhere in this resolution does it say that I, personally, will go back in time - an assumption conjured up entirely by Con. We have offered up a detailed plan for how this would work - sending a pre-trained robot back in time, putting the time machine's instructions in Korean so that nobody in England would understand it - and Con has yet to refute any of it. We have demonstrated that, because Bronte had little family at the time of her death (and all the family she had died soon afterwards anyway), so we will avoid any sort of 'grandfather paradox' when we go and kill Bronte. Therefore, we have conclusively proven that Pro takes this point. Pro is perfectly qualified to send this robot back in time (remember that this debate assumes the existence of the time machine) and Bronte's death is the only change that would be enacted in time.

PoC2: Is Wuthering Heights a force for sheer evil?
Again, the answer to this point is a resounding yes and a win for Pro. Con has pointed out several opportunities which have come about because of Wuthering Heights but has not refuted the point that, since the book wouldn't have existed in the first place, nobody would miss the book or its associated spinoffs. Pro has given a list of elements which feature in Wuthering Heights which we consider to be bad and should be hidden from public view where possible - such as incest, lynching and necrophilia - whereas Con has, via their various assertions, made it painfully obvious that Con has never read the book. Con may have accused my arguments of being subjective, but since Pro has read the book and Con has not, surely his assertions are less valid than mine? Moreover, Pro has cited several sources regarding the effects of this book - both at the time and in the modern day - whereas Con has yet to cite a reliable source (or put up a decent argument in defence of Wuthering Heights). Pro have pointed out why it would be beneficial to humanity as a whole if this book were forcibly wiped off the face of the Earth and Con have not provided a decent counter-argument (and now it is, in essence, too late). Therefore Pro take this point too.

So, to wrap up...
We have conclusively demonstrated the rock-solid case for the assassination of Emily Bronte, and Con's arguments have crumbled. Con have come up with various assertions about the lucrative films of Wuthering Heights but has not responded to Pro's criticisms that those films are also sheer evil. Pro has not detailed the merits of the book or defended why Bronte should have been allowed to write it. Therefore, the resolution stands resolutely affirmed, that if This House had a time machine it would kill Emily Bronte.
LaL36

Con

LaL36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
Alright my bad first time. Anyway if your right I'm sure the voters will pick up on that.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
'Semi-troll debate' means you lightly troll, not that you troll schizophrenically!
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
This is a semi-troll debate so I took it semi seriously. There were parts where I had a trolling attitude.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
Congratulations to Con for taking a troll debate seriously -_-
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
My mistake - forgot my sources. I will re-cite them after R3 but they were:

[1] Elizabeth Gaskell, The Life of Charlotte Bronte, p281
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[3] CIE IGCSE English Literature syllabus
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
orangemayhemLaL36Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
orangemayhemLaL36Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
orangemayhemLaL36Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all the presentation of pro's argument was notably better (yes on DDO that's argument, not spelling and grammar). Second con effectively missed the final two rounds. Even with the rule in place, I would have given con favorable conduct if they'd properly conceded in the final round, instead of letting it turn red.