" If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"

We have all heard the phrase: " If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"
If i see what I believe to be a "duck" based on the above phrase, I reserve the right and I am entitled to the right to believe it is a "duck" at first glance. If what I see at first glance appears to be a "duck", the duck must prove to me and everyone else that it is not a "duck", otherwise I and everyone else can treat it like a duck.

"Duck" defined for purposes of this debate: Any example that I give that fits what someone would believe to be at first glance.

Example: A bum or a gangster.

My contention is that law enforcement, The business world and people in general, without recrimination, should be allowed to call people and treat people like "ducks" if they are going to exhibit all of the characteristics of "ducks"

I was at the store the other day and a man walked up to me in filthy unwashed cloths and nasty hair all in knots like it to had not been washed in days. He asked me for a dollar and I refused, he then asked me for a cigarette because he saw the new pack of cigarettes I had just bought. I then told him to go get a job and quite being a bum. He got mad and said he was not a bum. I said"Oh Ya"then prove it, and with that he walked away. He looked like a bum, he begged like a bum, and dressed like a bum, He is a bum.

The same goes for people who dress talk and act like gangsters. And all other types of stereo typical personality traits that the general public should fear or be weary of.

The premise of this debate is for con to provide a reason or reasons why the alleged "ducks" of this world must not have to prove they are not "ducks". And why we, the duck observers, should let our guard down, risk injury or even death and pretend we don't see a duck when we clearly see something that looks like a "duck", quacks like a "duck", and walks like a "duck".

Greetings. Many thanks for starting this debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck.

RE: "The premise of this debate is for con to provide a reason or reasons why the alleged "ducks" of this world must not have to prove they are not "ducks". And why we, the duck observers, should let our guard down, risk injury or even death and pretend we don't see a duck when we clearly see something that looks like a "duck", quacks like a "duck", and walks like a "duck"."

Gladly.

First, lets start with proving that the alleged ducks of this world ought not to be required to prove they are ducks. That's simple; because they don't have to. Why should they feel obligated to settle someone's (such as my opponent's) curiosity? If a guy walks up to me, sees me lounging on a chair in the school library and decides I must be a lazy bum, why should I give a d@mn what he/she thinks in general circumstances? As far as I am concerned, such a person should move along and get on with his business.

Second, lets focus on "why we, the duck observers, should let our guard down, risk injury or even death and pretend we don't see a duck when we clearly see something that looks like a "duck", quacks like a "duck", and walks like a "duck."

In response, I say that my opponent has it all wrong. If a person seems to have all of the traits of a would-be gangster, there is no reason not to let your guard down, risk injury or even death. Of course, you shouldn't let your guard down around anyone. There are people who have looked like friendly/innocent next door neighbors and have acted like friendly innocent next door neighbors, only to turn out to be serial killers. There are people who have appeared quite/reserved/polite only to turn around, bring a gun to school and kill off as many students as they can before committing suicide.

It's called being cautious. For instance, whenever I get out of or in my car, I immediately lock the doors. This is not because I think some hoodlums are about to bust in, threaten me at gunpoint and steal it; I do this to simply to lower the chance of my car being stolen (a chance which I believe always exist).

Basically, what I'm saying is that my opponent can be cautious without jumping to conclusions; he can keep his guard up and such, but that doesn't mean he has to automatically conclude that the gangster looking person is in fact a gangster. He/she could very well be someone who has no choice but to dress like that and simply has such "thuggish" demeanor based on upbringing or perhaps even an undercover cop about to participate in a sting operation (which, believe or not, I've seen firsthand). To assume things based off of mere appearances is illogical. That said, there is never a reason not to be cautious.

One more thing . . . .

"My contention is that law enforcement, The business world and people in general, without recrimination, should be allowed to call people and treat people like "ducks" if they are going to exhibit all of the characteristics of "ducks""

Interesting, so you're saying that law enforcement agencies should actively arrest people who merely look like gangsters and talk like gangsters yet are merely easily impressionable young men who aren't actually violating any laws, but have been overly influence by what they see on TV? Or how about on Halloween: I notice that a lot of girls take this opportunity to dress like slutty hookers. Should the police raid these parties and arrest girls who dress in this manner?

And that'll do it for now. I'll probably provide a more thorough version of my points in the next round if it occurs to me to do so.

Extend

Moved to the wilderness of northern Sweden. Closed account.

Have a good time.

VOTE CON!