The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 25,714 times Debate No: 9616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (10)

 

sadolite

Pro

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".
Logical-Master

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

sadolite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

Moved to the wilderness of northern Sweden. Closed account.
Logical-Master

Con

Have a good time.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HarrisonBergeron 2 years ago
HarrisonBergeron
The proposition misquotes the aphorism, which allows only that "it is probably a duck," not "I am entitled to believe it is."

More significantly, the proposition misapplies the aphorism: the aphorism identifies three convincing observables to constitute the test, whereas the proposition is completely non-specific about what constitutes a sufficient test.
Posted by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
@Kleptin
Vyvanse. 50mg. It doesn't directly cause depression, it just caused my brain to work in a way that would make me feel depressed.

If I dress in what some would call "goth" or "emo," then it is not so I can send a message to people that I am antisocial or depressed. It is because I like that particular style. If someone's favorite color is red, it does not necessarily mean that they like the color because it symbolized blood or romance. likewise, if someone likes to dress a particular way, it does not mean they are thinking about the meaning of their clothing choices.

Also, another reason why some people dress the way they do is the influence of the media. Kayne West and Lil Wayne are two examples of celebrities with a great influence on the population. People see how much success they have in their lives and want to be like them.
Posted by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
@rawrxqueen

Ehh...It's obviously that there may be a difference between what people look like on the outside and what they are on the inside, but the fact remains that there's something in their minds that makes them WANT to dress the way they do.

If the person were really nice, then explain to me why he has the urge to dress the way he does. He isn't expressing himself, he's expressing a symbol that society understands. If I walk around with a swastika on my shirt, the chances are pretty bad that I'm just expressing myself. The chances are better that I'm psychologically trying to provoke.

Also, if you don't mind, what type of medications are you or were you on? I'm a pharmacy student and I find side effects to be fascinating.
Posted by sadolite 4 years ago
sadolite
"I used to feel the same way about 'gangsters' but one day i actually started talking to one and he was really nice. "

You already new he was not a gangster before you started talking to him. A real gangster would not give you the time of day but rob or rape you instead.
Posted by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
I used to feel the same way about 'gangsters' but one day i actually started talking to one and he was really nice. after that i never felt the same way and now i dont fear a guy with baggy pants and a straight-up g swagger lol :P you can never judge someone by what they look like on the outside. for example: my fresman year i dressed colorfully and acted hyper and happy all the time. i wanted people to believe i was happy so they wouldnt feel sorry for me or be asking "whats wrong, whats wrong, whats wrong bla bla bla" all the time. i was so depressed on the inside. i honestly wanted to die. i hated myself, my life, everything. and people thought i was happy. but oh, dear lord, how they were wrong. [[[[the depression, i later found out, was a side effect of my medication. i have since then switched meds, and i am fine now :) ]]]]
Posted by sadolite 4 years ago
sadolite
Kleptin, I to am accused on a regular bases of being a racist for the same reasons you stated. I work in a very high end market and the customers in our business don't want to look at people or deal with people who want to project an appearance of being a worthless gangster scum bag. If you want to get a job where I work you better look clean cut and be devoid of tattoos or you won't make it through the front door. First appearances are everything, so if you want people to view you as a worthless unemployable gangster scum bag go ahead, but don't friken cry about it when people do.
Posted by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
I fully and completely agree with Sadolite on this issue. I've been accused of being racist purely because I shy away from the idiots I know who dress like gangsters. Is there something inherently wrong with dressing like a gangster? Yes. Policemen dress in uniform to portray a message. Similarly, "gangsters" dress the way they do because they want to be seen as "gangsters". You're going to pretend to be offended if a woman pulls her purse a little closer to her, or if I decide to walk on the opposite side of the street?

Pull your pants up or get a pair that fits. Stop showing your boxers. Get that stupid looking rag off your head. Stop wearing XXXL shirts when you're 5'6".

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it wants you to think that it's a duck. So kill it, roast it, and eat it.
Posted by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
lmao
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 4 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
If you were a duck who lived by this philosophy you'd be dinner.
Posted by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
lol sorry. im just really really board :]
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 4 years ago
Johnicle
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 4 years ago
wonderwoman
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by rawrxqueen 4 years ago
rawrxqueen
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 4 years ago
tmhustler
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 4 years ago
Logical-Master
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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