I'm 11 and I want an Iphone 5c
Debate Rounds (4)
Ingredients:4 tbsp vegetable oil25g butter4 onions, roughly chopped6 tbsp chicken tikka masala paste (use shop-bought or make your own - see recipe, below)2 red peppers, deseeded and cut into chunks8 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into 2" cm cubes2 x 400g cans chopped tomatoes4 tbsp tomato pur"e2-3 tbsp mango chutney150ml double cream150ml natural yogurtchopped coriander leaves
Method:Heat the oil and butter in a large, lidded casserole on the hob, then add the onions and a pinch of salt. Cook for 15-20 mins until soft and golden. Add the paste and peppers, then cook for 5 mins more to cook out the rawness of the spices.Add the chicken and stir well to coat in the paste. Cook for 2 mins, then tip in the tomatoes, pur"e and 200ml water. Cover with a lid and gently simmer for 15 mins, stirring occasionally, until the chicken is cooked through.Remove the lid, stir through the mango chutney, cream and yogurt, then gently warm through. Season, then set aside whatever you want to freeze (see tips, below). Scatter the rest with coriander leaves and serve with basmati rice and naan bread. (1)
With the money required to buy said iPhone, one could purchase a more beneficial luxury - chicken tikka masala. Therefore, Pro should not get the iPhone 5c.
Pro's argument assumes the following syllogism.
P1: Pro needs to be able to communicate
P2: The iPhone 5c allows Pro to communicate
C: Therefore, Pro should get the iPhone 5c
But... How does this necessarily mean that she needs the iPhone 5c? I mean, if communication is the issue, why wouldn't one purchase a Nokia 3310?
It is far cheaper than the iPhone 5c... If one were to buy a used Nokia it would cost one only £13!(1) Approximately £300 less than the iPhone 5c (2).
Therefore, Pro should not purchase the iPhone 5c, and purchase the Nokia Brick instead.
"Because, that phone looks pretty old and crappy."
Pro uses subjective opinion as an objective proof... However, opinion from all frame of references are equally valid. It could look "old and crappy" to one, but "sexy, absolutely tantalising, 'OMG I NEED THIS PHONE'" to others.
"if my phone died, I could ask someone for a charger"
This is an appeal to extremes fallacy.
"With that Nokia thing, no one would ever have a charger."
"they would probably want to talk to me, and I have to have an iPhone to talk to people with an email for Imessage."
One can do that without necessarily purchasing an iPhone 5c.
"Umm no, if you don't have an iphone, you can't text other devices that aren't from apple"
I wasn't referring to the Nokia. You can purchase much earlier models of the iPhone to be able to do all of the things you have listed.
" I love instagram, youtube, and I always have lots of photos."
All of that can be done on the previous models of the iPhone - not just the iPhone 5c.
"A phone could keep me safe and could let me have conversations with my friends and family on a new, updated, full storage, phone."
I suggest the iPhone 5 - it's cheaper than the 5c and can do everything you have listed.
Pro has dropped the argument about costs, and hasn't provided enough evidence for why she would definitely need the iPhone 5c, because all of the prerequisites she listed are fulfilled by much cheaper devices.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both sides maintained reasonable conduct. | S&G - Con. Pro used words such as "Ummm ...." which gravely hurt readability, and their punctuation was very poor. Thus, S&G to Con. | Arguments - Con showed how an iPhone 5 is more useful than iPhone 5c and argued on the basis of cost, and communication via. earlier models of Nokia. Pro *dropped* Con's arguments and did not make any valid arguments, thus Con wins arguments. | Sources - Con. Con used the only sources. | 6 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.