The Instigator
Andrew_The_Athiest
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Boesball
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Is being "Offended" bullsh!t

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 5 votes the winner is...
Boesball
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 78004
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Andrew_The_Athiest

Pro

Let's say hypothetically I made a game that involved sluts stripping, killing an excessive amount of people for fun, and you could also kidnap and rape people. you know what f*ck it I make a kid's game where you're at a beach and there was a bunch of skinny, sexy girls in bikinis, and they were in the background. 5 minutes after the release batsh!t insane parents would say "This corrupted my kid!" , or "This offends me!". And it would be banned in less than a week. Like if someone would say the N-Word or someone says "Bitch make a sandwich" people would would complain until it was banned because it was "Offensive". I honestly am sick of it don't people have something better to do?
Boesball

Con

I will accept your debate and assume that the first round is the first argument.


1. Your situation is perfectly fine. It's capitalism in action.

Humans should have the right to be offended by whatever they want. This is how capitalism works. It is called "Supply and Demand" (1). The parent has a demand for a game for their child to enjoy that does not include some behaviors that they do not want their child to be exposed to at a young age. You have the ability to make video games. You supply them with the game in exchange for a monetary amount. If your game doesn't give them what they want, they won't buy from you anymore. You have the option to offend them, and you have the option not to offend them. They have the option to buy your product, and they have the option to be offended and not buy your product. You can offend whoever you want, and it's perfectly fine if the person you are offending is offended because they are giving you money for your product. You can't force them to like your product, and you can't force them to have moral standards that your product lives up to.

I do not support your game being banned, but that is not what this debate is about. It's about whether it's okay to be offended. If offended people refuse to buy your game because you didn't give them the type of game they wanted, good for them. You just went out of business because you offended people. The market regulated itself, and your product wasn't good enough for the market. You had the knowledge that your game would probably offend people, you chose to not change anything, and your business was a failure because of it.

Let's make this simpler to understand. Let's say you were an ice cream company. Let's say I hate chocolate ice cream. It tastes so bad that it offends me. Is that a problem? No. You just should make another type of ice cream if you want me as a customer. Let's say I'm in the majority, and let's say most people don't like chocolate. Is it wrong that you won't get a good business going if you don't make another kind of ice cream? You can choose to be stubborn and make only chocolate. Then you can choose to be angry when your business fails because you do not supply the product that people want. As long as the government doesn't force you to make a different kind of ice cream, this situation is fine. You can do whatever you want, but you shouldn't complain when you don't have a job because of it.

As I see it, a customer being offended by a product that they buy from you is perfectly fine. You have their money, but they will never buy from you again. It isn't your business what offends them. It isn't the government's business what offends them. As long as the government doesn't force you to make products that don't offend others, it's fine for others to be offended by you.


2. Your argument is void of logic because you're being offended by those who you complain about the fact that they are offended by you.

Your tone seems very angry towards those who do not like your game. Why is that? Do you think that you know better than they do? Why is it that you feel the need to judge them because they have a certain moral opinion while you expect them not to be offended by your moral opinion? You are being hypocritical here. Of course they can be offended by you because the ability to be offended is a basic right. People should be able to make choices, and the final decision of what's right and wrong isn't determined by you or your customers.


Thank you for a fun first round. Remember to use proper grammar next round.

(1) http://www.investopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Andrew_The_Athiest

Pro

Now I understand where you're coming from, and I have a good understanding of supply and demand is. Anyway thank you've helped me understand a little about this. And even though they annoy me still you've made a genius tactic in this argument where if I say anything I will sound redundant. You also destroyed ant possible counter argument I had waiting. So for that I congratulate you.
Boesball

Con

That is a concession by pro. I win the argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Boesball

Con

Please vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
Andrew_The_Athiest

Pro

how do I actually forfeit?
Boesball

Con

We have to use the rest of the rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
Andrew_The_Athiest

Pro

OK thanks for telling me that
Boesball

Con

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Boesball 1 year ago
Boesball
The ability to be offended is a right.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
You misspelled your username.....
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I agree. Too many people getting offended by everything.
Posted by tstor 1 year ago
tstor
In all honesty it would not be a kid game if it had anything you described in it. In fact, it would probably be rated at least T for teen by ESRB. So I don't think too many people would complain. If there genuinely was a game designed for kids that included sexy women on beaches I would not buy it for any kid and complain about any who would recommend it to an impressionable child. Some things just aren't meant for kids, get over it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Andrew_The_AthiestBoesballTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins due to concession. Con took debate more seriously and did not use profanity, which is relative to conduct, since this is considered a formal debate. Additionally, Con is the only one that used sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Andrew_The_AthiestBoesballTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by OliveJuice 1 year ago
OliveJuice
Andrew_The_AthiestBoesballTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Andrew_The_AthiestBoesballTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Andrew_The_AthiestBoesballTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: concession.