The Instigator
anthonysluggett
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zanomi3
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Is red a valid color?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zanomi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,431 times Debate No: 63766
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

anthonysluggett

Con

I think red is not a valid color because it is not a primary color as much as orange. There is a fruit called orange but do you see a fruit called red? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!! I HATE RED Red is the color of danger.... but red isn't always seen as a bad color in china red is a good color as red envelopes contain money. Well that's what it says on the HSBC television advert.
--------------------------------------
Red is the general color of blood.
Zanomi3

Pro

Quite a silly debate, but it's almost a sure win and hard to pass up.

With a topic such as "is red a valid color?" one must define valid.

Valid: well-grounded and justifiable; logically sound. [1]

In other words, is red a logically sound color, or is red a color that has a justifiable existence?

I'll first approach my opponent's arguments.

R1) "Red is the color of danger"

In my opinion, conceding the debate because he admits red exists.

R2) "Red isn't always seen as a bad color"

Again, showing that red exists.

R3) "Red is the general color of blood"

Once more. Demonstrating the irrefutable existence of the color red.

Now to my arguments, I guess.

C1) Red is a primary color

Though my opponent seems to disagree, red is a primary color [2]. This isn't really a debatable fact, as it is widely accepted as well as known.

C2) Round 1 is seen in red.

Just showing that red not only exists, but is also a valid color, seeing as it was chosen to be the leading color of all debates.

If BoP is on Con, he failed to fill it. If BoP is on me, I fulfilled it showing red exists and is "valid."

On to Con's arguments. Good luck!

Sources:

[1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] - http://www.color-wheel-artist.com...
Debate Round No. 1
anthonysluggett

Con

I see that you have not addressed my point about the fruit !! I think you are avoiding a VALID point of mine that you have no answer for !!
Have you considered the point of view of a blind person? how many times have they seen this apparent color
I think you are unfairly discriminating against these people
I have also found a credible source with a poll that supports my point that red is not a valid color
http://strawpoll.me...

have you ever heard of the mona lisa? this is a famous painting with none of this disease on it
Zanomi3

Pro

Wasn't aware that I had to address every single "point" my opponent stated.

Nowhere does he state that for a color to be valid it must be the name of a fruit. If this were so, orange would be the only valid color. However, this is not the case. Apples are red, and while they aren't called "reds," the color still exists.

Addressing his "credible" source, it is actually tied. Also, as seen in the comments, 12 people is not a valid source.

Addressing his point about blind people. This would be similar to saying that singing is not sound because there are deaf people. This is not discrimination, it is the facts. Red exists, and my opponent has not proven that it doesn't.

Seeing as my opponent seems to believe I need to address each and every point that he makes, I will address the Mona Lisa. This has no part in this debate, and is completely irrelevant. In my defense, the Last Supper, a painting by the same artist, uses red. Also, the Scream, another famous painting, uses red.

Furthermore, to continue addressing my opponents points, they have not refuted any of mine. My argument stands.

To fulfill my need to address each argument (I hope voters recognize this pattern), I'll go back to my opponent's original argument and finalize some things. I didn't address a few points.

R1) "it is not a primary color as much as orange"

Already refuted in my round one, but I didn't quite state it.

R2) "in China red is a good color" and "red envelopes contain money."

Confirms my side. No further statements needed.

I don't really feel like stating more arguments. If anyone objects and would like more reasons showing why red exists and is a valid color, let me know in the comments. I'll be glad to give plenty of sources and examples (even though I only need one).

On to Con.
Debate Round No. 2
anthonysluggett

Con

apples aren't red u autist
http://static.tumblr.com...
u must be a terrorist
Zanomi3

Pro

Yeah, I'm going to extend my points. Sorry for all the voters for a pretty useless debate.

Clearly a photoshopped picture, and apples certainly red [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Thanks for reading anyway.

Vote Pro.

Sources:

[1] - http://www.eatlikenoone.com...
[2] - http://www.epicurious.com...
[3] - http://www.orangepippin.com...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] - http://www.pickyourown.org...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by elixir 3 years ago
elixir
@mdc32

naw i don't think it took hours, that would've been unusually long
Posted by mdc32 3 years ago
mdc32
RFD Part 2
On to arguments. This will be shorter, as I don't have much time left to do this. Con's arguments are very accurate, and I really think that Con was close to winning it. However, Pro had a great point in round 2. He says "If anyone objects and would like more reasons showing why red exists and is a valid color, let me know in the comments." Allowing the observers in the comments to state if they want more arguments is a very smart thing to do. He admits that he doesn't know what we want, while also saying that he wants to say whatever he can to prove his point to us. I think that is sufficient for arguments.

Sources. This was very, VERY close. Con's two sources were pretty reliable, a picture that was photoshopped to make it realistic and a poll that reflected ideas of the general public. Pro's sources were pretty vague. I mean, wikipedia? Come on. However, for a dictionary, he uses merriam-webster.com, possibly the best online dictionary there is. This reflects his ingenuity and understanding of reliable sources.

Overall, Pro was the winner of this debate by a slight margin.
Posted by mdc32 3 years ago
mdc32
RFD Part 1
Conduct likely could have gone to Con, yet I decided to give it to Pro. Con was very polite throughout the debate, making no ad hominem attacks and even going so far as to compliment his opponent by calling him a "terrorist." His claim that Pro may have discriminated unfairly against blind people is very formal and constructive, letting Pro know that his arguments may be misinterpreted. Pro, on the other hand, was more direct to his opponent, and this came off as possibly an unwarranted ad hominem. He calls the debate "silly" and a "sure win." Observers may think that Pro doesn't take this debate seriously, and thinks that Con is not a good contender. The main reason that I gave conduct to Pro is a single statement. "Thanks for reading anyway." Wow. This may have been one of the most moving sentences I have ever read. Pro went through the trouble of debating this topic, likely spending countless hours to formulate near-perfect rebuttals, and he thanks us, the readers, for merely being in the presence of such a well-written argument? No, Pro. Thank you. Thank you for giving us the chance to see what DDO is really about - a sense of community, where everyone is thankful that they can interact with people such as yourself.

After that, it's hard for me to continue without tears dripping on my keyboard. Well, here goes. On to S&G. I was on the fence if I should give this to Pro or Con, as it clearly cannot go tied, yet I decided to give it to Pro. Con's spelling was immaculate and his grammar was outstanding. Save for the few times when he forgot to capitalize words, such as "envelopes" and "general" both in round 1, I have very few examples of spelling mistakes. Pro was not as perfect in this area, yet again, I have one example that overpowered all of Con's perfection. Pro uses the word "irrefutable." Again, wow. I can't describe how well this word described the situation. If I had more characters left, I would go in depth, yet I don't. Part 2 is to follo
Posted by lori17224 3 years ago
lori17224
You cant say "I hate the colour red so it isnt a colour". I happen to hate the colour red too but I accept that its a colour. I despise the colour yellow but its still a colour. Black and white and grey are shades but the rest of the colours you can see are colours. Im not sure about this but I think ultraviolet is also a colour.
Posted by anthonysluggett 3 years ago
anthonysluggett
all of your points are invalid
Posted by VelCrow 3 years ago
VelCrow
credible source with a poll of 9 people to prove the color red is not valid. I guess all you need now is 2 voters to elect the next president of the united states of america.
Posted by elixir 3 years ago
elixir
this is a famous painting with none of this disease on it

snort
this sentence made my day
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
I would think, since Con hates the color red, they they wouldn't be Con since that title is colored in red. Red is merely a low energy wavelength of light, so scientifically (which is all that really counts) red is a valid color. Red is also the color of passion and love, red has been seen as the color of life (since blood is red), red has more poems written about it than any other color, even black doesn't compare. Apples are healthier than oranges (less acid to ruin your teeth), roses are the rulers of the flower world, infrared is a highly useful way of revealing hidden information, Red is an irreplaceable color in TV sets that use RGB to define the rest of the colors. Without red, you would have to watch black and white tv shows.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
anthonysluggettZanomi3Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for r3 slander by con sources were unreliable too
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 2 years ago
Skepticalone
anthonysluggettZanomi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better conduct (especially for a terrorist), S&G, arguments, and sources. Con did not meet his burden.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
anthonysluggettZanomi3Tied
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: con fails to rebut pro. This debate was ridiculously sided against him anyways.
Vote Placed by mdc32 3 years ago
mdc32
anthonysluggettZanomi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.