The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
Badtothebone
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 12 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,793 times Debate No: 33868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

imabench

Pro

The full resolution is: "Resolved: It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 2001 in between the two towers falling to the ground"

Clarifications:

1 - It is a given that said person who is masturbating is an american citizen who is living in the US and is fully aware of everything that is going on because he is watching the events on TV.

2 - It is a given that said person chose to masturbate in the time period from when the South tower collapsed to when the North tower collapsed.

Rules:
3 rounds
8000 characters
Con MUST GIVE ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 1
Only pictures of 9/11 are permissible, nothing relating to genitals though.
Badtothebone

Con

wha.. I don't even know. Masturbate during 9/11? are you saying that its okay to masturbate during 9/ll or when the twin towers were burnt down? Why would ANYBODY be thinking about masturbating on a disaster like this one?
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

"are you saying that its okay to masturbate during 9/ll or when the twin towers were burnt down?"

Im saying it is morally permissible to have 'bated during the time period in between the towers collapsing to the ground.... Morally permissible meaning that the person who 'bated didnt do anything wrong or evil, and merely has weird timing.
Badtothebone

Con

how is this even a debate, its a fricking weird topic, its not even a controversy you may have done this and wondered if this if wrong or not. well it is wrong to say the least because its not a funny matter and its totally immature. many lives were lost including children and the fact that a person is aware that they are bateing during the incident is very sick and needs help. I really am starting to think this is a troll debate.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"how is this even a debate"

If you go to the 'debates' tab at the top left of your screen theres an option that says 'start a new debate' and then its pretty straight forward from there.

"its not even a controversy you may have done this and wondered if this if wrong or not"

I was in second grade and in school when 9/11 happened so no, this isnt something I actually did. Can you give an actual argument now?

"well it is wrong to say the least because its not a funny matter and its totally immature"

Opinion....

"many lives were lost including children and the fact that a person is aware that they are bateing during the incident is very sick and needs help"

Another opinion.....

"I really am starting to think this is a troll debate."

I am really starting to think that you have no intention of posting an actual argument.

Seeing as how Con hasnt provided an actual argument yet despite having two rounds to do so, Ill go ahead and post what I have.

1) The only thing weird about this situation is the timing.

It is morally permissible to have 'bated on 9/11 in between the towers going down because there is nothing inherently wrong with doing such a thing at such a time. The only weird thing about the whole situation is how strange the timing is and that the person knew what was going on in the world and was apathetic to those events while 'bating. The person wasnt 'bating at the fact that the twin towers were attacked, or to the idea that hundreds of people were dying in New York, or that some of those victims were indeed children..... He just happened to have really unorthodox timing.

2) Tragedies happen every day yet people still masturbate despite them.

Theres a famine going on in Somalia right now that has killed roughly 600,000 people, about half of the victims being younger then the age of 5. Despite knowing this, many people still 'bate away because many people are still apathetic to what is happening in Somalia since that country is beyond repair at this point. People die in boatloads all over the world on just about any given day, and despite people knowing that is true, they still put that aside and masturbate for self pleasure.

3) Its only sick if the person was sexually driven by the events of 9/11

If someone 'bates to 9/11, meaning they were 'bating while fantasizing about the planes hitting the buildings and all that, then yes, that person is f*cked up in the head.... However, that isnt implied as the truth, what is given is only the fact that someone is indeed 'bating while 9/11 was happening. They probably were fantasizing about normal stuff while wanking it which is perfectly fine on its own, the fact that this person chose to do a very normal and acceptable thing at a very weird time doesnt make him evil or anything, just someone who has really weird timing.

Having weird timing doesnt make something morally wrong, it just makes it kinda weird when you look back at it at a later date.
Badtothebone

Con

I cant even take this debate seriously. Go ahead vote for him because he has some stupid evidence he pulled out of the garbage. I do not want to disrespect those who died then make a debate about masturbating to it.The reason why is some of my friends had family members who were in those buildings and who am i to make fun of it. Plus, in the comments a guy said you totally got it from a comedian so this is really a troll topic
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by hereiam2005 3 years ago
hereiam2005
Definition:
In Ethics in the First Person, Deni Elliott defines "morally permissible" as
"It is morally permitted to act in any way that does not cause others unjustified harms."
http://www.amazon.com...

The guy was watching 9/11 on TV, fully aware, and chose to masturbate in the time period from when the South tower collapsed to when the North tower collapsed.

I was having dinner when I saw the content of this debate. His action made me incredibly sick, and forced me to throw up the entire content of my dinner, and I was unable to have any other meal for a while.

This was an incredible unjust harm, mentally, physically and economically, inflicted upon me by the act.

Thus, the resolution is proven false.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Glad that SOMEBODY got the Louis CK reference....
Posted by FeioH-Niplef 3 years ago
FeioH-Niplef
This really wasnt a debate of ideals. Just one person responding to questions/comments from a relatively weirded-out guy.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
I dont think Con knew this was going to be a joke debate.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
If louie Ck did it, i say yes!
Posted by Badtothebone 3 years ago
Badtothebone
lol is that who he is quoting from?
Posted by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
Louis C.K. for the win =D
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter
Vote Placed by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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: This is low. Pro has had some funny troll debates but come on. Plus when con says how is this a debate, pro gave a smart ass response and I HATE SMARTASSES. No offense pro.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 3 years ago
vmpire321
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: mercy points. isn't it ironic how con's name is badtothebone?
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the argument. This debate was hilarious.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one that made an argument.... Shame for con, it should have been an easy win.
Vote Placed by SaintMichael741 3 years ago
SaintMichael741
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: As far as troll debates go, this is going a little too far. That being said, con should not have taken this debate if he didn't feel comfortable with the topic or thought it was stupid. Easy win for pro, con didn't even fight back.
Vote Placed by mananlak 3 years ago
mananlak
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: No argument from con, as well as some terrible spelling/grammar.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con put up no substantive argument for his side, and Pro successfully argued his side. As Con gave no refutations, arguments go to Pro. Pro had fewer spelling and grammar mistakes, so that point goes to Pro. Neither side used sources, so that remains neutral. Conduct goes to Pro because Con did not appear to take the debate seriously.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
imabenchBadtotheboneTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: LMAO obviously a troll debat, sorry hueso but you got trolled HARD