The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

It's time to crackdown on canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/10/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,347 times Debate No: 5929
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

We've all been there, haven't we? Standing in a jam-packed underground train with hardly enough room to breath, never mind move, when the aesthetically-challenged couple next to you decide to demonstrate that they aren't too hideously ugly to get a sexual partner by going at each other hammer and tongs - right in your face.

Yes, there they are, these two freaks of nature, his hand up her blouse, her hand down his trousers, slobbering all over each other like a bitch on heat being taken by a dog with two d###s - and the worst thing is, there's no escape from this appalling public display of affection.

http://img148.imageshack.us...
(Decent, hard-working Londoners taking the Circle Line to work yesterday…)

http://somuchdamage.com...
(…until these two get on and start snogging…)

http://www.smh.com.au...
(…and chaos ensues as the disgusted commuters try to leave the train between stations)

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no prude. Certainly if a couple of lesbian cheerleaders decided to touch each other up right in front of me, I would be the last person to complain. However, if a couple that are so unspeakably repulsive that they could earn a living as specimens at a Theory of Evolution exhibition boarded my carriage, and the bloke started fondling his bird so close to me that I could actually smell her tango butter as she started frothing at the g#sh, I believe I'd have every right to complain.

The question is, what is to be done about them? Well, since there's widespread adherence to the ban on consuming alcohol on public transport, with offenders being dragged off trains and given on-the-spot fines (and a bit of kicking as well), it would be reasonable to assume that a similar ban on unsightly snoggers would be equally successful.

That's right, it's time to crackdown hard on ugly lovers that overtly display their affection for each other on busy trains and I hereby submit this reasonable and long overdue proposal to the House.

Thank you.
JBlake

Con

Of course, I extend my gratitude to Brian Eggleston for another entertaining and difficult-to-understand debate.

Before I begin, I feel compelled to demand from my opponent a full and comprehensive definition of 'tango butter'.

My opponent contradicts himself. He claims that 'canoodling cretins' ought to be banned from 'conspicously cavorting' on 'crowded carraiges'. In the very same paragraph he states that 'a couple of lesbian chearleaders' going at it on the same 'crowded carraige' would be fine, since he presumably finds them to be aesthetically pleasing. What Brian is attempting to do, then, is oppress those masochistic voyuers who prefer to punish themselves by sneaking a peek (and sometimes a peak) at a hideously disfigured couple groping on the subway.

Mr. Eggleston goes on to cite the prohibition of alcohol on the subway as an example of how to rid the system of 'canoodling cretins'. However, lifting the prohibition altogether may be more benefitial, especially when passengers are forced to watch two 'aesthetically-challenged' people going at it. A couple of pints of rum could quickly turn that couple into a pair of lesbian chearleaders - or at the very least add to the original couple a number of lesbian chearleaders.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Mr. Blake for accepting this debate, which I agree may be a little difficult to read as I have defaulted to my native British English. I should, therefore, like to clarify my position as follows "ugly people shouldn't be allowed to caress each other on subway trains because it grosses people out".

I am also happy to oblige my opponent by providing the definition he requested as follows:

Tango Butter: noun; slang, chiefly British; origins obscure – the traditional accompaniment of a quarter-pounder with cheese (though may also be employed as a dip in a spinster's finger-buffet); liable to become quickly encrusted, thus necessitating a Gentleman's Wash.

While I am on about definitions, by the way, in the title of this debate I used the word "cretin" in the sense of a noun that refers to someone who is physically deformed.

http://www.askoxford.com...

Since cheerleader positions are normally given to pretty, physically fit girls rather than big, fat ugly mingers, I must assert that there is no contradiction in my argument as my opponent suggested.

He then wrote that I was attempting to oppress "masochistic voyuers who prefer to punish themselves by sneaking a peek…at a hideously disfigured couple groping on the subway."

Well, all I can say to that is that the will of the majority should prevail over the will of the minority. This is a democratic principle. As some of you may have heard, there was a general election in America recently. Some liberal bloke called Barack Obama won, getting slightly more of the popular vote than the conservative coffin-dodger who was his opponent.

Now, the thing is, those Americans that wanted to go about "managing the environment" by shooting the wildlife and drilling for oil in National Parks and "stimulating the economy" by giving wheelbarrows full of ordinary taxpayers' hard-earned cash to people who are already extremely rich were very disappointed at the result. But that's democracy for you and the same principle should apply to snoggers on the tube.

Just think about the top-shelf magazines. There are plenty of titles like "Teen Lovelies", "Asian Babes" and "Busty Blonde Stunners" while very few newsagents stock copies of "Fat Slags", "Hideous Old Crones" or "Freak-Show Fantasies". That is to say, very few people would object to a couple of gorgeous lesbians getting intimate with each other in closely confimed circumstances, but most people would start gagging if an aesthetically-challenged couple did the same.

Still, until my proposal is implemented by Transport for London, I will take my opponent's advice and I therefore plan to have a skin-full at the boozer round the corner before I attempt to get the tube home from work tonight!

Thank you.
JBlake

Con

I accept the definition, even though it is even more confusing than the original term - yet even more hilarious.

It is my opponent's claim that democratic principles should apply in nearly all cases - including the issue at hand. Unfortunately, on occasion, the will of the majority is to oppress another group of people. For this reason every nation with democratic principles also has certain checks in place to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. In the United States that check is known as the Bill of Rights. I am not intimately familiar with British law, but I assume there are similar checks in place. My opponent's argument fails since he has rested his case entirely on the rationale that the majority should be able to oppress the minority - in this case the poor, grossly disfigured couple.

It is clear that this is just another issue brought up by Mr. Eggleston to distract the public from his ultimate goal - world destruction.
http://www.debate.org...

Furthermore, he has published a photo of himself in the obvious attempt to intimidate the reader into voting for him.
http://img148.imageshack.us...
(Brian can be found in the center of the photograph in his natural state)
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I think that was the idea..
Posted by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
wow...this debate is kinda silly, don't ya think?
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Cowards, the whole lot of you! You allowed him to intimidate you into voting for him. Tsk tsk.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
Hilarious, Mr. Eggleston, as always.

P.s I like this picture of you http://img148.imageshack.us... you look altogether very refined and sharp- one has to wonder... HOW DOES HE DO IT!
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
So funny I cried. I learned some terms I never knew I always wanted to know. Hilarious. My vote goes to Brian for argument. I gave Conduct to JBlake, not because his conduct was necessarily better or worse, but because he deserved a point for arguing that lifting the ban on alcohol in public transportation could help people endure the unsightly PDA.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
hahaha
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonJBlakeTied
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 varsityLD 8 years ago
varsityLD
brian_egglestonJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
brian_egglestonJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
brian_egglestonJBlakeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31