The Instigator
FreeThinker35
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

Jews are parasites

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 8 votes the winner is...
Cliff.Stamp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,535 times Debate No: 16139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

FreeThinker35

Con

This debate is for any Nazi or ingnorant racist individual on Debate.org (I doubt there are any due to the fact that this cite is for thinkers and leaders and Nazi's usually lack these traits.)
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

Resolved : "Jews are parasites"

Definition :

Jew :

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.

2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.

3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Parasite :

1. A relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

To affirm the resolution is trivial, Jews are members of the species H. sapiens, and like all members of such species have relationships between themselves and other species where they benefit at its expense. From a direct global perspective, it would be suitable to argue that the Jews are a parasite on the Earth itself as the Jews greatly benefit from utilization of the resources of the earth and its collection of all available species which suffer in direct proportion.

Now to be clear this is not an argument specific to the Jews, the argument could be extended to the human race itself which moves forward consuming the earth, its resources and all species (animals and plants) for their own benfit. The H. sapiens species also has no inherent ability to balance this relationship as it has no way to give back what it produces as it gets all its resources from the earth and their species.

Until such time as we can utilize resources outside of the earth in order to replace what we have used then this relationship will continue to be a parasitic one.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FreeThinker35

Con

Wow. You have clearly taken the topic out of its intended context. I think I explicitly stated that this debate was targeted to a Nazi or Racist out there.

Even though you do make some valid points, I assumend you would understand what I meant by parasite. Are jews paracites to society like Neo-Nazis believe not paracites that feed off earth. (Although I do like you rather clever approach)

I hope you are Nazi ( not that I want any more of them to pollute society but...) because if you are not, then there is nothing here to really debate.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"Wow. You have clearly taken the topic out of its intended context."

Con, such are the issues with resolutions which are vague and OP which do not clearly define terms. They can not be taken out of context as there is no context as such defined.

DDO is a harsh mistress and she is policed by the hungriest of sharks, of which at times I may be one, but only a minnow compared to the Great Whites such as the like of Kelptin who can twists words/meanings and turn a resolution around and force the instigator to refute his own Resolution.

There are a couple of lessons to be learned from this :

1) If you want to advocate a position then advocate it, don't simply try to make someone else prove a position while you sit back after creating something which you believe is impossible to prove. In this case, be Pro on the Resolution : Antisemitism is an unwarranted act of discrimination.

2) A vague resolution and lack of definitions in the OP can cause a debate to go where it was not intended - do not let an opponent exploit such an obvious weakness. If you had taken the above then you would open by defining antisemitism, and discrimination and then present several well known acts of antisemitism and say how they were without warrant.

The resolution stands affirmed, all argument are unchallenged.
Debate Round No. 2
FreeThinker35

Con

"This debate is for any Nazi or ingnorant racist individual" I think I made it clear what we would be discussing and to whom ... I assumed that the person who would take challenge would understand that we would be discussing rasism and anti-semistism, and for this... it is my fault.


I'll re-create a debate, but this time i'll present my ideas in a more structured and clear manner.

Thank you for the "advice"/lesson, very appealing.I will attempt to perfect my ability in the art of debating.


Cliff.Stamp

Pro

To end, a short comment on the Resolution and then a closing.

As is obvious, the argument by Pro was one to exploit a vague resolution and OP which left much to be interpreted. It appears Con was attempting to argue :

Resolved : Antisemitism is an unwarranted form of racial discrimination

Even this though is subject to a fairly strong semantic rebuttal unless antisemitism, warrant, race and discrimination are all clearly defined. As an example consider the following exchange between myself and Cody :

http://www.debate.org...

Note that more than 50% of the discussion is over interpretation over terms such as :

-should
-ought
-value
-reason
-belong

Of course such is to be expected when the topic is one over the existence of rights. Now as a result of this thread we may engage in a debate or two, but in order for this to be productive the resolution would have to be very clear and the OP lay out some specific definitions or it would end up as that thread did with more than a dozen posts just rewording questions to add/remove certain words so they fit within a specific paradigm.

And in closing, my favorite semantic debate by one of the true masters of word play on DDO - Logical Master :

http://www.debate.org...

Logical Master opens with the following :

"It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved."

His opponent, beemOr catches the slip, the "not" was a mistake, as it is written the logic is that self-interest is required for "not consciously acting", and then beemOr retorts that obviously dead people do not act and they have no self-interest and thus Logical-Master has lost.

This is where the genius of Logical Master comes in, he first makes a plea to retract this statement and change it to :

"It is impossible to consciously act without self-interest being involved."

beemOr however has no sympathy and rightly points out that Logical-Master is known for intricate twisting of words/meanings to make an argument and demands he defends the original argument - and here is the kicker, Logical Master does and presents a solid argument for an obviously nonsensical position realizing that it was his mistake and beemOr simply took advantage of it.

That is debate.

In closing, debate is not simply about information being presented, much of the strength of a debate is in the resolution and OP which set the stage for what has to be argued and how, nor can it simply be refuted "well I intended it to be". Step up to the plate as Logical-Master has done and defend it, whatever it written.

As one final PPS, this is debate.org, simply because you defend a position does not mean you actually take that position. This is a debating site, the members should not only be willing, but enjoying arguing for both sides, that is what debate is all about , exploring an issue not simply soap boxing. I can defend antisemitism - that would not imply I am an antisemitic.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
When the instigator intends for the debate to be so one-sided such as having an opponent argue for an offensive anti-semetic position, they deserve it when their opponent zig-zags around it.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Freethinker could have easily went to the whole "symbiotic" relationship thing;"

Interesting, I was expecting the validity to be challenged directly :

"it would be suitable to argue that the Jews are a parasite on the Earth itself as the Jews greatly benefit from utilization of the resources of the earth and its collection of all available species which suffer in direct proportion"

This only works if you can argue the earth is valid as a "species", that is what I would have attacked.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Freethinker gave up as soon as Cliff.Stamp played a teensy bit of semantics. That's just pathetic... In my opinion, it was still debatable. Freethinker could have easily went to the whole "symbiotic" relationship thing; nonetheless, Cliff wins. There was no debate.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Someone watched The Matrix"

There is that, I was also referencing the zeroth law of robotics by Asimov.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Con could have put up a solid fight by challenging Pro's definition of a parasite and arguing that humans are not literal parasites on other organisms."

Indeed, I would have to defend BoP on that as I was extending the definition non-trivially.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Con could have put up a solid fight by challenging Pro's definition of a parasite and arguing that humans are not literal parasites on other organisms. The debate was not lost and there was no need to give up because Pro took an interpretation of the resolution that you didn't intend.
Posted by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
I think Freethinker has only himself to blame for the turn this debate has taken. He never directly defined his resolution. What comes out of it is his own doing. Be that as it may, keep it up Cliff, it seems to be a dominating performance thus far.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"FWIW, by the definition given, aren't most living things parasites?"

It has to be an imbalanced relationship, we (humans) tend to be out of balance as we consume out side of our needs, i.e., we eat for the sake of eating and we radically transform the environment in a way that other animals can not.
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
J. Kenyon is correct. FWIW, by the definition given, aren't most living things parasites? Even in photosynthesis, plants need sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.

I can't really think of anything that isn't dependent upon something.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con's opening statement makes the meaning of the resolution clear. It's unclear only if the context is ignored and that's not legitimate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: awesome trick with the wordplay cliff
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The meaning of the resolution was made clear by the call for a "Nazi" to debate. Therefore Pro didn't debate the resolution. Semantic arguments are fair if the opening argument doesn't provide enough context to understand the intent. That certainly happens, but not here.
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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: Very nicely done Cliff. And you taught Con a valuable lesson about word accuracy.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got caught up by the semantics and never defined nor debating anything. I hope Con will continue here and hopefully learned from this debate.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cliff... your first comment on any of my debates was "Debates are technical... words matter." The victory on this one is for you due to the same reason.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave up once Pro took an unexpected route in the debate and did not present any arguments or sources of his own.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
FreeThinker35Cliff.StampTied
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: Someone watched The Matrix. Finally something useful comes out of Keanu Reeves painful career.