The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
77 Points
The Contender
OMGJustinBieber
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points

Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,911 times Debate No: 16564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (17)

 

Koopin

Pro

Full resolution: It would be overall better for the world if Justin Bieber was killed and forgotten.

I will give my opponent the option to start if she wishes, however if she does not want to she can just accept.

Thank you.


Definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org...
OMGJustinBieber

Con

The history of mankind has been fraught with obstacles, tragedies, and ambiguity. Today, my opponent and I attempt to answer the question "should Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten?" In beginning to defend the stance that Bieber should not be killed and forgotten, I list a few main points that will clearly convince any rational observer that this fate should not befall JB.

1. JB's songs can be remixed with other songs to be pretty good. Case in point, the Slipknot-Bieber mix "Psychosocial Baby."

2. Lesbians who look like Justin Bieber.
http://lesbianswholooklikejustinbieber.tumblr.com...

While certainly quite funny, this website serves other purposes. In keeping butch lesbians occupied with looking like Bieber (maybe to impress other lesbians?) it also keeps them away from:
a) Stealing girlfriends.
b) Making stupid comments in class about patriarchial oppression and hetero-normativity.
c) Shows normal girls (who like men, not little boys) that guys are clearly better than these Bieber knock offs.

3. Justin Bieber gives midgets and 13 year old boys the hope that they can get laid.

Lets face it, it would suck to be a midget but Bieber is only like 5'3 so smaller people can look to him for some source of inspiration, even though Bieber is a virgin it's clear he could get some action from any number of 12 year old girls or gay men (duh).

On a side note, like, what is with you and KFC? I think the skin is pretty good because it's crispy, but I don't really understand your infatuation with it. Now that I've looked a little further into it, it makes even less sense to due the facts that a) You live in Atlanta, therefore you're likely to be surrounded by poor black people at a KFC (unless you live in one of those gated communities where there are no black people) and b) You're a conservative, white* male. So, it's led me to 2 possible conclusions 1) The KFC you're going to is located in your gated community, and is not a genuine KFC due to the lack of an "urban vibe" 2) The KFC you go to IS in urban Atlanta, and granted it makes no sense a white, conservative boy would want to be surrounded by poor black people while he eats UNLESS......he likes black cock.

Therefore, I conclude my argument and would like to remind the audience that Pro's hatred of Bieber may actually be motivated by his own closet homosexuality and repressed desires.

Thank you. I welcome a rebuttal.

*I'm not 100% sure you are white, but I reasoned it due to:
1) There are basically no black people on the internet.
2) You're conservative, there are no black conservatives.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

Introduction:

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I hope that I can open her eyes in the war against Bieber.
I would also like to thank the audience for reading.

I would ask that my opponent keep this debate serious, this matter is not to be joked with.
It is a serious issue in today's world.
To prove this would overall help the whole world, I will be making arguments from many different point of views.

Argument:

Justin Bieber, a boy with talent.
Then again, Osama Bin Laden had talent in killing people.
Millions of little girls flock to this boy, so how harmful could he be?
Yeah right.
Now remember, this debate is about the overall benefit of the entire world.
I will list the benefits that we would reap from the death and loss memory of Justin Bieber.

Environmentalist views:
1. Bieber is using our resources.

The title explains it all.
Justin Bieber is drinking water, using lots of paper making CD album covers/fliers, and causing people to use up our fossil fuels by going to his show (causing pollution.)
This is very bad, seeing that our world is slowly dying.

Hippie View:
2. Bieber causes people to hate each other.

Go on google and type "I hate Justin Bieber."
Better yet, if you want to save time click here. http://i52.tinypic.com...
As you can see there are many people who hate Justin Bieber, there are also people who love him.
This causes people to hate each other.
See video one.
The comments of this video are horrible, for example:

"YOU ARE A LITTLE F@CK HE IS A FOGGOT THAT SUCKS OLD MEN; AND RABBES GUYS UP CORNER
PS HE SINGS LIKE HE HAS AONLY ONE NUT."

All this hate is not good for obvious reasons.
Thus, this one single point of view proves the resolution.
Moving on.

Educational View:
3. The swift removal of Bieber would give fans more time to focus on spelling.

Why you ask?
Because girls would be less focused on him.
Can you blame these girls for not paying attention in school?
They are only thinking about Justin Bieber.
It is showing too!
Look at some of the comments from Justin Bieber's fan club on facebook (1):

"JB why yOu sO cute ??? Add me plessss"
"JUSTIN BIEBER IS HOT AND PEOPLE ARE SO MEAN TO HIM I HATE THOSE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!"
"likeee..likee"
"Hi justin, i which i can sing with u but somebody told me to start wit do ra me fa su la ti do. i wil soon join u"

Girls must learn that "SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" and "HOtTay!" are not words.
If everyone forgot about Justin, they could become more focused, thus more successful later on in life.

Evolutionary View:
4. Bieber should not have kids because he is not helping to the world.

Justin Bieber is not strong, he is short, and looks somewhat feminine.
If the world is evolving, it would be better if Justin Bieber stops polluting the evolutionary chain with his weak seed.
His death would assure this.
We all know that many girls think he is cute, which will probably mean he is going to get a lot of girls pregnant in his life time.


There are many other views that I will post in later arguments, but I would like to move on to refuting my opponent's arguments.

For her first point, nothing really needs to be said. Any song can be mixed with another.

For her second point, again nothing really needs to be said.
My opponent does not satisfactorily explain her argument.
Just becuase these girls like Justin Bieber does not mean they are not going to steal other people's girlfriends.
They will also not stop there "stupid comments in class."

Also, "normal girls" (I assume you mean straight girls) do not need more assurance in being straight.

Moving to the third point, it may give the midgets and thirteen year old boys hope of sex (unproven) but it may also hurt them mentally by keeping Justin Bieber alive.
For midgets, they probably feel bad when they hear haters say "Justin Bieber is not manly, he is so short!"
For thirteen-year-olds, they probably don't like hearing "Yeah, I hate Justin Bieber, he looks thirteen.

I will give my opponent another chance for better arguments.


On an ending note, my opponent clearly did not investigate before she said I was white (probably becuase she is always thinking about Bieber.) I am not white (2), therefore her whole "side note reasoning" fails.

I would like to again thank my opponent. I look forward to her next argument.



Sources:
(1). http://www.facebook.com...
(2) http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber

Con

I agree with Pro that this debate is quite serious. Pro has brought up several erudite points, and I will do my best to respond to them thoroughly. I would again like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and audience for reading it?

1. Con claims that JB is using up resources. I can't deny that. Con unfortunately gives me little to work with here, because we all use up resources. Is con advancing the view that if humanity as a whole was wiped out the world would be a better place?

2. Again, this one is true. However, Bieber also creates love, even if that love is not the kind we're use to as a segment of the non-13 year old girl demographic. If Bieber just flat out DIED it would depress the hell out of a lot of 13 year old girls, and the event would spark would likely spark a mass suicide in that demographic. Perhaps, given his first argument, Pro would enjoy this event (as less resources are being used), but this is only testimony of Pro's ability to be a sick fuc.

On a second note, the voracious behavior of Bieber's fans acts like a checks-and-balance system that ensues that a) Bieber stays a virgin and b) no women gets too close to him. Women are well aware of the ferocity of Bieber's fans and Selena Gomez (whore) has already got countless threats from Bieber fans. Now what's more worth it, stealing that little boy's virginity or not waking up dead the next morning?

3) This, again, is true. However, it ignores an important issue. When should women need to spell? They DO however need to be able to read labels on food containers, but Bieber's existence does not threaten this skill. I would again like to refer back to my second point, namely the "Lesbians that look like Justin Bieber" webpage, and suggest that this minor inconvenience of the problem of women's spelling is much outweighed by the removal of the lesbian threat to straight girls.

This point can be a little confusing because women like JB, so why not lesbians who look like JB? The answer is that only JB straddles a very fine line between boy toy and girl, and the lesbian JB's push it a little too far...

4. An astute point, but I encourage my opponent to look back to the checks and balance system put into place by the ferocity of Bieber's fans. Additionally, JB is not done growing. With the proper nutrition, he could reach heights as high as 5'7 or perhaps 5'8.

--Rebutting my opponent's rebuttles--

1. The mix was really good though, yeah any song can be mixed, but without JB there would not be these mixes.

Ok, no offense, I'm just not going to respond your rebuttles for point 2 and 3 because I just don't feel like putting up some argument that you're just going to tear down again. We'll let the viewers decide how much cred they assign to my points and your rebuttels. Additionally, I suggest that "rebuttle" also be an acceptable way of spelling "rebuttal" because nothing else really ends in "al" and the "le" ending is much more natural.

Ok, I admit I was wrong about you being white BUT I WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME THERE. I don't regret my line of reasoning, and it would have right most of the time.

I look forward to my opponent's comments.
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

Introduction:

I thank my opponent for posting her next round of arguments.


Argument:

1. My opponent admits that Justin Bieber is using our resources, she then goes on to say that we all are using resources.
Straw man.
While this is true, it has nothing to do with the resolution.
It would be overall better if we had more resources, therefore it would be overall better if there was no Justin Bieber. Morals of other people have nothing to do with this point.
Argument extended.

2. My opponent also admits that Justin Bieber creates hate.
She then says that this is okay because he creates love.
I would ask my opponent to explain what she means, and also show me some proof to back it up.
If you go on a Justin Bieber youtube video and look in the comments, you will not see a lot of people saying how much they love each other.
Instead you will see hate comments, people hating each other.
This shows that there is more hate than love.
My opponent also says that Justin Bieber being killed would cause people to go suicide or become depressed.
I would ask my opponent to refer back to the resolution.
The resolution does not only state that Justin Bieber would be killed, but that he would be forgotten.
If no one remembers who Justin Bieber was, there would be no one to morn over his death.
Therefore, argument extended.

3. My opponent again admits my point is correct, but then states that women don't need to know how to spell.
This is wrong.
With the world advancing in many ways, all people should advance with it.
If women don't know how to spell, this would contribute to sexism.
Where men will say they are smarter than women.
Please show me some proof that women don't need to spell.
Also remember the resolution states that this debate is about the overall good of the world, and women learning to spell is for the overall good.
Argument extended.

4. Again, my opponent needs to refer back to the resolution.
There would be no checks and balance system if no one remembered Justin Bieber.
It is true that Justin Bieber is not done growing.
However, this argument would only be a good one if Justin Bieber were six years old.
Justin Bieber is already seventeen, and it is clear that he is not going to be a strong link in the evolutionary chain. Argument extended.



What my opponent says about other songs not sounding as good mixed has not been be proven. Not everyone likes the same kind of music.


Closing:

There are many more points I could go over, however I feel that they are not needed to prove my point. The resolution has not been negated at all, and my opponent has agreed with me on every point.

I thank my opponent again for this debate.

OMGJustinBieber

Con

1. I am not committing a straw man. I am simply flushing out your views to their logical ends. You say that "taking resources" is solid grounds for Justin Bieber's killing, but when I try to apply that premise universally you're against it. If you're making the claim that it would be better for this world if JB was killed due his resource consumption, then this claim could clearly be extended to countless other individuals whose only crime was too much resource consumption.

2. You want proof that JB creates love? Look to his fans, parents, or girlfriend. Without getting overly semantical, it is clear that JB creates both love and hate. Pro puts up a meager defense of the point by referencing youtube comments, which constitutes a handful of individuals. Look at Bieber's fan base - check his album sales, concert sales, itunes downloads - it is clear that Bieber - if not creating love, is certainly creating plenty of happiness. Whatever Bieber hatred exists out there is nothing compared to his fanbase which adores him.

I must dispute the "killed and forgotten" point. My opponent is attempting to frame the issue with the interpretation that the memory of Bieber's fanbase would immediately be wiped clear, which obviously has no basis in reality. In reality, when celebrities are "forgotten" it is over an extended period of time. There would still certainly be sadness in the wake of his death.

Regardless, even if he was promptly forgotten, Bieber has a right to life. As a member of a moral community, we are all granted certain rights and Bieber is no exception. Rights can be violated in EXTREME circumstances, but "death for the sake of killing" certainly does not constitute one. Being 'killed and forgotten' would also exempt the murderer from any form of justice. Bieber's murder, in itself, would constitute an injustice and I fear the excessive focus on Bieber's "value" to this world as a form of justifying his right to life strongly detracts from this point.

The way Pro is attempting to argue this debate is to frame it in a plus or minus "expected value" type situation. The way Pro sees it, if he can bring up X number of points that support the notion that JB is a net bane to the world, this warrants his deletion. There are no rights in this world. What my opponent fails to understand is that when rights are violated it makes the world, overall, a worse place. Not only is there a murderer on the loose now, but the rights of an individual - who is an end unto himself - have been trampled. To be killed and forgotten would constitute the ultimate tragedy that could befall any human.

3. This was one of the points that I did not respond to seriously in previous rounds because the argument is ridiculous in the first place. There is an opportunity cost to every action. The claim could just as easily be "humans should not interact with their opposite sex parent because it could be time spent learning spelling." Even so, the argument is not entirely true given the idea that fans tend to learn their favorite artist's lyrics, and these lyrics can contribute to increased knowledge in spelling and writing.

4. I'm surprised that my opponent is seriously defending this view given that Justin Bieber is only 17. Many 17 year olds look girlish, that's because they are adolescents - but no reasonable person would believe that their appearance should be a reason for their death. To make this claim Pro must show that JB's genes are "bad" - whatever that may mean.

I would lastly like to add that I should not be on the defensive here. The -/+ analysis being used here is highly dubious, and it is crucial that Pro provide suitable grounds for violating JB's rights as a human being. Not only has Pro failed to provide a powerful argument that JB is a negative force in balance, but he has failed to address the issue of moral rights.

For those who still follow the "balance" idea that JB somehow needs to validate his existence or right to life through being a positive, force for good, there is a number of charities that JB has and will contribute to.

-Bieber plans to give a portion of the profits of his upcoming fragrance to charity. [1]
-Bieber contributed to a charity album that raised over $5 million for tsunami victims [2]
-For Bieber's 17th birthday, he encouraged fans to donate to a foundation called "Charity Water" and has so far raised over 47k and served over 2300 needy people. [3]

In conclusion, the reasons Pro provided in support of the resolution were weak, and when I tried to critically examine them he cried foul. In addition, I believe that even if JB were a force for negative in this world, the simple act of violating his rights and a murderer going unpunished constitute a strong injustice that would be a very clear negative for the world. I realize there is confusion over the word "forgotten" and this semantical issue will likely not be settled. Either way, the death of JB would be a negative event that would not help the environment in any significant way, leave thousands who would have normally been effected by JB's charity unhelped through Bieber's promotion, and result in the death of an innocent child who had clearly been a force for good in this world. Vote Con.

[1] http://greencelebrity.net...
[2] http://www.baltimoresun.com...
[3] http://mycharitywater.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Koopin

Pro

Last Introduction:

Here we are at the end of this debate. I am however deeply disappointing that my opponent is playing on semantics over the time period of when Justin Bieber will be forgotten. I will not go into the "who is right argument" and will leave that up to the audience to decide. My points really have not been negated, so I feel like not much needs to be said. However, this round will be somewhat of a review.

Last Arguments:

1. My opponent again has failed to disprove my point. I believe it is clear for the audience to understand, yet my opponent still does not get it. Let me show an example of what I mean:

Person A: "I am club security and need a report about a man named Smith. I need to know everything about Smith."
Person B: "Smith is black and has an illegal gun, therefore it would be better for Smith not to come into the club again."
Person C: "More black people have illegal guns, therefore it would be better to remove all black people from the club. Since this is a moral issue I don't agree upon, it is okay for Smith to stay in the club."

If we were talking about the whole world (in the example: all black people) it would be a different subject. However, we are just talking about Justin Bieber (in the example: Smith.) You have failed to refute my point. This debate is not about other people. Whether I believe the world would be better off without people is a totally different subject.
Argument extended.


2. My opponent says that proof of Justin Bieber's love is how many albums he sells, concert sales, ect... What she fails to realize is what kind of love. Which is better, love of Bieber or love of each other? The love my opponent is talking about is the love of Bieber. It would be much more beneficial if we loved each other. For example, Stalin. Millions of people loved Joesph Stalin(1). Does this mean it would have been better if Stalin lived forever? Apply that to anyone you want. Lots of Americans loved George Bush, this didn't make the whole world in love with each other. It is better for people to love those around them rather than love one individual.

Also, you say that the youtube comments are a "handful of people." Do you need more proof? Like I said before type in I hate Bieber on google. There are so many people hating each other. Look at people who created youtube videos about Bieber. People have gotten death threats for loving this guy! Justin Bieber's official videos have over a million thumbs down, way more than the thumbs up. What more needs to be said? Justin Bieber has second place for most hated video on Youtube (second only to Rebecca Black. (2))

My opponent also tries to bring up morals again when she says "Bieber has a right to life". I agree! And if I had the choice to kill him right now I would not. But this debate is not about morals. It is about what would be OVERALL BETTER FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. Please get this right. You accepting this debate knew the resolution. So the right to life argument is completely pointless in this debate. I have a feeling however that my opponent will not let this go in her last round.

3. My opponent cannot change her argument on this point. I explained my position in round two, and my opponent accepted it. My opponent did not refute it, instead she agreed by saying "This, again, is true." Therefore that part of the argument is finished. Argument extended.

4. Again my opponent agreed with me on this point, yet she wants to change her arguments? This is not how a debate works. Yes, Justin Bieber is only seventeen, but by that age most people are mature. Justin Bieber is slow to mature, therefore removing him would speed up the evolutionary chain. My opponent plays the morals card once again by implying that since lots of people mature slow it would be immoral to remove them.


Closing:
There are a few things I would like to say in my last closing.
First, like I stated above this debate is about the overall benefit of the entire world. Justin Bieber's right to life has absolutely nothing to do with with this debate. Morals have nothing to do with this debate. In a way, this is a +/- debate. The resolution states this.
Secondly, my opponent spent most of the time in this debate attempting to refute my points, yet she waits till the last moment to say some things Justin Bieber has done. Even then, she just says some outlines of the things he has done. These things are very small things if you look at the overall benefit. Stalin did some great things for this world, but overall it was better for him to die. Donating money (a pretty small amount compared to what needs to be donated) does not mean it would be better for him to stay alive.
Lastly, like I also said, Justin Bieber has a right to life. If it came down to me deciding if he could live or not, I'd let him live because of my morals. But remember that the point of this debate is about the overall good.

I would like to thank my opponent one more time for this debate. I am sorry if she did not understand the resolution.

Audience, I have shown all my points clearly. I have explained them in detail, and properly defended them. As any reader can see it would benefit the whole world if Justin Bieber was killed and forgotten. I urge a Pro vote.


Sources:
(1). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
(2). http://www.urlesque.com...
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Last round, will try to make it count.

1. I've already accepted that JB uses resources. We all use resources. Eating an apple is consuming a natural resources. My opponent has been dishonest here, and refused to flush out his logic. He claims JB consumes resources, and should therefore be better off dead. When I try to extend this premise, he cries foul and says I am deviating from the resolution. In reality, I am simply examining his logic. Eating any kind of fruit, berries, fish or meat is consuming resources. If consuming resources was grounds for being better off dead, then we should all be. Rational people do not believe that simply consuming resources makes one better off dead. This point has been both noted for its widespread applicability and my opponent's inability to accept the broader picture of his claims.

2. Love of JB does not take away from love from each other. There is no fixed amount of love in the world. There is absolutely no evidence Pro can claim here to suggest that loving JB leads to (or replaces) a loss of love between family, friends, etc. Additionally, it is entirely possible that in being united in hatred at a common enemy (Bieber) more love is created among the haters. People bond over hatred of things (Republicans, environmental calamities, taxes) all the time. It's very clear that JB has created both love and hate in some indeterminate amount. It is impossible to make the claim that JB has created more hate than love due to a complete lack of evidence and an inability to measure those qualities. Again, my opponent's point falls flat once faced with critical thinking.

I knew this point would confuse my opponent. The fact is, when one's rights are violated it is overall WORSE for the world. Killing is not simply an amoral act of "deletion" but an immoral act of an injustice that in Bieber's case will never be fixed. The world is directly worse off, because the life of an individual has ended unjustly. Was the world not "worse off" after the Rwandan genocide because the pain those victims faced has simply vanished? If the Rwandan genocide was simply forgotten, would the pain of its victims be utterly negated? I think not. This world is not simply our own momentary pleasure and pain. It involves the amount of pain and suffering given to us through history, and the more than is give to humanity the worse off humanity as a whole is. Again, it is more than just the balance of our momentary pleasure and pain.

Then again, my opponent has not really defined what is "better for the world." It is entirely clear that hate is justified and even good in certain cases, like hate for a brutal dictator. Or "hate" towards the idea of enslaving your fellow man. The quality of "hate" is not unconditionally bad. Again, I feel this point has been utterly demolished and I would again like to stress that the simple act of rights violation makes the world a worse place. An individual is an end unto himself, and with inherent self worth.

3. It would be helpful to read the first two rounds of this debate as a joke, because that's how both writers conceived it. The heat did not really get "turned on" until round 3, and given that Pro's third point has been irrevocably damaged he now rejects my logically sound argument made in R3 because he knows there is no answer he could give. I can't say anything more here.

4. See point 3. My opponent knows there is no good answer.

The debate went like this: I was joking the first few rounds, and my opponent knew this and responded with weak rebuttals that somewhat addressed the prompt. However, as the debate became more serious Pro refused to abandon his flimsy arguments and instead entrenched himself with them. By round 4, he would not even address my rebuttals to point 3 and 4 because he knew his points were weak.

In a last, desperate grasp for air my opponent compares Bieber to Stalin. He denies the importance of rights, and tries to frame it as +/-. Even if this is true, given the millions that Bieber has helped raise for charity my opponent has never suggested that Bieber has created something like "millions of dollars worth of hate." Thousands of poor people have been directly helped by Justin Bieber's charity efforts, and thousands more will likely be as Bieber matures. Moreover, my opponent never clearly defined what is good and what is bad for this world. In doing so, he throws out concepts like "hate" as bad - even though hate is a perfectly natural and even healthy reaction to some events of people. It cannot be called unconditionally bad. FDR created some amount of "hate" in leading America through WWII. By now, the audience should begin to see how flimsy Pro's arguments were. He refused to address my concerns to his first point, threw out buzz word like "hate" to make his second point, not grasping that Bieber has also created some amount of love and that the amount of love and hate cannot truly be compared. He failed to adequately address my 3rd and 4th points in his final statement.

In conclusion, Pro failed to describe what a "better world" really is. I began this mission in my third response and will expound it on a little here. When moral rules are broken, the world is "worse off." My opponent cleverly tries to detach the issue of morality to this conversation, because if morality is brought up the uphill battle becomes even tougher. I don't know how else my opponent would measure a "better off" world. If one person with a "goodness value" of 0 is killed and forgotten, is the world basically unchanged in how "good" it is? How about 1,000? My opponent tries to frame it as +/-, but never cares to define "good" or what a "better world" really means. Even if the debate is framed in +/- none of my opponent's points would outweigh his large charity efforts. I suggest that moral violations - regardless of to what extent they are "forgotten" make the world a worse place. Lastly, due to Pro's insistence on extending his principles ONLY to Bieber, one must wonder if those who consume resources (all of us), create hatred (anyone who has been in an fierce argument or hurt someone), exist and in doing so take away from spelling time (again, all of us), and were once thinner, weaker adolescents (ok, this one only applies to males) would make the world a better place by being dead. This would have been an interesting argument, but Pro refused to follow his own logic.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alucard1 10 months ago
Alucard1
Justin Biebar starts fights with random people, he pisses in restaurant mop baskets in public, he goes into clubs he is into, and for all we could possible know he could be a terrorist for all I care. Reason is the guys attention seeking. When I was at super cuts to get my hair cut I found a magazine with an article that's title said, (Why Justin Bieber is a Jerk). Gee wanna know how I got the information in my first sentence, it's was the article. Like I always saw, you can find alot of information in books. Any people who disagree with me are either fan girls or just plain people who just have no reason to comment at all but just comment, " Omg he doesn't care about what you said about him, gee mr.fan then why don't you catch up on your reading and come say that to my face >:|????
Posted by Koopin 1 year ago
Koopin
KILL HIM!!! HIS HUMAN FLESH SHALL BE MINE!

nac
Posted by iholland95 1 year ago
iholland95
No you have no right to say Justin should be killed cause he shouldn't. You're threatning a celeb's life and you should be put in jail for that. You are allowed to have your opinion but you're now influencing people to want to kill him and that's NOT RIGHT. Please stop with the hate.
Posted by famer 1 year ago
famer
Not yet I haven't, but I doubt my vote really makes a difference. Will make a more justified vote later. But to the looks of it, "You obviously did not read the debate" probably implies I'll end up voting PRO once I finish reading the debate.
Posted by Koopin 1 year ago
Koopin
"Killing a person simply because you hate their music is taking it a bit too far."

You obviously did not read the debate.
Posted by iholland95 2 years ago
iholland95
Come one guys. Really? There should be no hating on Justin Bieber. He's just an innocent kid who's trying to live his dream. If you're jealous of that, that stinks for you. Get over it. Find something to satisfy you in the meantime.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Lololololololololololol
Posted by dinokiller 3 years ago
dinokiller
Ill be damned, didnt expect such debate coming up :P
Posted by Breece 3 years ago
Breece
I personally came into this argument on the "Pro" side of the argument, not expecting this to be a serious debate. I actually expected the argument to continue as it started off, but when the "Pro" side began attempting to seriously negate the "Con" side's argument, I think it turned out that the "Con" side was much more skilled in actual debating. The fact that the "Pro" side of the argument had no real basis for any of their points and then criticized the "Con" side for having no basis makes the "Pro" side, in my opinion, rather hypocritical.

When the "Pro" side avoided the moral question, I think it showed weakness on his part to address a serious concern with the argument. He was, quite obviously, avoiding a major hole in his argument. The statement is, "Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten." The "Pro" side said that this meant that it would have an overall better effect on the world. However, by violating morals, which are based on society's need for an organized system to, essentially, keep people in line, the world would become a much worse place for allowing the violation of so simple and obvious a moral rule as, "Do not kill." The "Pro" side of the argument failed to address this and simply put it off as "completely pointless in this debate." In other words, I think the "Con" argument should have won.

Also... one last thing to the "Pro" side of the argument. Your statement, "This is not how a debate works," is extremely unfounded, and quite frankly, pretentious. There are many different styles of debating. Who are you to say she can't alter her argument when she has been proven wrong on a point?

...jus sayin
Posted by i8JoMomma 3 years ago
i8JoMomma
kill and forget about everyone in this corrupt government too
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 1 year ago
Azul145
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: Counter mouthwash
Vote Placed by MouthWash 1 year ago
MouthWash
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: Most certainly he needs to die. However, I felt sorry for Con.
Vote Placed by famer 1 year ago
famer
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: Killing a person simply because you hate their music is taking it a bit too far.
Vote Placed by iholland95 2 years ago
iholland95
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: It's just rude to say that he should be killed. Your threatning a celebs life and technically
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: Counter Massdebator255's votebomb.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 2 years ago
MassDebator255
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: bieber in german means: dick suckin lips
Vote Placed by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: It was a poor performance from Con altogether. All of Con's arguments had little backing and little proof towards anything. And Pro pulled an bit of an unexpected move, the fact that he went at this very logically, rather than flat out hating
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: This was just... I mean really what on earth?
Vote Placed by davidhancock 3 years ago
davidhancock
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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: bad big papa justice shame on you
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 3 years ago
quarterexchange
KoopinOMGJustinBieberTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: JB does waste resources and takes away love. Pro has the sources to prove it, and it was rather tasteless when Con thought Koopin was white because there are no black people who are conservatives, just like there are no black people who don't like fried chicken. Yes I understand the irony.