Koopin is a dangerous threat to his siblings and therefore, should be arrested by DCF
Debate Rounds (3)
Dangerous Threat: (adj) something that may cause life-altering, life-changing, euphoric, temporary vertiginous feeling or ailment.
DCF: Department of Children and Families
Siblings: Brother, sister, any close family member
1st point: Koopin cannot be trusted to provide the correct milieu for the upbringing of his siblings.
2nd point: Koopin cannot provide proper living conditions necessary for proper hygiene.
3rd point: Koopin cannot provide proper natural nourishment for his siblings in case of a parental figures abscence.
I will elaborate in Round 2 so that my opponent has time to leave the country and escape authority. I do hope he accepts. Scum must be brought to justice. Amen, spay and neuter your pets, don't use hairspray (it causes global warming) and also do not disobey Jesus. He's the man.
NOTE: The numbers in brackets denote the number of the video in the long list at the bottom. For instance,  would be the sixth video from the top.
Contention 1: Koopin cannot be trusted to provide the correct milieu for the upbringing of his siblings.
The contention speaks for itself. If a child cannot be brought up in a proper environment, then his future is at jeopardy. For example, if a child looks up to his older sibling for guidance, he will follow his example. As koopin has stated many times over and over again, he is the eldest currently living there and we can see that he is clearly not setting a good example. 
Through this video, we can see that the use of weaponry is prominent as he even made a video with his siblings about guns. How disappointing. By subjecting his siblings to this type of milieu, he is endangering their future and possible upbringing. According to US law, if a person cannot properly raise a child in a proper environment then he or she is deemed unfit for such care. Therefore, Koopin need be detained. He also condones violence with melee weaponry as seen here: 
As well as possible infections being spread through a demeaning manner such as this:  Koopin even admits, its an "INFECTIOUS" scab.
Contention 2: Proper Hygiene
 I believe the video can speak for itself. Dishes piled high in the sink, possibly infected with some bacterial virus, the large amount of filth on the surrounding necessary areas.
As for this video,  it shows a Christmas tree in the background of Koopin, this video was posted 10 months ago. As November is the 11th month of the year, it is safe to assume that the tree was up until around late January. Also, as we can see through the actual debate, (http://www.debate.org...) it was also updated 10 months ago with video, confirming my belief. You can also see the filth of the house growing larger in this video as well. 
Contention 3: Nourishment
Here, Koopin cannot simply ever provide proper nourishment: [1,2,3,4,5]
The video evidence speaks for itself.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind at this point, that Koopin is clearly a menace to himself and unto his siblings, which is why DCF needs to stop him before he can do even more damage.
Please vote PRO for the sake of the children. Spay and Neuter your pets.
Refutation of Contention 1:
The first thing I must point out is that my opponent has made a false statement, hoping that everyone will presume that it is accurate. This statement was that I am the oldest sibling living at my estate. He even has the audacity to say that I have stated this "time over and over." I ask my opponent, where has he heard this? Is there some secret forum thread I know nothing about in which my account was hacked and the hacker posted 'I am the oldest?' I know nothing of the sort! I am the third of four siblings born in my family, one younger brother and two older sisters. One of these sisters is in Texas, though the other one, whom you may see in video  is older than me, by a great deal.
I would also like to address another fallacy in this contention. My opponent claims that the younger siblings will follow the example of the older siblings. If your claim were true, I would be freaking out in video  just like my older sister. If your claim were true, Napoleon's younger brother Lucien would not have attempted to flee to the United States to get away from his brother's imperial ambitions. If your claim were true, George B. Crittenden, a soldier in the confederate army would not have fought against his brother Thomas Leonidas Crittenden of the union army. One must realize that younger siblings are not brainwashed by their older siblings, they have a mind of their own and can think for themselves. I wish to become a successful poultry farmer in the future, my brother wants to become a photographer.
My opponent says that I am not setting a good example in video , but fails to say why. It is comic relief, something that every child needs these days. He makes assumptions from the video, but I wonder if he would think differently if he knew the reason the video was made in the first place was so that my brother and I could have some bonding time. He was the one to suggest we make a video in the first place.
My opponent states a law that does not exist. He says that in this so-called US law, if any person cannot properly raise a child they are deemed unfit and should be detained. I ask my opponent for proof of this "law." Of course, there is none. He may be thinking of the law that removes children from an unfit environment from their parents. In these cases, the child will be removed and the parents may or may not go to jail for child abuse, depending on the severity of the case. Since I live in Georgia, I will state this law to clear things up.
Ga. Code Ann. 15-11-94 (WESTLAW through 2000 Gen. Assem.)
"In considering the termination of parental rights, the court shall first determine whether there is present clear and convincing evidence of parental misconduct or inability. If there is clear and convincing evidence of such parental misconduct or inability, the court shall then consider whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child, after considering the physical, mental, emotional, and moral condition and needs of the child who is the subject of the proceeding, including the need for a secure and stable home."
Again, this law is for parents, not siblings.
My opponent also says that I condone violence because I posses a knife, seen in video . This is ghastly reasoning. I could give a huge list of videos of people showing their knives on tape, this does not mean that they condone violence. My opponent is pro gun rights, does this mean he overlooks violence also?
As for what my opponent says about infection spreading from video , I would ask what my opponent thinks he is getting at here? First of all, as stated above the person handling the cut was my older sister. She had the option of helping me or not, though she is a loving and caring sister, so she helped me. From the video, you can see that peroxide, a disinfectant, was used. Infection cannot survive against the peroxide, so it is clear there is no problem. In addition, infection can only spread through an open wound, which my sister did not have. One could twist that case in any way they wished, for example, my mom could have got infected with the scab, the doctor could have got infected, the people at the doctor could have got infected, ect… Either way, the scab had to come off.
Refutation of Contention 2:
My opponent exaggerates when he says "Dishes piled high in the sink." Firstly, the dishes are not piled high in the sink, as any person can tell from watching the video. Secondly, you have no proof of there being a bacterial virus, though it escapes me from where you would get such a notion. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter, except that it is not my personal responsibility in making sure the dishes are done all the time. The chores are divided up between us, which we do after dinner, not in the middle of the day when that video was recorded.
As for the Christmas tree situation, what does this prove? That a Christmas tree was up until January? What is the big deal? It does nothing to show bad living conditions in the house. Secondly, if my opponent had taken the time to look at when the video was uploaded, he would have seen that the upload date was December 13th 2009. Lastly, if you must know the tree comes down the day after New Years.
My opponent says that you may see the filth of the house I live in through video . The official definition of filth is 'an offensive or disgusting dirt or refuse; foul matter.' I hardly can see the filth he speaks of. There are a few things on the sofa next to me. Everyone has things in their home. If one looks harder at the background, you would see that the so-called filth is in fact radish sprouts. They must sprout inside before they are planted.
Refutation of Contention 3:
My adversary claims that I cannot ever provide proper nourishment. He then lists videos [1,2,3,4,5]. The reasons for the videos are for comedy, to make someone laugh. Would it be humorous to post a video of me making spaghetti? Or would it be entertaining to upload a segment of me baking a chicken? Of course not! One usually does not upload one's normal life on YouTube.
Secondly, not all of the foods in the videos are unhealthy. Yogurts contains plenty of protein, fish contains omegas, milk has calcium, and cheese is healthy too! Just because something looks unappetizing does not mean it is bad for you. In Cambodia, they fry tarantulas, in Egypt they steam cicadas, in Philippines they eat dog. All of these things may seem to be disgusting, but they are in fact healthy for you.
My opponent has failed to provide proof that I need to be arrested. He has failed to show any real US laws that would give the DCF the right to take me away. He has also failed at his attempt in proving that I am a danger to my siblings. As mentioned before, his argument had many logical fallacies that any rational person can determine. I thank my opponent for his argument
The resolution has been authoritatively negated.
BellumQuodPacis forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.