The Instigator
sippinsizzurp
Con (against)
Losing
82 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
145 Points

Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/2/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,632 times Debate No: 3497
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (61)

 

sippinsizzurp

Con

Okay, here's one I think I can win. First of all, I'm completely against the deplorable activites that Michael Jackson and Catholic priests are engaging in. It's wrong!
Danielle

Pro

To clarify, I was compltely out of my mind when I chose to accept this challenge. However I will attempt to debate it anyway. Damn. Well okay, here we go. I ask that readers/voters judge as closely to the resolution as possible. Thanks :)

A few things I would like to mention include the fact that in some situations, the word molestation is subjective. Dictionary.com defines molesting as subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity. However, who is to determine what sexual activity is deemed 'improper'? Many people feel as though homosexuality is improper -- does that make all gay people molesters? Second, just because someone is handicapped does not mean that they lack the physical or mental capacity to make their own decisions or defend themselves from harm. For instance, dyslexia - just one of many examples - is considered a handicap (probably mental). Does that mean that a dyslectic person is unable to make decisions about their sex lives? Third, I ask that readers refrain from thinking of orphans as being limited to children. In fact, an orphan refers to a person or thing that is without protective affiliation, sponsorship, etc, or anyone bereft of parents (Source: Dictionary.com). By that regard, does one who have no affiliation with their parents - even an adult - lack the capacity or right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they choose?

Ignoring the fact that the word "cool" literally means moderately cold, I can offer specific scenarios where even the "socially adept" definition of cool applies to the Pro position. But for now I will let Con take the reigns, as his opening argument has absolutely nothing to do with said resolution and therefore I feel a little bad for him. Good luck, oh Strange One!
Debate Round No. 1
sippinsizzurp

Con

Don't feel bad for me, TheLwerd. You're the one who is arguing that it is cool to molest handicapped orphans. Your child-molesting beliefs are troubling to say the least. Your attempts to carefully define each word of the resolution show me that you are unsure of your position. You offer that the word "molestation" is subjective. This is clearly not the case as your definition shows. You rambled on about what might be considered "improper sexual activity", but said nothing of unwanted sexual activity, which in fact is at the core of the issue.

Next, you tried to obscure the meaning of handicapped. Whether I meant severely handicapped or not has no bearing. I used this adjective to add a greater sense of vulnerability in the victim. If you want me to clear things up, lets say the orphan is blind. Also, by orphan I did mean a child who has lost both parents like Oliver Twist. But even so, does age really matter? Your still forcing innapropriate sexual acts on a blind orphan.

"By that regard, does one who have no affiliation with their parents - even an adult - lack the capacity or right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they choose?"

No, but you have strayed too far. Consentual sex between adults is a far cry from thinking molesting blind orphans is cool.

"Ignoring the fact that the word "cool" literally means moderately cold, I can offer specific scenarios where even the "socially adept" definition of cool applies to the Pro position".

Please do.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent has wrongfully suggested, "Your attempts to carefully define each word of the resolution show me that you are unsure of your position."

No, the purpose of properly defining each word should instead show you that I am trying to clarify the debate topic at hand, not my position.

I maintain that the word molestation is sometimes subjective. If the definition of "improper" doesn't work for you, how about "child molestation" between a 17 year old and 21 year old? In addition to being considered statuatory rape, this situation also calls for MOLESTATION charges should legal authorities get involved.

In that case, I propose an example in which a 17 year old male engages in sexual activity with his 21 year old female teacher. This male student wears eye glasses (therefore he is visually HANDICAPPED) and technically an ORPHAN since both of his parents have passed away. In this situation, many of this guy's peers and other individuals who learn of the occurence may consider him "cool" in the socially adept sense, hence my promise of providing an example. Thus, this situation calls for the MOLESTATION of a HANDICAPPED ORPHAN, and the outcome was pretty "cool" or socially acceptable. To some it is even favorable.

Unfortunately for you, your statement, "If you want me to clear things up, lets say the orphan is blind. Also, by orphan I did mean a child who has lost both parents like Oliver Twist. But even so, does age really matter? Your still forcing innapropriate sexual acts on a blind orphan" is totally irrelevant in terms of this debate. Here's why:

Since I assume the position of Pro, the burden of proof is on me to prove that the molestation of a handicapped orphan is cool. I have done this with the example that I have provided. My position in this debate is not to prove that EVERY example given regarding molestations, handicapped people or orphans is cool. Not all molestations are good, obviously, especially the ones that are unwelcomed. However, simply because this debate that was obviously created in jest does not give you the ability to change the rules of debate. That is to say that if you wanted me to prove that the unwanted sexual exploitation of a blind child was cool, you should have said so in the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
sippinsizzurp

Con

Sir, you continue to avoid the key issues at hand. I already stated that I agree with your definition of molestation

"Dictionary.com defines molesting as subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity"

However, a more clear picture is now in order. I will now officially define it for use in this debate as subjecting another individual to unwanted sexual activity.

You took it a step further and offered this irrelavant example.

"how about "child molestation" between a 17 year old and 21 year old? In addition to being considered statuatory rape, this situation also calls for MOLESTATION charges should legal authorities get involved."

Your example brings up a completely different issue. Allow me to first state that I'm not in the least bit concerned with the legality of specific sexual situations(at least not for this debate). What the United States considers statuatory rape and molestation has no relevance to your claims that molesting blind orphans is cool(and I do mean blind, not visually impaired as in your example).

To elaborate, rape is often defined as the following:

-any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.(Dictionary.com)

While statuatory rape qualifies as:

-Sexual relations with a person who has not reached the statutory age of consent. (Dictionary.com)

These are two very different situations. I participate in the latter fairly frequently. It does not mean I have raped or molested anyone. Thus, your example is unavailing.

"I am trying to clarify the debate topic at hand, not my position."

As was I, when I clarified the handicap as blindness and your definition of molesting as correct.

"Not all molestations are good, obviously, especially the ones that are unwelcomed."

All molestations are unwelcome(unwanted); this is supported by your definition.

And to clarify further, your burden of proof now is to prove that subjecting a blind orphan to unwanted sexual activity is cool.

Also, let me clarify cool as socially admissable or respectable.
Danielle

Pro

First of all, it's *Miss not Sir.

Ok, so we agree that the definition of molestation is "subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity" as cited on Dictionary.com. However, that makes your claim that "All molestations are unwelcome(unwanted)" FALSE; the word *or* in the definition means that the term applies to either situation: unwanted OR improper. Therefore an improper sexual activity can be considered molestation even if it is welcomed. This is supported by law. For example, 17 year old Genarlow Wilson received *consensual* oral sex from a 15 year old girl. Neither the girl nor the prosecutor argues that the act was unwelcomed (it was even caught on video tape). However Genarlow Wilson was convicted for aggravated child MOLESTATION (Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). Thus, I have proved that the term molestation applies to various sexual scenarios, including those that are welcome.

Now because you seem confused about how debate works, you cannot in Round 2 specify that for the purpose of this debate you are referring only to unwanted sexual activity. As I have mentioned earlier, that should have been included in the resolution, or at the very least mentioned in your opening of Round 1 for the contender to be aware of before they accept the debate. Otherwise the resolution as it is stated stands. Because it was left unsaid, it was therefore open to my interpretation which I have supported with both the official definition that you agreed upon, as well as a cited relevant example.

Pro states, "What the United States considers statuatory rape and molestation has no relevance to your claims that molesting blind orphans is cool(and I do mean blind, not visually impaired as in your example)." -- Actually what the United States considers molestation has everything to do with my argument and my position in this debate. And why you insist that I support the molestation of a BLIND orphan is beyond me. In my example, I chose to make the male wear glasses - not blind, but that is irrelevant; I could have used any example that made him somehow handicapped. For instance I could have deemed him dyslexic, visually impaired, missing a toe, a sufferer of heart murmurs, or not speak English while live in the U.S. (yes, not being able to speak the language that is native to the country you're in is considered a handicap... therefore the one who posesses a handicap is handicapped - the word in the debate topic).

Anyway, as I have said, you do not have the ability or should I say the right to claim what kind of handicapped you "meant" by the topic of debate. And again if you wanted to specify that handicap, you should have done so in the resolution or at the very least in the opening of Round 1. Thus I disagree with you when you say, "your burden of proof now is to prove that subjecting a blind orphan to unwanted sexual activity is cool." I'm also glad we agree on the definition of cool here.

CONCLUSION:

The resolution of this debate states molesting handicapped orphans is cool. If two sets of guys (I'm just covering all my bases in terms of semantics) aged 15, with separate minor handicaps, such as one of them wearing glasses and the other being dyslexic (HANDICAPPED), and both of whom had parents who were deceased (ORPHANS) each engaged in consensual sexual activity with 17 year old girls (MOLESTATION), and this behavior was accepted and even respected in their social circle (COOL), then I have won this debate.

There is no way that Con can win this debate. In my example, more than one handicapped orphan engaged in sex that is technically considered molestation and their behavior was cool, or admissable/respected by their social circle. Even if you/Con disagree that it's cool, according to the definition of cool that my opponent and I have agreed upon, it is.

Thaanks for the debate, Miss.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
+ Funny debate.

+ CON changed the resolution; he started a tilted debate; and I don't know why this was necessary: "Your child-molesting beliefs are troubling to say the least." Conduct to PRO.

+ English is a tie. Both were easily readable.

+ Argument goes to PRO. First, CON gets penalized for starting a tilted debate; and second, PRO provided non-directly unrefuted examples for when molesting handicapped orphans would indeed be cool.

+ Sources go to PRO, who was the only one to attempt sources.
Posted by Katerina 8 years ago
Katerina
Even though I disagree with CON placing Michael Jackson at the heart of the issue because of the not guilty verdict but at the same time I'm a firm believer that any type of molestation is not cool and I was going to vote for CON but PRO has convinced me otherwise with her logical argument and supportive facts. So I give my vote to PRO.
Posted by jackleripper 9 years ago
jackleripper
i love you, lwerd! u have just solved all of my problems for my criminal defense case. jk. sizzur sounds upset. lwerd, i've seen a few of ur debates, but this one lets me know just how well u are at finding genius arguments even for biased cases. well done.
Posted by sippinsizzurp 9 years ago
sippinsizzurp
What I do is pour up purple drank, blow up purple dank, and bang big booty bitches all day long.

Higgins, your catholic. Nuff said.
Posted by Higgins 9 years ago
Higgins
Hahaha did anyone else catch on to theLwerd calling him Miss at the end? Well deserved, in my opinion.

Ps. sippinsizzurp stop complaining like a little b**ch just because you lost. Pro won fair and square.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Oh you're good, Pro :) Very good.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
What do you do sippinsizzurp?
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Voting based on personal opinion takes away the whole purpose of debating.

9 people think your opponent won the debate, reguardless of their personal opinions against the topic.
Posted by sippinsizzurp 9 years ago
sippinsizzurp
I take great comfort in knowing that nine people so far, think molesting handicapped orphans is cool.
Posted by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
Mmmm, resolutions need to be made airproof if you really want to win in such situations.

Hat's off to Pro for taking this debate and re-interpreting the resolution in a favorable manner. I laughed when I read your example of good orphan molestation.
61 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I agree with Con but Pro used her position very well and I was convinced by her examples.
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Moose 8 years ago
Moose
sippinsizzurpDanielleTied
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:05