The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
islandersfan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Newman should have been tried on "Seinfeld" finale

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 41604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Adam2

Pro

Newman, not the gang, deserved prison. I will argue this.
islandersfan

Con

I will start with why I believe Newman should not have been tried on the finale of "Seinfeld", and because I am arguing first, I will waive my 3rd round argument. So I will argue in rounds 1 and 2 while the PRO argues in rounds 2 and 3.

Newman is a fun-loving character on the popular 90's sitcom, "Seinfeld". Newman worked a respectable job as a mail-carrier for the United States Postal Service. Newman did not commit any crime that would make him be put up for trial
Newman had a good job and was well respected by his piers. Also, Newman was very generous to the other workers for the USPS. This can be shown in the episode "The Frozen Yogurt". This was when Newman decided to buy all of his co-workers frozen yogurt. Also, there is nothing that can be shown by the PRO side that would make Newman guilty of a crime. Newman had respect for the law and would never brake it. Also, my opponent states that Newman should have been tried, rather than Jerry, Kramer, Elaine, and George. However, as it was shown in the case in "The Finale" the gang had a track record of bad behavior and did in fact break the law. Newman, however neither committed a crime, but has a track record of being a good citizen, and a great employee of the United States Postal Service. Also, to be tried, Newman must be believed to have committed a crime, and if no crime can be shown by the PRO team, then the voters should vote in favor of the CON team.

If Newman should have been tried, then I ask one simple question to the PRO side. For what crime?
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

Refutal
"Newman is a fun-loving character on the popular 90's sitcom, "Seinfeld"."
He is anything but. He is a man known for pulling off evil schemes against the gang, some of which are illegal.
"Also, Newman was very generous to the other workers for the USPS. This can be shown in the episode "The Frozen Yogurt". This was when Newman decided to buy all of his co-workers frozen yogurt."
Again doesn't mean anything. So can the KKK for their fellow Klansmen. When has Newman ever decided to do anything for homeless people. In fact one of the many crimes he does happens in the, "The Bookstore," where he tried to start a scam to exploit the poor homeless people with a rickshaw business. Very illegal. He even made it clear, that he didn't give two rats about poor people, blaming them for being scum and bringing it upon themselves.
"Also, my opponent states that Newman should have been tried, rather than Jerry, Kramer, Elaine, and George. However, as it was shown in the case in "The Finale" the gang had a track record of bad behavior and did in fact break the law. Newman, however neither committed a crime, but has a track record of being a good citizen, and a great employee of the United States Postal Service. Also, to be tried, Newman must be believed to have committed a crime, and if no crime can be shown by the PRO team, then the voters should vote in favor of the CON team."
Here are some refuttals from the finale that does make this trial seem like something out of Jim Crow America. The only thing they should have gotten was a fine and maybe a month of prison and some community service. The only reason they got more was because of Prosecutor "Ku Klux Klan" Hoyt. I bet the "Friends" gang was more deserving of prison.
"The Bubble Boy" -- it was Donald who provoked the incident. Mind you, George was being a fool by not giving Donald the answer, as any reasonable person would know that it was the Moors who conquered Spain, not the Moops. But it was Donald who strangled George, and when the bubble inflated, it's only because Susan and George were trying to defend themselves. It was Donald who started it not.
"The Contest"
-- mind you the gang are the biggest saints mind you, but last time I checked, regardless of what a loved one claims is immoral, it's not a crime to have a masturbation contest in your own home. Marla had every right to dump Jerry, but it was a legal contest. It's not like the committed indecent exposure. They did it within their own home. What part of that don't people understand?
"The Red Dot" -- again like "The Contest," he wants to break up with Elaine for exposing her nipple, it's fine. But it's not illegal. End of story.
"The Sponge" -- again, like "The Contest," not morally upstanding behavior, but it's not illegal either. It's Elaine's sponges and she can use them for whatever the hell she wants. Period.
"The Wig Master" -- Kramer was framed for this one. The real reason he was in the parking lot was to get the car back. He was trying to tell the chick to get out, who happened to be a prostitute, which is the reason Kramer got arrested, falsely. He commited no real crime.
"The Soup Nazi" -- in all fairness, it's hard to respond to this one. It was his soup kitchen. He could have ran it however he wanted.
"The Fire" -- George was selfish, but he didn't commit any crime.
"The Parking Garage" -- yes Jerry did commit something that cost him a fine, but I'm sure he paid the fine and that was the end of it. I mean come on, the finale was in 1998, and that episode was 7 years before (season 3, 1991).
The trial was unfair and it was like something taken out of the Jim Crow era. Hoyt, instead of this merely being a simple trial that should have given the gang some community service, exploited it out of the same kinda hatred the KKK had for people who disagreed with them. I'm sure Archie Bunker is proud of types like Hoyt.

If Newman should have been tried, then I ask one simple question to the PRO side. For what crime?
There's more to this, which I will say when con says his argument
islandersfan

Con

My opponent attempts to provide a crime that Newman committed while trying to show the gang's innocence. However, there have been many crimes that the gang committed. The gang should have been tried for their crime.

For example, when Jerry was in need of a loaf of bread to give to George, so he could replace it, he STEALS it from an old lady off the street, in the episode, "The Rye".

Also, it can be shown that the gang committed yet another crime when they willfully parked in a handicap spot, at the mall, so it would be easier for them. Because of their lack of respect for the law, a handicapped woman was forced to park in a faraway spot. While on a hill, the woman's wheelchair lost its battery, and the woman fell down the hill on her wheelchair. Had the gang had a little more respect for the law, this woman would have not had to go up the hill, and she wouldn't have crashed, and ultimately, she wouldn't have gone to the hospital. The previous incident can be shown in, "The Handicap Spot".

Also, in "The Implant", Jerry sent Elaine into the sauna Sidra Holland was in, to see if her breasts were real. After "tripping", Elaine touched Sidra's breast, and came to the conclusion that not only were Sidra's breasts real, but, "spectacular".

Finally, while the gang was in Latham, Massachusetts, they see an overweight man get robbed, and held up at gunpoint. Yet, instead of doing anything to help that man, like calling the police, they took out a video camera, and decided to make fun of the man. This shows blatant dis-regard for the law.

My opponent tries to show that the gang does not have a track record of poor behavior, which I have successfully refuted. I provide many instances in which the gang shows dis-respect for the law, while my opponent can only provide one example where Newman broke the law. If Newman was to be put up for trial, then he must be charged with a crime. However, my opponent has not yet provided with what. And if my opponent brings up where Newman wants to use homeless men to haul rickshaws throughout the city, then I would respond with the fact that: Newman did not act alone in this. He was accompanied by Kramer, a member of the gang that is accused of breaking the law.

I must also stress the point that while I have provided multiple times where the gang breaks the law, my opponent can only provide one time where Newman breaks the law. And personally, I find laughing at someone getting robbed at gunpoint much more serious than Newman AND Kramer using homeless men to pull rickshaws.

Also, my opponent must argue that Newman NOT the gang deserved prison time. For the PRO to fully support this, they must also agree that the gang must not get jail time. However, with the evidence I have provided today, I have supported the fact that the gang DOES deserve jail time. Jerry stole a loaf of bread from an old lady off the street at night. Elaine touched someone's breasts to see if they were real. George parked in a handicap spot at the mall, which ultimately lead to a woman going to the hospital. And finally, the entire gang laughed at the sight of a man getting robbed and held up at gunpoint, while being very dis-respectful, making fun of his weight. If these do not call for jail time, then what does? Trying to give a job to a homeless man?

I do not understand how a respected employee of the U.S.P.S. should be given jail time, whereas people who have broken the law multiple times should not.

I must make it apparent that not only must my opponent refute the point that the gang deserves jail time, but they must also prove the point why Newman does. Please consider this when voting.

I feel I have done the appropriate job of showing why Newman, a man who aided in committing one crime should be put on trial, over a group of four people who have broken the law many times.

Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate, as I always assumed my knowledge of Seinfeld would come in handy at least once in my life.

It is for all of the reasons I have stated above that I urge a CON ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

"For example, when Jerry was in need of a loaf of bread to give to George, so he could replace it, he STEALS it from an old lady off the street, in the episode, "The Rye"."
That one I won't deny, but stealing it from her hand was the only thing he did. He didn't commit an armed robbery. He didn't threaten her with violence. At most this was like two kids fighting over something in school (not physically). He didn't even touch her (just the rye). So the punishment should have been minimal (maybe a month) on that one.

"Also, it can be shown that the gang committed yet another crime when they willfully parked in a handicap spot, at the mall, so it would be easier for them. Because of their lack of respect for the law, a handicapped woman was forced to park in a faraway spot. While on a hill, the woman's wheelchair lost its battery, and the woman fell down the hill on her wheelchair. Had the gang had a little more respect for the law, this woman would have not had to go up the hill, and she wouldn't have crashed, and ultimately, she wouldn't have gone to the hospital. The previous incident can be shown in, "The Handicap Spot"."
That was wrong, however, that crime was not shown on the show. Instead what was shown on the show was Kramer giving the woman a used wheelchair, unknowingly. So whatever the gang hasn't been tried for can't be used against them. However Kramer being found guilty for making a mistake goes to far. It was a mistake. He didn't know that the chair was used.

"Also, in "The Implant", Jerry sent Elaine into the sauna Sidra Holland was in, to see if her breasts were real. After "tripping", Elaine touched Sidra's breast, and came to the conclusion that not only were Sidra's breasts real, but, "spectacular"."
OK I plead no contest to this one.

I will also add another case, "The Visa" wasn't Jerry's fault. His immigration papers didn't end up in the mail. I suspect Newman might have been up to it. He actually is a racist, as one example I will show later.

"Finally, while the gang was in Latham, Massachusetts, they see an overweight man get robbed, and held up at gunpoint. Yet, instead of doing anything to help that man, like calling the police, they took out a video camera, and decided to make fun of the man. This shows blatant dis-regard for the law."
OK, this is not denied, what I am saying is that a certain Kluxer, named Hoyt, tried to take this too far and make it a trial against the gang for their life. He was a cheat. It could have just ended with a month in prison, but this piece of crud took it too far. Besides, who wouldn't admit to being afraid to helping someone, especially if the guy might have had a gun. I'm not saying that what they did wasn't cowardly.

"My opponent tries to show that the gang does not have a track record of poor behavior"
Again, not the point. "Poor behavior" is not enough to cut it in court. At most poor behavior gets you a fine, not years in prison, if you pay the fine. And as far as I'm concerned, all the fines Seinfeld had were paid, mostly on time, only one late, but he still paid it. The library cop's book fine was paid in full in that episode (season 3, 1991). So to bring him there was BS. He paid the fine, it's enough from there. That case was BS.

"George parked in a handicap spot at the mall, which ultimately lead to a woman going to the hospital."
Again, it was not used against them in court, so it doesn't count.
For those reasons, it's not that the gang doesn't deserve jail, but at most all they deserve is a month, and maybe a fine, and some community service.

I also thank you for the debate.

Having proved why the gang doesn't deserve jail, here are some crimes Newman commits:
"The Old Man" -- Newman wants to sell records to an owner of Bleecker Bob's records. He doesn't get his way the first time, he lets it go and tries to find better records. When it doesn't work the second time, he goes KKK on the store on the owner. He first harasses him, calling him "ugly," "smelly," "I loathe you." Bleecker Bob had enough of it. He tells Newman to get out of the store, citing him as a threat. When that doesn't work, Newman tries to get violent with him, causing a fight that gets the store owner hurt. That's very serious. Kramer wasn't even involved. How the owner didn't hear him saying it is a mystery. Kramer actually tries to stop Newman from starting the fight.
"The Engagement" -- Newman is involved in a vicious kidnapping of a dog to help Elaine out. Most of this is because Newman, who is also a pervert, wants to hid the salami with Elaine. He gets arrested for it.
Newman has used his job for corrupt purposes. In "The Label Maker," he makes a threat: " Yeah. I just hope Tim Whatley's electric bills don't suddenly get lost in the mail, or it could be lights out for him." How an act like that doesn't deserve at least 10 years in prison is beyond me. In that episode he also makes racist remarks, almost a hate crime, about Ukrainians. Newman unleashes his Klansman within him, deriding Urkainains, until a Ukranian set him straight.
I believe it's "The Package" if I'm not mistaken -- Jerry is not satsified with his stereo. For some bizarre reason, Newman wants to start some trouble with Jerry and frame him for a crime he didn't commit. He finds a picture of Jerry smashing his stereo (which last time I checked wasn't a crime), and gives him a fine (in the real world I don't believe that happens). Jerry didn't commit any mail fraud whatsoever. Newman made that lie up. And there are many cases where we see Newman wishing ill on Jerry (further incriminating him) and his friends. He doesn't say justice. He says "evil wind" meaning he wants harm for Jerry and his best friends. George wasn't involved in anything. He gets accused for some phony act of him posting nude pics of himself. Nothing happened.
You talk about how Newman was generous. Never saw any generousity. As a matter of fact, in "The Puffy Shirt," it is Jerry and his friends, not Newman,
islandersfan

Con

I would again like to thank my opponent for this debate. I will not provide any new arguments, just some clarification. You agreed a few times with the point that the gang deserved jail time, for example in "The Finale" and in "The Rye".

Also, just another clarification, not regarding the context of the debate, making racist remarks does not constitute a hate crime. If I were to say racist remarks to someone, that is not a hate crime, that is my thought. I cannot be penalized for what I believe.

One more thing, just for voting purposes, not for me arguing, when voting, the PRO must have proved that Newman did deserve to be tried, while the gang did not deserve jail time.

And if people are wondering why I am not refuting in this round it is because I spoke first. I would again like to thank my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
"gang aren't the biggest saints" I meant.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
I think I should change my debate
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
I see.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
The only argument I can envision against this, would be that it's not merely dumb: but truely moronic. It's outright full retard like the movie I Am Sam. (Such would be a play on sementics, which I'd actually vote against)
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
Ragnar
Lots of people
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Who says that?
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
institution of slavery itself
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Do you mean the institution of slavery itself or the transatlantic slave trade?
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
Well, there are a lot of people, who for some weird reason, say this statement. I'm going to argue that it's not true.
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
How can this be a logical debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.