The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Anon_Y_Mous
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Paint-touching doofuses should be put into a mental institution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Anon_Y_Mous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 34181
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

KingDebater

Pro

There you are, next to a wall. It has recently been painted and is unset (apparently) and you're wondering whether it's actually wet, so you test it out. You touch the wall to see if it is.

Are you out of your mind?

Getting your hands all mucky with wet paint is something you want to avoid. So, why touch the wall? If it's wet, then you look like a doofus because now you've got wet paint on your hand. If it's not wet, then you look like a doofus because in anyone else's eyes, you've just randomly decided to touch a wall.

I understand that this ludicrous scenario is fairly common, but I propose that anyone who touches a wall to see if the paint is dry is mentally insane and should therefore be put into a mental institution.

So that's what I'd like to debate today. I hope for a good debate.

I thank you.
Anon_Y_Mous

Con

1000 character limit.

I understand that the first round is generally for acceptance only, but since you did not clarify, and there are only two rounds, I will post my arguments now.


1: Curiosity
The human race is pushed by innovation, which is the direct result of curiosity. Newton didn't really need to make his laws, it wouldn't actually effect what happened. But he still did. And now his formulas are helping us send rockets to the moon. Mendel's experiments with pea plants were basically ignored, but now he is considered the father of the field of genetics. Einstein's theory of relativity is the result of a simple change in perspective.
All these men have something in common: They made huge advances in science simply by using their natural human curiosity. If people were told that they would be considered insane due to curiosity, we would be at a standstill.


2: Space
For every curios person in an institution, that's one truly insane person running amock outside.


Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

It seems everyone has an excuse for being stupid these days, which includes the humans.

Con says that the human race is 'pushed by innovation, which is the direct result of curiosity' However, this is not an excuse. A sane human should be all curious about things like what an idiot would do in the situation that they're in and whether it actually matters that much whether the paint is wet or dry.

Con then lists some things that smart people did, like find out stuff. He argues that these actions were driven by curiosity, which then means that touching paint on a wall to see if it's wet or dry is this revolutionary thing that's really good, but as I've proven, it's dead stupid. The smart things are good because they're clever and a good thing has a chance of happening, unlike when you touch the paint.

Con then makes a comment about the big space you'd need to put all those bozos into mental institutions. However, it's definitely worth it to get rid of the mentally insane.

I thank you.

Anon_Y_Mous

Con

It looked like Pro was going to counter my point about curiosity, but in his first paragraph he just rambles, then most everything in his second paragraph relies on the fact that he proved me wrong, which he didn't. Then he states that 'The smart things are good because they're clever and a good thing has a chance of happening, unlike when you touch the paint.' The entire point of my first argument was that the things those people did were like touching the paint, they served no practical purpose at the time, just like how knowing whether the paint is wet or dry serves no immediate practical purpose. My opponent is arguing that we treat curiosity like a disorder.

Now, even if curiosity is a disorder, and the government could remodel all it's institutions, the taxpayer money would be better spent on a cannon that utilizes heat energy under the Earth's crust to fire all the insane people into the sun.

No, thank you (read: I want conduct points).
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Do you think about your resolutions before you initiate a debate...?
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Yes. You have to be better than me (higher ELO) to accept this debate.
Posted by Rm150300 3 years ago
Rm150300
I can't accept?....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Napoleon_Dynamite_915 3 years ago
Napoleon_Dynamite_915
KingDebaterAnon_Y_MousTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments made no sense whatsoever. I'm not even sure if he had an argument. KingDebater? Hardly so.
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
KingDebaterAnon_Y_MousTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really failed to refute Con's argument at all. For not doing so, Pro forfeits conduct and convincing, I believe. Both forfeit sources. Spelling isn't intuitively beckoning of a vote to either side.