The Instigator
asiansarentnerdy
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
monkeydude99
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

People should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas.

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 7 votes the winner is...
monkeydude99
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,909 times Debate No: 10317
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

asiansarentnerdy

Pro

First round is intro-round. After my opponent accepts, then the real debate starts. I affirm that people should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas.
monkeydude99

Con

Ok, to begin I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, I feel it would be interesting. Since this is the intro round I would like to clarify a few things. First I assume that by Public places you mean parks, roads, certain schools etc. So people can not chew gum in public places. Lets debate!
Debate Round No. 1
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.

To briefly clarify, I would define public as anywhere that is not at home and there is a lot of people around.

1) People are not responsible.
The above fact is a highly obvious one. No one can deny it. We all know that if we had a test coming up that was not for a grade, we obviously would not study for it. If people were responsible, then our world would be litter-free and we'd all recycle. But no. Thus, it is safe to assume that the population in the United States as a whole is not responsible. Seeing this, chewing gum in public is adding to our everyday discomforts.

2) After an irresponsible person chews gum, they will spit it on the ground. Some people have the respect to actually spit in a trash can. But not everyone. Therefore, gum ends up underneath the desks, chairs, and all over the floor. This becomes a real pain. For example, if you grabbed ahold of your chair at school to scoot it forward, you would feel something sticky underneath your hands and feel disgusted that you have touched something coming out of someone's mouth. On the same hand, no one wants a good pair of shoes ruined by the disgusting and unsightly wad of gum underneath their shoe. This creates more work for everybody as they have to work harder to get the gum off of themselves.

3) Gum lowers respect.
When your in a public place and you talk to someone, they will think it disgusting if whilst conversing with you, you are smacking very loudly on a piece of gum. Its considered rude, and disrespectful. The sound of loud gum-smacking is a "turn-off". This is also why no one with any self respect or dignity, chews gum when giving an oral presentation.

For all the reasons above, I agree with the fact that people should not be allowed to chew gum in public areas. So if your breath really does smell bad, resort to tic-tacs or something.
monkeydude99

Con

1. "People are not responsible". This is absolutely 100% true. But, the United States as a whole is responsible. What's wrong with your argument is that you assume people are not responsible, and therefore you assume every person will just throw their gum on the floor. This is very untrue, because most people will not be irresponsible with their gum. Just look at a park, or movie theaters. People chew gum there constantly, and when you take a walk through the park, you don't come out with your shoes sticking to the floor. The example you use for people's irresponsibility, is an irrational one. Of course, if there's a test that is not for a grade then you're not going to study, that is basically human nature. But if your working at your job, and your boss puts alt of work on you, then your going to get it done, showing the responsibility you say is missing from people.

2. There is a difference between school, and public places such as the park. Most schools do not permit gum chewing at all on the grounds. And a principle can do whatever she wants at her/his school. Once again you are assuming that most people are throwing their gum on the floor, and not in the trash can. Now people do throw their gum on the floor, but not the majority. See what happens is, the majority of people will chew their gum, blow bubbles until it loses flavor, and then when in a park where trash cans are abundant, they will throw it inside. It's not just, chew, chew, chew, spit on floor. People are kind enough to throw their gum away. Simple as that. Another thing people do frequently with their gum is swallow it. People swallow what's in their mouth, especially since people know that it really doesn't stay in your stomach for 7 years.

3. Once again you are assuming that everyone who chews gum is going to disrespect people by smacking Juicy Fruit around in their mouth. This is not the case because most people do have the respect and self pride to not do that. Yes maybe one person may disrespect people who smack gum in their mouth, but does that mean the whole society should be punished? That the equivalent of saying "Since Timmy stabbed himself with a pencil, we are banning pencils from school". So one person disrespects somebody by chewing gum, so we disallow gum as a whole?

All of your arguments have been the little branches and leaves of the whole tree. What I mean is that your arguing a small portion of the problem, rather than going back to the fundamentals, and arguing the roots of the problem. So I have two Contentions that argue the root of the problem.

MY CONTENTIONS:

1. Who are you to say what people can and can not do? Is there some higher being that tells us not to chew gum in public places? In other words, what right do you have to tell others what to do? You cant just ban gum from public areas. People have natural rights and free will to do as they please, as stated so in our constitution. If they enjoy chewing gum, then they have the right to chew gum.

2. Lets say gum were to actually be prohibited in public areas. What do you propose we do from there? Do we hire "Gum Police" to watch over every single public area in the United States of America. Not to mention that hiring gum police requires an entire other government bureaucracy which means digging even deeper into our nations debts as a whole to pay for them.

You do see what is morally and fundamentally incorrect on principal alone right?
For these reasons, you can not disallow gum chewing in public areas.
Debate Round No. 2
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

I shall respond to my opponent's attacks and points accordingly.

1) My opponent agrees with the fact that people are not respond, yet goes on to say that the United States as a whole IS responsible. Do people not make up the United States? I am looking at the MAJORITY of the population. Why is it that when I look underneath all the desks at my school I see gum spanning the entire bottom-side of it? I have found only ONE or two desks without any gum at all stuck to the bottom of it. It is not true that when we go to the movie theaters, we see gum stuck to the chairs, and the park, gum is stuck on the park benches and trees. We can't judge our actions by EVERY single person, because no one person is alike. Therefore, we can only judge by majority. With my opponent's gum example ("you don't come out with your shoes sticking to the floor"), take murders. Yes, murder rates in some places are high. Do we see dead people piled on the street with no one left alive?

2) My opponent states that "most schools do not permit gum chewing at all on the grounds", then goes on to say "once again you are assuming that most people are throwing their gum on the floor, and not in the trash can". This is a direct contradiction in the first place. If everyone had spit their gum in the trash can as my opponent stated, then why would the gum be banned from the school in the first place? To argue against my opponent's next assertion, that people swallow their gum, we can use our common sense for this one. I'm sure no one is silly enough to swallow their gum.

3) When my opponent states that I am assuming everyone who chews gum is going to disrespect people by smacking Juicy Fruit, I am talking about the majority. And yes, the entire society should be punished if everyone went around smacking gum in their mouths whilst giving important presentations and such. It is because the majority does this that I make this assertion. And with my opponent's example of Timmy stabbing himself with a pencil, no it is not right to ban pencils because of that one incident. But if many other students also begin to start stabbing themselves with pencils, then it becomes and problem and is safer for the population for pencils to be banned. Same thing with gum; less drastic.

I will now move on to attack my opponent's points.

1) If we were all to think as how my opponent pointed out, then our world would be a very messy place indeed. Yes, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but does that mean we can go up to, say, your teacher, and say "F*CK YOU B*TCH" ? No. Rather, freedom of speech guarantees us the right to talk freely about our government. Then in school, students would be roaming free pulling knives on each other. Under my opponent's stance, taking away our ability to use knives would be a violation of our individual rights.

2) To this point, I would like to use the link that member leet4A1 posted in the comments section of this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because I have successfully refuted and upheld my side of this debate, I continue to affirm.

To my opponent: "disallow" sure is an interesting word...
monkeydude99

Con

Your Arguments are based off of your personal experience, and what you claim to have seen in school. For example in my school, I do not see gum under every desk. So you see why I say that your arguments are based off of personal experience. Therefore I cant argue your points
Debate Round No. 3
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

For a debate on the topic above where you cannot find hard evidence proving your point, then you must resort to personal experience. Half of the things we believe in and debate about are based off of our personal experience. If my opponent states that my arguments were based off of personal experiences, then his were too. Its simple logic.

In conclusion, because my points AND attacks were not refuted, they still stand. My opponent has already forfeited his chance to attack my points and my attacks against his attacks, therefore my case still stands, his does not.

My opponent has not provided an argument. Therefore, you must vote Pro.

Thanks.
monkeydude99

Con

In fact I have provided arguments, and you conveniently did not respond to my second argument about what we should do if gum chewing was made illegal in public areas. And your response to my first argument about the constitution was completely ridiculous. Also, your arguments are based off of personal experiences ASWELL as ASSUMPTIONS, and you can not win a debate by using assumptions, because they never happened. Therefore vote con
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by desiflavour 7 years ago
desiflavour
Point taken.
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 7 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
@desiflavour: every debate would be better ifyou chnaged it to something else.
Posted by desiflavour 7 years ago
desiflavour
This would have been more interesting if the topic was 'people should not be allowed to "smoke" in public areas' instead.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
It is well known that our politicians cannot walk and chew gum at the same tome. We need to keep them moving, so therefore gum should be banned.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Convincing Arguments: Con.

As con rightly pointed out, Pro was relying entirely on generalizations and anecdotal evidence to make his point. Pro's single source actually hurt his case because in part, it outlined valid reasons for banning chewing gum and they didn't match up with Pro's reasons.

It would have been very interesting if Pro had prepared for this argument by interviewing his school principal to find out the cost of cleaning up gum at his school. Then he could have argued for a ban of chewing gum at his school instead of everywhere, and maybe won.
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 7 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
@leet4A1, I hope you don't mind that I have used your link in R3 of this debate..

@Maikuru, thanks, i guess. (:
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
lol wow, that's my fun fact of the day.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
It's not as unrealistic as you might think: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
This resolution made me actually laugh out loud. Favorite'd.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by asiansarentnerdy 7 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by kalyse020908 7 years ago
kalyse020908
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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:13 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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 PoloX 7 years ago
PoloX
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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 monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
asiansarentnerdymonkeydude99Tied
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