The Instigator
kcdebate09
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Glitchy
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/11/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,383 times Debate No: 6203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

kcdebate09

Pro

People who exercise DO NOT kill people for no reason.

"Exercising gives you endorphins, which make you happy, happy people dont just go around killing people"

Legally Blonde
Glitchy

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for making this debate and also for lowering the limitations so that I could accept. As I have taken the 'Con' side in the argument, I will now explain how the stated resolution, "People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason", is completely false.

People, in general, kill for no reason. Under the correct mindset (And with the help of modern weaponry), even a comparatively weak human who has not exercised a day in his or her life can kill a person for no reason. If a single, weaker person can kill another for no reason, it is even more likely that a physically empowered person would do the same.

But to properly negate the resolution, one must first examine just what drives a person to kill unprovoked. Just as reasons may vary for most crimes, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact trait that will make one take the life of another. Studies have been conducted and results have been found, varying from a non-existent sense of right and wrong to a pure sadistic mindset. But, pertaining to subject of this debate, aggression, confidence, and a testosterone-powered ego may very well contribute to the unprovoked killing.

If I may imitate my opponent and draw reference to films and other fictional media, I would like to point out many of the typical 'bad guys' showcased on the television and the silver screen boast a bodybuilder like physique and purely muscle orientated antics. The stronger guy always picks on the little guy, most of the time for no reason other than he can. The same mentality is often translated into the real world; People with physical power often showcase it simply because they can. Sometimes, even to the extent of murder. Many examples of murder at the hands of 'bodybuilders' have been presented through out the years, one being that of 28-year old Melissa James at the hands of bodybuilder Craig Titus and his wife, Kelly Ryan (also a body builder).

Everyday, people are killed for no reason what so ever, both by people who exercise and people who do not. Being as the resolution states that 'People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason', with proof of even one unprovoked murder at the hands of an exerciser, the resolution is proved to be false. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
kcdebate09

Pro

My opponent has made some good points, but....

1. A bodybuilder((the developing of the body through exercise and diet ; specifically : the developing of the physique for competitive exhibition)) and someone who exercises((to use repeatedly in order to strengthen or develop )) are not the same. A bodybuilder is an extreme and as the framer, my intent was not to include bodybuilders because the topic clearly states "people who exercise". So my opponents points are extra topical.

2. NO where does my opponent specifically target people who exercise.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
for the definitions
Glitchy

Con

I will have to disagree with my opponent when she says I have not yet targeted people who exercise. Whether it may have been her intent or not, bodybuilders are included under the 'people who exercise', being that they are people and they also exercise.

The act of body building, though extreme, is still a form of exercising. Call it a subdivision if you will. In this way, I have specifically targeted people who exercise.

I would now like to point out a flaw in the subject of this debate, exactly quoted: "People who exercise often do not kill people for no reason". Note this does not say 'People who exercise often do not kill more often than people who do not exercise' or anything of the sort. No, this topic deals with absolutes. It states that people who exercise often DO NOT kill people. Under this logical interpretation of the resolution, if even one person who exercises regularly has killed, the resolution is proven untrue.

I have already provided such proof, there fore, I see no further point in proceeding with arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
kcdebate09

Pro

I believe I said "NO where does my opponent SPECIFICALLY target people who exercise.
Again...my opponent is extra topical
Glitchy

Con

Once again, I will have to politely disagree with my opponent as I have specifically targeted people who exercise when I targeted bodybuilders. Bodybuilders are people. Body builders exercise. This means that bodybuilders are, in fact, people who exercise. I do not see how this simple statement could be mistaken.

In each of the past two rounds, I have stated facts to strengthen the con side of the argument and have provided a specific citatation of a exerciser committing murder. I have also pointed out that the topic of this debate deals in absolutes, meaning that a single murder by one who exercises proves it is false.

Because my opponent has given no arguments for her own case [excluding a quote from a character in a 2001 Comedy movie], I firmly believe that Con side will be the winner of this debate and I hope that voters will believe the same. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
Thank you for this debate and good luck in the future!

I would also like to note that I voted con on all points. I don't like to vote on my own debates, but the graphs in the voting section show that all the con votes have the same 'political views, location, schooling, income, and ect' as my opponent.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Conduct: Con
Pro didn't even attempt to debate. She presented the topic, and never followed up with a proper argument.

Spelling and Grammar: Con
Con was severely at a disadvantage given the amount of words posted verses those by Pro. Pro's limited responses displayed various errors in punctuation.

Arguments: Two names won this debate- Craig Titus and Kelly Ryan. The "body builder" argument is ridiculous as both were also personal trainers who exercised extensively. Furthermore, because Pro's argument was based on endorphins, one with basic knowledge of body building would expect body builders to be LESS likely to kill for no reason given that extreme exercise, like body building, causes extreme pain resulting in extreme amounts of endorphins being released into the body.

Sources: Con
Pro's source definition supports Con's argument, not hers. Furthermore, Con cited the case of Craig Titus and Kelly Ryan.

All points Con.
Posted by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
Ah, didn't catch that 'therefore' spelling error until now. Perhaps I relied far to much on 'edit' buttons in the past.

^^ No harm meant on the 'Double-Negative' thing. Just my inner grammar-nazi speaking up.

An extreme of exercise is still exercise, no matter how you look at it.
Posted by kcdebate09 8 years ago
kcdebate09
ok, bout the double negative...ur right, but you got my point didnt you? lol.

and bodybuilding is an extreme of exercise
Posted by LoganBarnes 8 years ago
LoganBarnes
Are you indirectly trying to say that bodybuilders don't exercise?
Posted by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
....? Does the subject of this Debate count as a double negitive? No insult meant, but it's been bothering me and I'm curious.

^^ Thank you for lowering the limitations so I could debate you. Good luck.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
I would take this debate if the limitations were not so outragious.
Posted by kcdebate09 8 years ago
kcdebate09
ok i edited it, so if you want you can debate now
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
why do you always have limitations for debate?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 PostInsanity 8 years ago
PostInsanity
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 BingerEB 8 years ago
BingerEB
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by bgruber93 8 years ago
bgruber93
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 googzieg 8 years ago
googzieg
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 kcdebate09 8 years ago
kcdebate09
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 schoolglutton 8 years ago
schoolglutton
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
kcdebate09GlitchyTied
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