The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points

Pippa Middleton should appear in a porn movie and then donate her fee to London's homeless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,956 times Debate No: 16587
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro


Pippa Middleton, the younger sister of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, has recently been offered $5 million to appear in “just one explicit scene” of an adult movie. In a letter sent to Pippa on 6th May, Californian pornographer Steven Hirsch wrote:

"As far as I was concerned, you were the star of the recent Royal Wedding. As I watched a broadcast of the event, I couldn't help but think that with your beauty and attitude, you could be an enormously successful adult star. This week, after seeing photos of you having a great time at a party, I decided to offer you a role in one of our upcoming movies.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...

There were probably hundreds of thousands of men across the world who ogled at Pippa’s pert little arse when the Royal Wedding was on television that would happily crawl a mile over broken glass just to masturbate over her shadow, so I have little doubt that Mr Hirsch will recoup his investment by distributing a porn film featuring Pippa posing for 'open-flap shots', 'think-of-the-money shots' or including footage of her having her back doors smashed in by a well-endowed black man, although personally, I would prefer to see her in a lesbian shag fest with DDO's very own Danielle and Vi.

Whatever, since Pippa only works two days a week monitoring her parents’ company’s website, she would have plenty of time to fit a couple of hours filming into her schedule, even if she had to fly to California and back for the shoot.

Now Pippa lives in the über-posh Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the average property sells for £880,000 (US$1,450,000), in a luxury apartment which her parents bought for her, so she doesn’t need to worry about being thrown onto the streets for not paying the rent or mortgage.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk...
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk...

However, thousands of her fellow-Londoners are not so fortunate and, being homeless, have to rely on charities for their accommodation.

The situation for these unfortunate people is becoming more desperate than ever now that the viscous, spiteful ultra-right wing Tories are back in power. Their political philosophy has always been to protect the privileges of prosperous people while punishing the poor for being impoverished, and is why they are not only axing public funding for homeless shelters, but also making it illegal for anyone to "lie down or sleep in any public place" or to "deposit bedding".

Furthermore,the heartless Tory bastards are also banning charities and private individuals from distributing free food or drink to homeless people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

That’s why it is so important that Pippa Middleton accepts Steven Hirsch’s offer to appear in one of his movies and then donates her fee to London’s homeless.

Thank you.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this wonder and interesting debate. I will totally accept the notion that Pippa should star in an adult movie (they could call it "Popping it in Pippa" or something else that plays off her name). However, there are two things that really need to be done to adequately establish the resolution.

1) That helping the homeless is the ideal use of that money, and
2) That simply donating that money to the homeless is the ideal method of helping them.

This is based off of the word "should" [1]. "Should" indicates an obligation, as opposed to a simple choice, usually a moral obligation, but not restricted to that.

From a moral standpoint, there are many different organizations and issues that she could help. All of which have just a high a moral claim as the homeless (plus, they smell better, so they got that for them). These include, but are not limited to, schools, elderly, disabled vetrens, American Family Association, and David Cameron (with a little wink and a kiss on the check).

So unless there is some kind of business contract with the homeless, or maybe they have a sex tape of her that they are threatening to release unless gives them a bunch of money, she has no real obligation to help these unwashed mobile recycling bins.

However, if she chooses to do this, and chooses to help the homeless, then we can assume that it is from a moral stand point, and so we can also assume that she wants to either completely fix the problem, or at least fix it as much as possible with the money. That means she'll have to consider what is the most financially benefitial method. Simply donating the money is not likely going to do much good. If she donates to the people directly, it will make almost no impact. After all, $5 million is going to drop to $2.5 million after taxes, and then that will only buy about 10 houses, and it won't cover electricity or water, so it doesn't help that many, and those that it does help are not helpped a lot.

If she donates to a charity that specializes in helping the homeless, they will take their own cut (they have to pay their people, and keep their lights on, and all that stuff), and they likely won't get anything done with the money anyway. After all, these groups have already been around for years, and the problem is still a massive problem.

It sounds like what would be best would be to start up companies and put the homeless to work. It would also be ideal to start up several different types of companies, so that the homeless have choices of who they want to be wage slaves to. With her experience of monitering company websites (i.e. sitting in front of a computer and playing games claiming to be "working"), and her new experience of being in an adult movie, it is clear that an internet based adult film company would be ideal. Since the bums are use to having no income, they will likely work for less than your average adult star, thus allowing costs to be lower for website membership and for videos. Also, their desperation will make them more accomidating for...alternative... adult films, thus giving the company additional customers.

These companies will provide income and jobs, thus helping more homeless, and helping them for a longer period of time. And while they may not be ideal on their own, they would still be more effective than simply donating the money.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to my esteemed opponent for accepting this debate, there seems to be some disagreement over how Pippa Middleton should distribute the US$5 million she receives as payment for her forthcoming role in a Hollywood porn movie.

Firstly, I must insist that the homeless in London are the most appropriate recipients of Pippa's appearance fee because, unlike other good causes, they are subject to a government-sanctioned clampdown on charitable giving.

The minutes of the Tory's policy committee meetings are not made public but, judging by the proposed legislation, the deliberations must have gone something like this:

"It's disgraceful that there are still homeless people on the streets of a developed nation in the 21st Century."

"Yes, they are appallingly dressed and often quite whiffy too. They bring down the tone of respectable neighbourhoods such as Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster where over-privileged posh people such as ourselves live. Why don't they just fvck off and die?"

"Because charities and so-called bleeding heart do-gooders insist on giving them food and shelter."

"Then they must be banned from doing so forthwith. Then the homeless will either starve or freeze to death and we won't have to look at them anymore."

"Yes, quite right, champagne and fois gras all round!"

"Hoorah!"

My opponent points out that charities skim a bit off the top of donations to cover their expenses, but this is irrelevant as charities are to be banned from helping the poorest and most desperate members of society by providing food and shelter under the new Tory laws.

Instead, I propose that Pippa distributes the cash amongst the homeless personally so that they can buy their own food and pay for their own accommodation, as this is not prohibited under the Tories' crackdown on homeless people.

She should tour the streets of London at night, giving out cash to rough-sleepers. Furthermore, as many tramps, vagabonds and hobos are unlikely to have any recent intimate sexual contact with a woman, she might also, out of the goodness of her heart, offer homeless men a grope of her arse, a fondle of her t!ts or even give the more deserving cases a quick one off the wrist.

It's not like she wouldn't have the time or resources to achieve this task, and although she couldn't solve the problem of London's homeless alone, she may inspire other over-privileged upper class women to embark upon careers as porn stars and distribute the proceeds amongst the capital's rough sleepers.

Thank you.
Ore_Ele

Con

I will concede that that is likely the conversation that occured.

However, again, I must say that the method provided is not ideal. If Pippa is going around allowing the homeless to grab various body parts and providing "special handshakes," that will only increase the population of homeless as people with homes will sell everything they have to flock to the streets for their opportunity.

I still contend, that using the funds to create a porn industry, starring famous people and the homeless would provide jobs and pleasure to the homeless, and thus, be a better solution to help them out.

I thank my opponent for this debate and enjoyed it quite much, especially all the research on the porn industry that had to be done.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Just thinking outside of the homelesss box.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry, Orele, I missed your 'employ the homeless in the porn industry' argument, I was in a hurry when I replied, that was a good one!
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
correction $5 "million," is that EUR or GBP
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Paris Hilton is cut out for living, but we let her continue to do that anyway.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Is the $5 in EUR or GBP?
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Pippa isn't very hot from some angles: http://tinyurl.com...

And she seems rather flat chested: http://tinyurl.com...

Not sure she's cut out for porn.

Also: lol @ the comments on the linked article: "Please don't do it! There were little girls watching wanting to be just like you!"

"figures a filthy jew would make such a sick offer!!!"
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Cool, another feather in my cap, a debate with another 99'er!
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Actually, I'll go for it.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I am tempted to take this.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
18+ because this debate makes references to pornography and people who are younger than 18 aren't allowed to view pornography so they don't know what it is!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: repealed until further notice
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I must admit, it didn't take me much to convince me of Pro's side and as usual I found Brian's arguments both hilarious and well-written. Con did a decent job with his own proposition, so I also will give him 1 point.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON showed that his plan to create a porn industry would help the homeless more than PRO's plan. PRO did not refute the problems with the porn industry, so points go to CON.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice opening by OreEle but he ran out of steam in the end. 1 pt to Brian.