The Instigator
yomama12
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Pokemon teaches animal abuse.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 56438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

yomama12

Pro

I am using the term abuse as mistreating someone/something. My opponent shall try to prove that pokemon does NOT teavh animal abuse.
Raisor

Con


There are two ways Pro can argue this case:


a) Pokemon “encourages” in the sense that it has the end effect of causing animal abuse. That is, Pokemon encourages animal abuse by causing its fans to be more likely to commit animal abuse.


b) Pokemon “encourages” in the sense that it endeavors to promote animal abuse. That is, the artistic goal of Pokemon is to promote animal abuse.


Pro should commit to which interpretation of “encourage” he will be defending in the next round. Without a stable understanding of what the Resolution claims, the debate defaults to a Con ballot.


1. Pro is making an empirical claim- he should be able to provide empirical evidence to support it. Pro has the burden to show that a) videogames have a non-negligible impact on the behavior of the people who play tham and b) the impact Pokemon has on its fans is in the direction of the Resolution.


2. Pokemon isn’t even about animals. Pokemon are magical and intelligent creatures- they can shoot lazer beams and control the weather. They are different from animals in both cognitive capacity and physical structure. Some Pokemon are literally rocks or ghosts. Does Pokemon encourage the abuse of rocks and ghosts?


3. Pokemon includes a wide range of views on how Pokemon should be treated. Some characters in the Pokemon universe think Pokemon should be used as tools for power, others think Pokemon should be loved as friends, others treat them as objects of scientific enquiry. The Pokemon universe displays a wide range of attitudes toward Pokemon, just as the real world do. Pro has to do more than point out that some of the views expressed by the characters in Pokemon could be read as pro-abuse.


4. The most prominent hero-figures in the Pokemon universe are very pro-animal. The relationship between Ash and his Pikachu is known by almost everyone, including those who don’t play Pokemon. This relationship is emblematic of the caring relationship the game encourages between trainer and Pokemon.


5. Pokemon like to fight and are intelligent. Pokemon are no different than people who box or practice martial arts- they are engaging in an activity they like.


7. The Resolution is flawed in its premise- Pokemon is a symptom not a cause.


Pro is going to try to argue that the content of Pokemon encourages animal abuse. This is a misguided attempt to blame violence against animals on a local instance of a much broader cultural mindset. Affirming the Resolution “Pokemon encourages animal abuse” masks problematic attitudes toward animals that are entrenched in society. This occurs on two levels.


The Resolution attempts to set up a causal relationship between one instance of popular culture and one particular instance of mistreatment of animals. This causal relationship obscures the reality of animal abuse- that it is fueled by complex societal causes and our cultures misguided understanding of animals and ecological ethics. The Resolution implies a simple “Pokemon is the problem”/blame the media solution and eschews the responsibility we have to examine our own views toward animals and how it relates to animal abuse.


This argument is a prior issue to all other arguments in-round. If I win that we should focus on the root causes of animal abuse and that the Resolution obscures these root causes, then the rest of the arguments in the debate are superfluous.


Vote Con to reject Pro’s paradigm of blaming the media and embrace a critical examination of our views towards animals as a real step toward ending animal abuse.


Debate Round No. 1
yomama12

Pro

yomama12 forfeited this round.
Raisor

Con

My opponent has forfeited his chance to rebut my arguments.

I urge the judges to give me conduct and argument points.
Debate Round No. 2
yomama12

Pro

I am so sorry! My schoolwork was a ton, and by the time I finished it, I was a couple minutes too late! I am afraid I cannot debate right now, but we can reinstate this debate some time in the future. I hope I didn't waste any of your time, and again, I'm sorry.
Raisor

Con

Pro has forfeited this debate, please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
yomama12RaisorTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
yomama12RaisorTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
yomama12RaisorTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
yomama12RaisorTied
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: FF and uncontested arguments.