The Instigator
DaChinky88
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Mattyyy
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Resolved: I am hungry

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 5 votes the winner is...
DaChinky88
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 67252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

DaChinky88

Pro

Give me food
Mattyyy

Con

No. Don't be hungry. You're wasting human food, alien!
Debate Round No. 1
DaChinky88

Pro

The problem with what you are claiming is that 1. I am wasting food and 2. I am alien. Now that would be good claims if you had any proof of either but you not only don't but all of these can be solved and/or proven wrong.
Starting with wasting food, transportation of food is actually the leading waste of food. Transportation of food actually accounts for 20% of lost food. This is due to the economic collapse of many countries. What you can see from this is that many countries not only can't afford the food but transporting the food costs lots of money that we don't have. Wasting food is defined as eating unnecessary amounts of food which I clearly am not because the world has a surplus of food. The problem is the transportation factor. Another point I would like to point out is that you claim I am wasting food yet I never specified in my original argument how much food I wanted. You cannot claim that I am wasting food if you don't know your information so you must vote in affirmation due to that.
Your second claim was that I am an alien which is a awful claim based on the facts you have gathered. In my speech, I used clear English as that is derived from civilizations in the Latin root. The type of language I am using derived mostly from greek and latin from Rome and Greece. What you are basically claiming is that I know languages from Earth because I am an alien. Not only is that a bad claim, it is completely illogical and you cannot vote in negation based on that terrible claim. Now I will run a racism K on you. If you didn't know K is a critique retaining to the bigger issue. Alien can be defined as an outsider. Because I am not from where you are, you claim me as an alien which I take high offense to. You are singling me out from the rest of society just because you know nothing about me. The fact that you think shouldn't even deserve any food just shows the racism you have against these "aliens". Judges, if you are to vote in negation, you will be voting for a person who thinks someone who isn't like him shouldn't even get the basic necessity of life. My opponent thinks that just because I am different, I don't even deserve food to survive. This is why you must vote in affirmation as I have proven that me eating won't waste food as well as how him calling me an alien is not only false but racist. Thank you
Mattyyy

Con

Oh no. This wasn't a joke :v
Debate Round No. 2
DaChinky88

Pro

Since my opponent has conceded victory, I stand by my resolution stating Resolved: I am hungry. As I have stated my contention that stated you should give me food, I will extend that argument. Giving me food will negate the impact of starvation. Killing this one person could be the cause of extinction of humanity as I could;ve been the Einstein of the generation. He has left this not attacked and cannot bring it back up during the rebuttal. Now onto his case
Extend all cards relating to food waste because transportaton to expensive for rural areas. In our country we have enough food to feed the whole world. The problem is the price of the transportation. He has left this claim untouched so you have no choice but to vote in affirmation to this argument. He has not only lost on terminal impact now but also lack of logical analysis.
My K is still untouched as well which states he is being racist for callling me an alien.
He thought this was a joke but he has clearly given in, showing how I am the clear winner
Now since I am a policy debater, let's go over SHITS
Significance, I could've solved human extinction as well as helped many people throughout my life.
Harms, The arms is the fact he wants to kill me
Inherancy: I am hungry so this fact still stands
Topicality: My claim abides to the resolution
Solvency: Giving me food solves the resolution
Therefore you have no choice but to vote in affirmation.
Mattyyy

Con

There are three kinds of persuasion according to Aristotle.

Ethos (plural: ethe) is an appeal to the authority or credibility of the presenter. It is how well the presenter convinces the audience that he or she is qualified to present (speak) on the particular subject. It can be done in many ways

Pathos (plural: pathe) is an appeal to the audience"s emotions, and the terms pathetic and empathy are derived from it. It can be in the form of metaphor, simile, a passionate delivery, or even a simple claim that a matter is unjust. Pathos can be particularly powerful if used well, but most speeches do not solely rely on pathos. Pathos is most effective when the author or speaker demonstrates agreement with an underlying value of the reader or listener.

Logos (plural: logoi) is logical appeal or the simulation of it, and the term logic is derived from it. It is normally used to describe facts and figures that support the speaker's claims or thesis. Having a logos appeal also enhances ethos (see above) because information makes the speaker look knowledgeable and prepared to his or her audience. However, the data can be confusing and thus confuse the audience. Logos can also be misleading or inaccurate, however meaningful it may seem to the subject at hand. In some cases, inaccurate, falsified, or miscontextualized data can even be used to enact a pathos effect. Such as is the case with casualty numbers, which while not necessarily falsified, may include minor casualties (injuries) that are equated with deaths in the mind of an audience and therefore can evoke the same effect as a death toll.

No one will give you food because:
1) Any of these didn't imply on your statement.
2) You have started this in a most ridiculous manner.
3) Sympathy doesn't work on the internet. Notably that, you didn't use #1 and started this like #2 has stated.
4) Not all people will take things seriously.
5) The first stand was not too serious.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mattyyy 2 years ago
Mattyyy
Thank you :)
Posted by jsgolfer 2 years ago
jsgolfer
This is hands down the best debate I have ever seen
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DaChinky88MattyyyTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro showed he was hungry. I don't think Aristotle's philosophy really applied to his arg's, anyways.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Reeseroni
DaChinky88MattyyyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Yolo sw4g
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
DaChinky88MattyyyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed he was hungry
Vote Placed by Eli01 2 years ago
Eli01
DaChinky88MattyyyTied
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: What? Anyways, i think That PRO had BoP ad did not fulfill it.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
DaChinky88MattyyyTied
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: PRO's resolution, "I am hungry," has gone undemonstrated. As PRO had the burden to demonstrate the resolution, I must award arguments to CON.