The Instigator
TheSilentHorseman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
peter_havers
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
peter_havers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,250 times Debate No: 40422
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

TheSilentHorseman

Con

The bill that the resolution is in reference to is a bill in the state of Arkansas designed to place restrictions on bodily art and piercings. The Pro will argue for the passage of this bill through the Arkansas state government. Acceptance to this resolution means acceptances to the following rules:

(1) First round is for the acceptance of the resolution only.

(2) Forfeiting rounds will not constitute automatic loss of the debate, but any arguments that do not receive rebuttals counts as an automatic concession.
peter_havers

Pro

Sir, of course The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures," ought to be passed in the State of Arkansas, for the sake of employment, healthcare costs and various other reasons which I'll look into.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSilentHorseman

Con


Before continuing in this debate, we need to understand SB-387 in Arkansas and exactly what the bill is banning. The prohibited practices in question are defined as the following: “An artist licensed by the Department of Health shall not perform or attempt to perform: The insertion of a dermal implant or scarification.” Before explicitly stating the form of practices that are going to banned in the state of Arkansas, the bill places the following definitions on the following terms:



Scarification: injury of the skin involving scratching, etching, or cutting of designs to produce a scar on a human being for ornamentation or decoration.”



Tattooing: Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols, or any other marks upon or under the skin by introducing pigments or by the production of scars to form indelible marks with the aid of needles or other instruments.”



Although it’s specifically mentioning that scarification and dermal implants are directly going to be banned by this act, the vague wording of the bill itself leaves room for other bodily procedures to be banned, including other types of tattoos, maybe even tattoos in general considering the procedure for a tattoo corresponds with the definition of scarification. These restrictions ultimately hinder the First Amendment as the bill hinders on free expression via bodily art. For any health reasons in particular, they can be addressed with proper regulation of the practice rather than total bans “Problems most often are the result of a lack of experience or hygienic practice of the practitioner, materials used or a lack of proper aftercare by the recipient.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)


peter_havers

Pro

And with that we shall begin. Sir, have you considered the health risks that having a tattoo poses and the effect that it has only employability.

It's a well known fact that if needles are infected with contaminated blood, then blood borne diseases, such as tetanus, syphilis, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C could be contracted. An STD for the sake of looking rebellious: really?

In addition, a lack of tattoos results in a higher employability. Managers would no longer need to worry about employees having to cover up their 'body art', in order to comply with dress codes. When it comes to interviews, tattoos leave a bad impression on future employees, due to their association with the criminal world. With more people able to work, more people will. This would result in a higher employment percentage for the state, meaning that the rate of poverty would also also be reduced.

And so, by banning dermal implants and scarification, the health risk to the population would be lowered and yet the employment rate of the state would rise.

Your turn, Horseman!
Debate Round No. 2
TheSilentHorseman

Con

TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.
peter_havers

Pro

Aha! Daunted by the concepts of health risks and unemployment?
Debate Round No. 3
TheSilentHorseman

Con

TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.
peter_havers

Pro

Forfeit? Yet again?
Debate Round No. 4
TheSilentHorseman

Con

TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.
peter_havers

Pro

There we have it. Winner by default.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Damn. I missed a round. Sorry about that.
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
I don't know, but it's passed the Senate of Arkansas.
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
Forgive my interruption but why would any legislation limiting tattoos and piercings even be considered? It doesn't sound like it should be an issue.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
TheSilentHorsemanpeter_haversTied
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: Pro due to his debates passing and the forfeits of course. Thesilenthorseman really is silent.