The Instigator
AlwaysRight12345
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LDPOFODebATeR0328
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

S.P.E.W. is legitimate

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
LDPOFODebATeR0328
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 67742
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

AlwaysRight12345

Con

First round is acceptance. This debate is on SPEW, Hermione Granger's elf rights organization from the Harry Potter series. I am on Con, so I will debate that SPEW is illegitimate. I would really prefer the evidence comes from the books not the movies. I'm really just having fun here.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
AlwaysRight12345

Con

1-It's against elf nature:
The nature of house-elves is to serve. This is a fact that has been widely accepted throughout Wizarding history. There is actually an Office of House-Elf Relocation in the Ministry of Magic. [1] Dobby was original in that he didn't want to work as a house elf. This seems like the basis of my argument to me, so I'll stop providing evidence here. However, anyone who has read the books can gather that it is in house-elf nature to work.

2-It forces elves into "freedom"
It would've been OK if Hermione had just hung back and let the elves come to her if they wanted to. Instead, she covered hats in junk that the elves had to clean up, therefore forcing them into "freedom." This is terrible and just mean.

I have a lot more evidence, and await my opponent's response.

Sources:
1-Harry Potter original books
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Pro

Definitions (*Definitions CANNOT be changed throughout the debate):

1.) S.P.E.W.: Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare [1.]
2.) Legitimate: Allowed According to Rules or Laws; Fair or Reasonable [2.]

Arguments:

C1: S.P.E.W. is considered "Fair" and "Reasonable."

The creation of S.P.E.W. has a purpose; "Stop the Outrageous Abuse of Our Fellow Magical Creatures and Campaign for a Change in Their Legal Status." (Upholding the Rights of Others) S.P.E.W has a reasonable purpose; Hermione wanted to provide these poor, powerless elves the freedom that they deserved in the first place. After all, this is actually a form of slavery. Thus, S.P.E.W. is legitimate because it has a moral purpose. [1.]

C2: S.P.E.W. is Allowed According to the Rules and Laws.

My opponent claims that it is "illegal" for young teenager to create a club regarding the freedom of elves. I'd like to first point out that this club did not cause any crimes, rebellions, and chaos. The rules of Hogwarts do not mention that it is illegal to create a club...

Unless my opponent SUCCESSFULLY proves how the creation of S.P.E.W. is against the rules and laws of Hogwarts, I win the debate.

Refutations:

"1-It's against elf nature:
The nature of house-elves is to serve. This is a fact that has been widely accepted throughout Wizarding history. There is actually an Office of House-Elf Relocation in the Ministry of Magic. [1] Dobby was original in that he didn't want to work as a house elf. This seems like the basis of my argument to me, so I'll stop providing evidence here. However, anyone who has read the books can gather that it is in house-elf nature to work."

This doesn't prove how S.P.E.W. is AGAINST the laws (illegal). Therefore, this argument is invalid.

"2-It forces elves into 'freedom'
It would've been OK if Hermione had just hung back and let the elves come to her if they wanted to. Instead, she covered hats in junk that the elves had to clean up, therefore forcing them into 'freedom.' This is terrible and just mean."

My opponent to explain how freedom is BAD. In order to propose this argument, my opponent must explain why elves hates freedom, IN DETAIL.

For all these reasons, please vote for the Affirmative side of this debate. Thank you.

Sources:
[1.] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
[2.] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
AlwaysRight12345

Con

Just to clarify right now, we are using my opponent's second part of his "legitimate" definition. When I started the debate it seemed like it was pretty self-explanatory, but I would still like to thank my opponent for giving them.

He talked about the moral purpose of SPEW in his first contention. As I have already described, house-elf minds work differently than human minds. SPEW actually violates elf rights instead of protecting them. His second contention talked about how I claim it is "illegal" to create a club. Though it may seem strange, it is. A house-elf is like a computer. You can use it to help you in your day-to-day activities. It is there to make your life easier. I have already proven that elf nature is to serve, so this is actually not inhumane. House-elves even enjoy working. Now think of the computer as a computer which is, in this case, belonging to a school. The computer/elf certainly is there for you, but it belongs to the school. Hermione tried to take the elves away from the school, which is actually stealing. When an elf is given clothes from their Master, it is no longer working for its Master, no matter if it wants to or not. Hermione was trying to take the elves from the school, both stealing from the school and causing extreme emotional distress for the elves (for example, Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism).

In this reason, I have enhanced all of my points and refuted all of my own. It is blatantly obvious that I have won this debate.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Pro

First off, I'd like to remind my opponent TWO things:
1.) Before you start a topic, make sure to know what the word means. (Legitimate is usually defined as illegal.)
2.) S.P.E.W. isn't illegal. It also isn't unreasonable; it has a purpose. Hermione wanted to free the elves from the maltreatment that they have to confront.

Refutations:

"He talked about the moral purpose of SPEW in his first contention. As I have already described, house-elf minds work differently than human minds. SPEW actually violates elf rights instead of protecting them."

This has nothing to do with my argument. I talked about how S.P.E.W. is fair and reasonable because it has a good purpose. You're merely talking about the elves and their rights. If you wanted to debate on the elves' rights, the topic should've been: "Does S.P.E.W. violate the rights of the elves?" That's not the case here. We are talking about whether S.P.E.W. is illegal or not (or unreasonable). Hermione wasn't actually forcefully urging the elves to get out of "slavery." She was merely trying to convince the elves. Thus, my Contention 1 was dropped.

"His second contention talked about how I claim it is "illegal" to create a club. Though it may seem strange, it is. A house-elf is like a computer. You can use it to help you in your day-to-day activities. It is there to make your life easier. I have already proven that elf nature is to serve, so this is actually not inhumane. House-elves even enjoy working. Now think of the computer as a computer which is, in this case, belonging to a school. The computer/elf certainly is there for you, but it belongs to the school. Hermione tried to take the elves away from the school, which is actually stealing. When an elf is given clothes from their Master, it is no longer working for its Master, no matter if it wants to or not. Hermione was trying to take the elves from the school, both stealing from the school and causing extreme emotional distress for the elves (for example, Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism)."


Judge(s), I'd like to point out the fact that my opponent failed to explain how S.P.E.W. is illegal and unreasonable. He merely compared elves to computers (for some apparent reason)... He talked about how giving elves freedom is like stealing a computer. I see no link; after all, elves are actually beings with feelings, unlike computers. Second, this argument does not prove how S.P.E.W. is illegal or unreasonable. S.P.E.W. is basically like an organization that proposes petitions. Hermione didn't want to commit an illegal action. Third, your analogy makes no sense. Hermione never tried to PHYSICALLY steal the elves from Hogwarts. She merely attempted to convince the elves to free themselves. You can't compare stealing to convincing. Unless you prove how Hermione is stealing elves, this argument is completely invalid.

Many elves suffer from maltreatment. For example, Dobby. My opponent forgot to mention Dobby. The Malfoy family treated him with disrepect and cruel punishments. I'm sure that there are others out there that suffer like Dobby. After all, you only brought up elves that were from Hogwarts. (Obviously, Dumbledore treated them with respect; the elves had no reason to quit.)

For all these reasons, I urge you to vote for the Affirmative side of this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
AlwaysRight12345

Con

My opponent appears to have merely skimmed my case and not really given this any deep thought. He first talked about how I talked about elf rights. Then he said that we are debating whether or not S.P.E.W. is illegal. Elf rights being violated is illegal, obviously, or else the Ministry of Magic wouldn't be as involved (Office of Elf Relocation). Thus, my refutation was dropped. He ignored my analogy between elves and computers. "I see no link; after all, elves are actually beings with feelings, unlike computers." Although elves may have feelings, it doesn't invalidate the analogy. I provided said analogy to make this easier to explain to my opponent, who seems not to understand. "S.P.E.W. is basically like an organization that proposes petitions." My opponent, here, is blatantly wrong. Hermione attempted to force the elves into "freedom," by covering hats with lint and such, forcing the elves to clean them up, therefore taking the hat. Hermione may not have completely physically stolen the elves, but she still tried to take them from the school's rightful possession, which is stealing. My opponent talked about Dobby. "I'm sure that there are others out there that suffer like Dobby." Well, there aren't. Dobby was very unique in that he did not fit in with the nature of his species. Apparently, "you only brought up elves that were from Hogwarts." First, I only mentioned Hogwarts elves because that was the sole target upon which Hermione took action. She didn't try to free elves anywhere else. Second, I did talk about Winky, who was taken from the Crouch house. To quote myself, "Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism."
For these reasons, anyone can see that I am undoubtedly correct, and vote for me.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Pro

Haha! I'm still laughing from your arguments...

Rubuttals:

"He first talked about how I talked about elf rights. Then he said that we are debating whether or not S.P.E.W. is illegal. Elf rights being violated is illegal, obviously, or else the Ministry of Magic wouldn't be as involved (Office of Elf Relocation)."

This argument is completely... stupid because of these following reasons:

R1: Contradiction

The synonym of right is freedom [1.] You clearly mentioned during your speech that elves don't have freedom (right), and S.P.E.W. would force them into freedom. Now, you want to uphold their freedom (right)? How odd...

R2: "Illegal"

You mentioned, during your first speech, that elves don't need or deserve rights. They are forced to do labors that people don't want to do (like slaves). This happens in the wizarding "world." And now, you are saying that this illegal because it violates the rights of the elves? Well, that's reasonable (*Sarcasm intended*).

Additionally, you have provided no sources that support this claim. Thus, this argument is not credible and invalid.

"My opponent, here, is blatantly wrong. Hermione attempted to force the elves into 'freedom,' by covering hats with lint and such, forcing the elves to clean them up, therefore taking the hat. Hermione may not have completely physically stolen the elves, but she still tried to take them from the school's rightful possession, which is stealing. My opponent talked about Dobby... Well, there aren't. Dobby was very unique in that he did not fit in with the nature of his species. Apparently, 'you only brought up elves that were from Hogwarts.' First, I only mentioned Hogwarts elves because that was the sole target upon which Hermione took action. She didn't try to free elves anywhere else. Second, I did talk about Winky, who was taken from the Crouch house. To quote myself, 'Winky was devastated when given clothes, and subsided into depression and eventually alcoholism.'"

R1: Forced into Freedom?

I thought you talked about how elves need rights? Are you saying that Hermione is doing a good thing by "forcing" the elves into freedom?

R2: Hermione is giving them a choice to take the hats.

I don't recall Hermione covering hats with "lints and such." No sources were given. Second, only Dobby picked up the socks and hats. No one else did [2.]. Why? Because they were given the choice to do so. This isn't stealing...

R3: This argument contridicts my opponent's other arguments, as well.

What's wrong with freeing elves? Violating the rights (freedom) of elves is illegal (according to you). Freeing elves upholds their rights.

RTP:
1.) My first contention was dropped.
2.) Invalid Source- My opponent brought up only one source: "Harry Potter original books." The source is very... ambiguous and vague. After all, this could be considered as "Harry Potter original books:" http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Stone
3.) My sources were more reliable that my opponent's. I also brought up multiple.
4.) My opponent's arguments constantly contradicted.

Sources:
[1.]http://www.thesaurus.com...
[2.] Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Please define illegitimate.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I really don't see any reason to assume that S.P.E.W. is Illegal, or illegitimate
just because the characters in the books & movies are Fictional & Have No Actual Existence.
Maybe there is, in fact, a real Hermione Granger who set up S.P.E.W.
.................................
(Do you believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole?
Well, I've never been there ...)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AlwaysRight12345LDPOFODebATeR0328Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro uses sources very nicely to build, support, and maintain a strong position. I don't think con goes into enough detail to refute pro.