The Instigator
mightbenihilism
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should pugs be bread in different colors?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 63503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

mightbenihilism

Pro

Normally, pugs come in three colors:

Silver
Black
Fawn

I, however, believe that pugs should be bread in more colors than just these. I would like to see pugs with more variations. Dogs come in many types of colors, and I think it would be good if pugs had more than just three colors. That way, life would have more variety in terms of pugs.

We could have:

Auburn pugs
Deep red pugs
Flame-tipped pugs
Cerulean grey pugs
Checker-board patterned pugs
Swirled pugs (like cinnamon role)
Autumn leaf brown pugs
Labrador yellow pugs
Cow-spot pattern pugs

The Con has the burden of proof as to why the three normal colors are sufficient and what reason there could possibly be for not breading pugs in more colors! No ad hominem attacks, please.
Defro

Con


I accept, under 2 clarifications:


1. According to Pro, I have the burden of proof to show why pugs should not be bread in different colors. While this is true, I would like to clarify that Pro also has a burden of proof to show why pugs should be bread in different colors. The BOP is shared.

2. Pro has not specified whether or not the resolution addresses all pugs in additions or certain pugs. Therefore I am open to interpretation, and I interpret that it applies to all pugs in existence.



Arguments:


C1. There is no good reason for this, therefore it is a waste of time and effort.

- There is no valid reason to have pugs be bread in different colors as of yet. So far, the only reason Pro used to support his resolution is: "That way, life would have more variety in terms of pugs."

- This is not a reason. It is an effect. Pro needs to show why having more variety of pugs is a good thing. Otherwise, this reason is invalid.

- Because as of now, there are no valid reasons for this resolution to pass, it would be a waste of time and effort to make dogs bread in different colors.


C2. Animal Cruelty

- In the bread making proccess, flour is mixed with other substances until a paste is formed. This paste is allowed to ferment. And then it is heated at a very high temperature.

- It would be incredibly cruel to mix pugs with flour and other substances until it forms a paste, which is fermented and heated. So, in order for a pug to be bread, it will be physically crushed, left to rot, and then burned. This would be extremely painful for pugs. It would be inhumane to do this.


C3. Human Rights Violation

- One of the 30 human rights states that humans are entitled to their own possessions. This includes pets. And many humans own pugs as pets.

- According to my interpretation of Pro's resolution, it applies to all pugs in existence. Therefore, Pro's resolution implies forcibly taking pugs from their owners, which violates human rights and would also make the owners incredibly sad.
Debate Round No. 1
mightbenihilism

Pro

Thank you, Con, for not ad hominem attacking me. I tried this debate out once in a laundramat and I was attacked with a broom and called a "bimbo".

To clarify:

1. The burden of proof that is upon me is as follows: If we can establish that "variety is the spice of life" is a necessary and axiomatic condition for existence, then more variety of pugs would only increase the spice of life which, a priori , is preferable to a lack of spice in life. This I call the Anarcho-ontological argument for the necessity of eventual pug variety in the universe.

2. My proposition does not apply to all pugs in existence, but only to a portion of present and future pugs.

Now, to refute you and win the debate:

C1 - The Con writes, "There is no valid reason to have pugs be bread in different colors as of yet" and "Pro needs to show why having more variety of pugs is a good thing."
I argue that all definitions of good imply a variety of forms. Nature, being our only self-evident definition of the Plotinian Good, abhors a vacuum. Therefore, variety in the breading of pugs is a prior a natural good. Now, it is true that it cannot be accomplished in nature unaided by human action, but I would argue that human action is itself a natural phenomena, and, therefore, the breading of pugs is merely the inevitable fulfilment of natural good.

C2 - The Con argues that my proposition would involve animal cruelty, but fails to realize that there are many modern methods of breading pugs which do not involve "physically crushing" "rotting" or "burning" the pug. We are not living in the 1920s, for crying out loud! It is possible to make pug bread while maintaining the general health and well-being of the pug. If anyone is familiar with no-bake cookies, they will be familiar with a method which involves nothing more than a bit of kneading, fluffing and pinching to make a delicious baked good. I will admit that the pug may find this kneading, fluffing and pinching discomfortable, but it is nowhere near as discomfortable as giving the pug a bath.

C3 - I do agree that many pugs would need to be forcibly taken from their owners to accomplish this scheme, but this does not qualify as a true human rights violation anymore than taking a person's cell phone away from them because it is making noise in a theatre would constitute a human right violation. People who refuse to devote their pugs to the ultimate betterment of reality do not deserve to have pugs --- yet, even so, the pugs will be returned to them once the necessary genetic mutations occur via the patented mightbenihilism "no bake pug colorization process". Even so, the pugs would only be confiscated temporarily, and then be returned at the end of the experiment.

I will understand if you forfeit in light of these amazing arguments I have presented, but rather than forfeit I would far prefer to see a nice concession speech, and I think the voting public would as well.
Defro

Con






Rebuttals:


"If we can establish that "variety is the spice of life" is a necessary and axiomatic condition for existence, then more variety of pugs would only increase the spice of life"

- First of all, it hasn't been established that variety is a spice of life.

- Second of all, even of Pro someone establishes that variety is the spice of life, that still doesn't show how it is necessary for existence.


"My proposition does not apply to all pugs in existence, but only to a portion of present and future pugs."

- It's too late to make this clarification. All clarifications are to be made by the instigator in Round 1. After that, everything else is up to the contender to interpret, as long as it stays within the boundaries of the resolution. Therefore, whether or not you meant for your proposition to apply to all pugs in existence, because you didn't make this clarification in round 1, from now on it applies to all pugs in existence.


"I argue that all definitions of good imply a variety of forms."

- No. None of the definitions of good are even related to variety. According to Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster, definitions of good vary from being: "of high quality" to "honorable or worthy". [1] [2]


"Nature, being our only self-evident definition of the Platonic Good, abhors a vacuum."

- First of all, it's not our only definition. I provided 2 links with over 10 definitions of good, none of which by the way, follow Plotinus' definition of nature.

- Second of all, if good abhors a vacuum, that doesn't necessarily mean variety is good. It just means that your definition of the "Plotinian Good" really hates the absence of matter. Therefore, under your definition as long as there's matter, it's good. But it doesn't say anything about the matter requiring varieties.


"Therefore, variety in the breading of pugs is a prior a natural good."

- No it isn't.


"Now, it is true that it cannot be accomplished in nature unaided by human action"

- Pro has conceded that nature isn't able to accomplish this task, therefore it isn't natural


"I would argue that human action is itself a natural phenomena"

- Pro claimed that he would argue this, but he hasn't argued this. Pro hasn't explained at all how making bread is natural and for that matter, how making bread out of pugs is natural. Therefore he hasn't met his BOP and his "natural good" argument is rendered invalid.


"there are many modern methods of breading pugs which do not involve "physically crushing" "rotting" or "burning" the pug."

- Pro has made an assertion not backed up with evidence. What methods are there that you can use to make bread out of pugs without hurting them? You can't answer that question because so far, there isn't a method to make bread out of pugs.

- But we know that bread is made of mainly flour and yeast. And we know that it is crushed, fermented, and heated at very high temperatures. Therefore it would be valid to conclude that if we make bread out of pugs, they will also have to be crushed, fermented, and heated.


"It is possible to make pug bread while maintaining the general health and well-being of the pug."

- As I've shown above, you can't.

- Even if you can, bread is made to be eaten, and once the pugs are eaten, their well-being and general health is pretty bad.


"If anyone is familiar with no-bake cookies, they will be familiar with a method which involves nothing more than a bit of kneading, fluffing and pinching to make a delicious baked good."

- First of all, the resolution is about bread, not cookies. This statement is irrelevant.

- Second of all, no-bake cookies still require you to boil the ingredients at high temperatures. [3]


"I will admit that the pug may find this kneading, fluffing and pinching discomfortable"

- Pro has conceded that pugs will suffer discomfort.


"this does not qualify as a true human rights violation anymore than taking a person's cell phone away from them because it is making noise in a theatre"

- Actually, taking away someones cell phone in the theatre would be violating their human rights. Theatre's do not have the right to take away peoples' phones. They do however, have the right to kick them out of the theatre.


"People who refuse to devote their pugs to the ultimate betterment of reality do not deserve to have pugs"

- Pro has made another strong assertion not backed up by any points except for the fact that it is more diverse. But Pro has yet to prove that diversity is good. Pro has not met his BOP.

"pugs will be returned to them"

- The pugs will be returned to them DEAD. Making bread from pugs will ultimately kill pugs.


"Even so, the pugs would only be confiscated temporarily, and then be returned at the end of the experiment."

- That's still a human rights violation.




Addendum:

C4. It would actually reduce pug diversity on the long run.

- Making bread from pugs will kill them.

- The resolution applies to all pugs. Therefore all pugs will be killed.

- Therefore, pugs will be extinct.

- Therefore, there will be no variety of pugs anymore.







Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://allrecipes.com...






Debate Round No. 2
mightbenihilism

Pro

Pug:

1. Variety is the spice of life

The Con knows well that the term "good" is commonly used in a subjective sense. However, the term "good" can be used in an objective sense when it relates to function. That is, a hand is "good" for grasping because it has the function of grasping. The full definition of good can be "of a favorable character or tendency", and "favorable" has the implication of being favorable for certain conditions.

It appears that the Con has taken "variety is the spice of life" in its merely colloquial sense, rather than its necessarily philosophical and axiomatic sense. "Variety", clearly, is "a number or collection of different things or people". Spice is "something that adds interest or excitement" and "excitement" (or "excite", more properly) is "to increase the activity of (something, such as nerve tissue)". "Life" is "a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings ".

Thus, the statement "variety is the spice of life" is equivalent to "multiplicity increases the activity of the distinctive quality of animate beings" --- or, said in a different way, the presence of many items leads to the stimulation of animate life. (All of these are Webster's dictionary definitions by the way).

Now, obviously, a multiplicity of pug-colors would clearly be advantageous (or "good", in the objective sense) for the stimulation of activity in sentient life. No subjective values need to be incorperated into this, for it is simply to say that phenomena, when beheld, inspire (mental) activity in animate life, and the more varied the phenomena, the more potential activity may be inspired.

So, clearly, a variety of pug coats sets the advantageous conditions for further stimulation of activinty in animate life --- this is true when we consider that color stimulates the brain.

http://www.overdriveonline.com...

So, I have fulfilled the burden of proof quite well here, because I only stated a scientifically valid tautology, cloaked it in a colloquialism and, thus, through trickniques, devastated the Con's rebuttal. For the Con to properly rebut me, he must say that less color is more neurologically stimulating to animate life (which it isn't) and that more color is not advantageous to greater stimulation (though it is).

Now, "variety is the spice of life" is necessary for existence, for one of the definition of existence is "sentient or living being". It is in this sense that I use it. And a "sentient or living being" exists as an evolutionary response to conditions which are obviously multiple in nature. If the Con were to refute this, he would have to prove that a "sentient or living being" or "being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect" is somehow independent of multiple conditions --- and yet, here we are, living in a world of multiple conditions, teaming with life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The Con has utterly failed to rebut me, here, and I have utterly succeeded to fulfill the burden of proof, using nothing more than basic science and Webster's dictionary.

The Con will no doubt try to latch on to my definition of "good" in the Plotinian sense which is henotropic, moving away from multiplicity towards the mythic henos --- but, this is was an act of subterfuge on my part to see how the Con would respond.

2. Bread out of pugs without hurting them

A pug can be breaded into different colors without making the pug into bread, itself. To "bread" something does not mean to make it into a bread, but rather "to cover with bread crumbs".

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Does the Con seriously argue that covering pugs with bread crumbs would not change the evident color of their coats, provided the bread crumbs were dyed in food coloring? And I say "evident" for I nowhere implied in my initial statement that the pugs coat would be inherently a new color. It is entirely sufficient to make them appear a new color. And if the Con argues that I am using "bread" in the non-standard way, I did clarify the proper way of using the term as a verb in my final statement, saying "The Con has the burden of proof as to why the three normal colors are sufficient and what reason there could possibly be for not breading pugs in more colors".

3. No bake cookies require boiling

To quote a famous Rabbi, "A single white crow proves that the statement 'all crows are black' is false."

All I need to do to smack down the Con's argument here is to show a recipe for no bake cookies that does not involve boiling. Here it is:

http://carrotsncake.com...

True, it involves a food processor, but only in order to slice the materials quicker. If we are applying a colored, wheat-based paint to cover our pugs with, we can use the food processor to stir it prior to applying it to the pug coat. The pug may find discomfort in having the paste applied to its coat, but it will not die.

And yet the Con states, almost as a eulogy,

"Making bread from pugs will kill them.
The resolution applies to all pugs. Therefore all pugs will be killed.
Therefore, pugs will be extinct.
Therefore, there will be no variety of pugs anymore."

To this, I counter:

"Breading pugs will not kill them.
This resolution applies to all pugs. Therefore, all pugs will live.
Therefore, pugs will not be extinct.
And yet, with new colors, the variety of pugs will be even greater."

And, if we look at my initial statement, I said "I believe, "I would like to" and "I think". The entire argument was rooted in my own subjective standards --- and here we see the Con arguing as if it was objective at all, and as if he did not read that I was only presenting my beliefs, my wishes and my thoughts. But, even if I stated them objectively, the basis remains.
Defro

Con

I'm at the hospital right now. I won't have the time and mental/physical strength to provide a detailed rebuttal, so I'll keep it short.



Rebuttal:


"a variety of pug coats sets the advantageous conditions for further stimulation of activity in animate life"

- Pro has committed a red herring fallacy by going off track.

- He is implying that variety is good because of it stimulates mental activity. However, sometimes this stimulation is not good.

- An American Psychologist named Barry Schwartz wrote in his book, "The Paradox of Choice", that variety is not always a good thing. [1] In a the video I embedded to this argument, he explains how if an individual were to buy jeans at a store, if there were many different types of jeans, he would waste time deciding which jeans he would purchase. But no matter which jeans he would buy, when he got home and wore the jeans, he would still be disappointed, knowing that there were so many other choices to choose from and at least one of them must be better than the ones he bought.

- But if an individual went to a store with only one type of jeans, he wouldn't waste the time thinking and choosing jeans, and he wouldn't be disappointed about them later because there was no better alternative he could have chosen.

- Therefore, Pro still hasn't met his BOP.


"So, I have fulfilled the burden of proof quite well here"

- No you didn't.


"For the Con to properly rebut me, he must say that less color is more neurologically stimulating to animate life (which it isn't) and that more color is not advantageous to greater stimulation (though it is)."

- No I don't.

- Furthermore, this wouldn't apply to those who are blind or colorblind.


"To "bread" something does not mean to make it into a bread, but rather "to cover with bread crumbs"."

- This definition is not accepted. You didn't clarify this in Round 1, therefore I was open to interpretation. Your resolution stated in Round 1 is: - You should have clarified that you were using the verb and not the noun. Because you didn't clarify, the noun is what we are using in this debate.

- Furthermore, the title of this debate implies that "bread" is meant to be used as a noun. If it were a verb, it would be in past tense. It would be "Should pugs be breaded in different colors?".



Addendum:

1. Pro still hasn't shown how a variety of pugs is good. He's shown that variety stimulates animate life. At the same time, I've shown how variety is not a good thing. I've explained that a man buying jeans from a store with many different types of jeans will waste time trying on different jeans and thinking which one to buy. And in the end still become disappointed.
Pro hasn't met his BOP.

2. Therefore, my first contention from round 1 still stands. It is a waste of time and effort.

3. My third contention from round 1 still stands as well, and Pro has conceded to this. This resolution would violate Human Rights.




Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...






Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
"It is possible to make pug bread while maintaining the general health and well-being of the pug."
--- mightbenihilism, 2014
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Yeah go ahead.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@mightbenihilism
Will you let me use this debate in a video I'm making for DDO?
I'll still use it whether or not you let me, this is just out of courtesy.
It won't in any way shame or embarrass you. It's just going to be a part of a compilation of amusing things on DDO.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
In response to dinosaur hands,

I didn't think, personally, that Defro was rude. I thought his "no you didn't" added to the overall literally and philosophical qualities of the debate.

The debate started in my mind as an argument that pugs should be "bred", as in paired up with other pug love interests in such a way that their offsring would come out lookin like they're from the movie Tron. However, I realized I mispelled "bred" to "bread", and I decided to run with it to the death.

However, I clearly pointed out that "good" can be synonymous with advantageous --- which means favorable to certain conditions. Defro is correct in his assertion that my pug scheme would violate human rights, but to say that a plurality of pug bread wouldn't cause more stimulation in the color-responding sensors of sentient entities is just not correct. If Defro wins this, it should be on the basis that my contention was a grievous human rights violation --- philosophically, my argument is still quite sound.

When Defro feels better I think we should have a debate on whether pugs can be turned into windmills and/solar panels.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Yeah I usually write in a "character" voice. I had to go into hyper-analytic mode when you brought out your rebuttal, though.

If we debate again I'll do the whole thing in a folksy, Midwest style, replete with non-sequiters about fish I caught and references to TV shows which were only popular in the 70s.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@mightbenihilism

Then its probably a coincidence.
You did change your writing style one or two times, especially during the last round, so there's that.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Nah, I have no other account. Now I'm curious who is typing like me. Hmmm
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@mightbenihilism

lol. Nice one.
I feel like I you have another DDO account and this is your second account.
Your use of syntax and diction is similar to someone else's on DDO.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I hope you feel better, Defro. I must admit I really had to think hard how to contort around your initial rebuttal --- I was almost going to concede until I read a bunch of dictionary definitions to try and work out something remotely plausible. :(
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Fummy yes it is
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
mightbenihilismDefroTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct, I would have given this to Pro since Con played the semantics game, but Pro went along with it - thus negating that point I would have originally given him. S&G - Tie. Both had good spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. This was a weird debate. Pro seemed to be serious at first, but then went along with Con's semantics game which I think ultimately hurt him. As Con pointed out, there wasn't an implied good in variety and Pro failed to show that. For this, Con was able to negate the resolution and thus wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources of equal quality throughout.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
mightbenihilismDefroTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Uh.. this has been confusing. Pro starts out playing it straight, as far as I can tell. Con leads by playing semantics really well. Then Pro returns as if this were a troll debate, and the pattern continues. So I'm not sure how to judge this. If Pro had played it straight, I would've awarded him the win, because Con was playing semantics when the Framer's Intent was extremely obvious. But Pro's troll-like arguments make me think I shouldn't be taking this seriously. And if I'm not taking this seriously, I should accept Con's ridiculous semantics. Semantics aside, Con uses the very last round to show that variety can be bad, and therefore Pro hasn't shown that a variety of pugs is good. As for the conduct point, I feel that Con's quoting Pro's concluding statements and responding with something along the lines of 'No you haven't', or 'No you didn't', is unnecessary and rude.