The Instigator
BigMac
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
asiansarentnerdy
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,931 times Debate No: 9274
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

BigMac

Pro

THIS DEBATE IS IN NO WAY FORMAL, do not accept this debate if all you are going to do is be snobby and say how these types of debates are a waste of time. All this is about is that I just realized recently that i have only been in three debates on this site and I don't feel like researching arguments for a real debate.

In South Park Episode 611, the citizens of South Park, in a desperate attempt to save their children from abductors, ask Tuong Lu Kim (the owner of the City Wok) to build a large "city wall", essentially a remake of the Great Wall of China. Every time Tuong repairs the wall, the Mongolians return time and again to destroy the wall, just to leave after reverting a portion to rubble. The point of this debate is for the pro to prove that the Mongolians were lawful in destroying the wall. The con must prove that the Mongolians broke some sort serious law in doing their act.

One of the many Mongolian scenes:
http://www.southparkstudios.com...
The full episode:
http://www.southparkstudios.com...

this debate has no standard setup of rules seeing as the topic itself cannot be researched very deeply. Anything, anything at all not mentioned in the episode itself can be imposed by a debater as truth. For example i could say Tuong had been disrespectful to the Mongolians and therefor they had a morall allowance to retaliate. But, this debate is about LEGAL standings, not morality.

I will leave Round 1 open for my opponent to begin or once he/she accepts they may postpone putting their arguments until the second round as well. This looks to be a fun debate, i wish my opponent Good Luck!
asiansarentnerdy

Con

Thanks to my opponent for this debate, it looks like an interesting one.

The basic point of this argument is that it was wrong for the Mongolians to break down the wall that Tuong Lu Kim built. I'm sure that is in the general consensus of most level-headed, just-minded people to know that you do not just go around damaging, invading, or destroying other people's things. That is why there is no trespassing and no vandalism rules/laws in most neighborhoods and communities.

It is unjust for someone to go and damage someone else's hard work and effort. Obviously, South Park is very unrealistic, but that episode shows that Kim built a very long wall, which, as my opponent stated in round 1, is a remake of the Great Wall. Seeing as one man did ALL of that hard work, it would hurt him a lot for a crowd of Mongolians to continually destroy his hard work.

Unfortunately, all the citizens in South Park are stupid, so they probably wouldn't sue each other. But if Kim were to sue the group of Mongolians in that one South Park episode, he'd have an easy case to win. He could sue for damage of property, trespassing, and vandalism. The Mongolians, having no defense except for that they wanted to have some fun, would have to be forced to pay and fix Kim's Great Wall.
The Mongolian's side of this argument is easily thwarted, and I stand in negation of the resolution that my opponent has made, "The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall."
Debate Round No. 1
BigMac

Pro

Thank you, to my opponent.

First off, nowhere does it say that the random Mongolians living in the Rocky Mountains were citizens of South Park or even America. I say that the Mongolians' actions were MORALLY wrong, but still legal in the sense of American law and its legal citizens.

CONTENTION 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Mongolians were not American citizens they are basically non-existent to the legal system. You could say they are basically a part of nature since they choose to disobey the Social Contract and thus betray society itself by deciding to enter the Wild and live in the State of Nature.. Thus they become savage beasts and unaccountable for by the law. Basically they can be called animals. If a deer runs in front of your car when you are going 60 mph and totals it, but survives, can you have the deer sued or jailed?
CONTENTION 2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuong Lu Kim was working for the City of South Park when he built the wall, which he did completely against his will, so he PERSONALLY could not sue for all his hard work being thwarted. The citizens of South Park only payed for the wall to protect themselves from child abductors. So the fact that the Mongolians destroyed property is true,, but Tuong has no legal ability to sue the Mongolians for obliterating his -- scratch that, THE CITY'S -- wall. Yet another example: Can the hard working men who built the World Trade Centers from 1966 to 1971 sue Al Queda for wasting their hard work?

I still stand in firm confidence that "The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall." Thank you again to my opponent for accepting this debate.
asiansarentnerdy

Con

I'll start right off with refuting my opponent's points.

When my opponent says that nowhere does it prove that the random Mongolians in the South Park episode were citizens, it never states anywhere that the Mongolian's were not citizens either. We should, however, assume them as South Park residents since it is unlikely that they came all the way from Mongolia just to destroy Kim's wall. It is more likely that they were just outcasts living on the outskirts of South Park and came to destroy the Great Wall looking for fun.

Rebuttal- C1
As I have already proved that the Mongolians should be counted as citizens of South Park in my introduction, my opponent's first contention becomes nearly pointless. Nevertheless, I will continue to break it down further.
Just because you disobey the Social Contract does not make you part of nature, and therefore a "beast". If this were to be true, nearly everyone of the human population would be roaming around in the woods as beasts. This is why we have laws, and punishments if we break those set laws or rules, as in the Social Contract. That is why no human being are equivalent to animals. In many cases if an animal like a dog causes destruction, they hold the humans responsible for the dog accountable for whatever damage the dog has caused.

Rebuttal- C2
While it may be true that Kim does not have the ability to personally sue the Mongolians for the damage they caused to the Great Wall, he could team up with the city of South Park to collectively sue the Mongolians. It is quite easy to determine that the Mongolians have broken a lot of laws by breaking the wall. Now that we have determined it is the city's wall, they would get even greater punishment for causing damage to city property. And it is good that my opponent brought up the 9/11 reference. I'm sure everyone knows how badly the 9/11 suspects were prosecuted for the crimes and damages they caused, in Guantanamo Bay or in courts. The same thing would happen to the Mongolians, except on a smaller scale, because essentially, the Mongolians did the same thing the terrorists on 9/11 did, except on a smaller scale.

From the above rebuttals, it is easy to determine that the Mongolians did,in fact, break the law by destroying Kim's wall.
Debate Round No. 2
BigMac

Pro

My opponent states again that it was "Unlikely for the Mongolians to come all the way from Mongolia just to destroy Kim's wall." And that because of this they must be citizens. My opponent fails to realize that NOTHING in the world of South Park makes any sense, whatsoever. Also, I stated in the initial post of this debate that,"Anything, anything at all not mentioned in the episode itself can be imposed by a debater as truth." So by this I have decided that the Mongolians were not citizens and therefor my first argument still stands.

For my Second contention, I am sorry to say that I have never seen anyone sue a terrorist, like my opponent suggests. Moving past that, with the statement of fact that I have imposed onto this debate that the Mongolians were, in fact, not citizens of the United States, it is near impossible to prosecute them of any serious crime. Maybe, in their society, it is not only accepted to break down random giant walls, but also encouraged. If that is so, the Mongolians had no idea that they were breaking any rules or laws and thus cannot be prosecuted as such.

For these explanations and refutations, my first two points still stand. VOTE PRO!
asiansarentnerdy

Con

My opponent missed the second rebuttal that I made against his first contention. If we do in fact concede that the Mongolians are citizens (I missed that sentence..-__-) , I have already made another rebuttal against my opponent's first contention in R2 which he has not responded to. Therefore, his first contention does not stand.

For my rebuttal against my opponent's second contention, perhaps he has misunderstood me. If you read my rebuttal, I never made any mention of "suing" a terrorist, rather, I only proposed the idea of PROSECUTING the Mongolians like the terrorists from 9/11. And my opponent is seriously mistaken when he states, "Moving past that, with the statement of fact that I have imposed onto this debate that the Mongolians were, in fact, not citizens of the United States, it is near impossible to prosecute them of any serious crime.", how else did the US prosecute the terrorists from 9/11?
We are not blind, it is MORE than obvious that those suspected of 9/11 and those convicted of it were DEFINITELY prosecuted and punished accordingly. And we all have a general consensus of what is or is not moral, and I'm sure that breaking down rules is a big no-no.

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate, and because I have successfully attacked and rebutted each of each of his points, mine still stand, and I refute the fact that the Mongolians were legally allowed to break down the wall.
VOTE CON, for all the reasons above.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
Mongawrians.

Sheety wok.

Classic.
Posted by BigMac 8 years ago
BigMac
not really..... that was my favorite episode of south park for YEARS before you posted that vid.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
You got the idea from the video I posted though, right?
Posted by BigMac 8 years ago
BigMac
Uh no thank you, im done with this debate :D
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Wtf? You should have made it "The mongolians were justified in breaking down the city wall". Challenge me Bigmac, and I'll take PRO
Posted by BigMac 8 years ago
BigMac
ah. i, with only three debates, have not been vote bombed (except once by usaf1121)
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Always. When I was bombed, all of my votes in the voting period became losses.
Posted by BigMac 8 years ago
BigMac
afraid of Votebombers?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"
Voting Period: The voting period will last indefinitely.
"

No.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
BigMacasiansarentnerdyTied
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 
Vote Placed by BigMac 7 years ago
BigMac
BigMacasiansarentnerdyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by porkbunlover 8 years ago
porkbunlover
BigMacasiansarentnerdyTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
BigMacasiansarentnerdyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06