The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped
Debate Rounds (4)
1. No forfeiting
2. No trolling
3. No kritiks
4. No semantics
5. Sources will be posted in the debate, like you post your video, and below, like you normally do, you post your sources.
6. Comment if wanting to accept.
7. This will be a null-voting debate. If you vote, cast a null vote, and you need to post a RFD, but a null-vote. In the RFD of course, you can say who do you think won the debate, but just make a null-vote. Votes that are not null/ or a tie will be reported, and removed
8. Not following the rules is an automatic loss
It is a marathon swim in Brazil in the olympics, it is in a sewage which can fill over 480 olympic-sized swimming pools. As it is a sewage, there are rotting rats and dead dogs, and it is easy for you to get an infection. I say we should stop this, when my opponent says we should not.
Comment if wanting to accept!!!
I'll be making my case in this round.
O1: This is not a video debate. I wanted to cross everything out of video, but I missed on. This is not a video debate. The debate is a null voting debate too. If any votes are not a tie, they will be reported, and removed (unless it is a concession). This is not a video debate, so you don't need to surrender.
O2: I'm mostly going to use New York Times as a source of the debate.
My framework will be centered around Utilitarianism. In merriam webster, the definition is, "the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people . Jeremy Bentham, which is the founder of Utilitarianism defined Util. as, "as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action ." He was talking about more of the quantity than the quality, and later on, John Stuart Mill expanded more, not only the quantity, also the quality of pleasure.
How can we weigh this? I think it is of happiness. Augustine said, "all men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness ."
All of these people said pleasure, or happiness to define utility, and the moral action is basically happiness, and happiness helps the greatest amount of people. Therefore, my framework will be weighed on happiness, and the thing that brings more happiness will be it. I will be making arguments based on this. I will be weighing the happiness of the marathon swimmers.
My framework says that if I prove that the Olympic sewage swim does not bring pleasures, I win. If my opponent shows that it brings happiness, he wins (though it is a null vote.)
Let's give you a experience of the Olympic sewage swim. Fernando Rosado, who is a expert at water quality at Brazil said that the virus levels 1.7 million times of a California Beach, considered hazardous. He says that it was very likely to get infected in the waters .
Kristina Mena, a expert in risk management says that athletes who ingest 3 teaspoons of water will get a 99% chance of getting infected .
This easily shows the risks and the danger in swimming in the waters. You can get highly infected in these waters, and this is dangerous, therefore this is not showing any happiness. Lynne Cox, who is the author, who seems like a swimmer says that no one should swim in these waters, and says many people agree. Lynne Cox is good at identifying this because he wrote many books. And, because many people agree that we should not be in these waters, this is not giving any happiness.
If we ban these waters, then we don't need to swim in the Brazil sewage, and that will bring happiness, because if you swim, you do not get happiness, so if you don't, logically, you will have happiness. Therefore, happiness goes to my side, and please vote for Pro.
Con will probably say that we can always clean the waters, but this won't happen. There are less than 100 days for it . This will not work, because the Brazilian National Olympic says they need 8 water treatment plants, and last year only one was made, so it will be 8 years, and 8 years and 100 days have a big difference.
Even they conceded that they can't clean it. A secretary said, "It's not going to happen.", and if you see my statistics, that's right.
I've shown that the waters are very dangerous, and it will not bring happiness. The news article says that if Brazil can't clean, they have to move. I've shown they can't clean the waters, therefore, please vote Pro!!!!
 The International New York Times, April 31st, The Olympic sewage swim, by Lynne Cox
Therefore, Vote PRO
"My framework says that if I prove that the Olympic sewage swim does not bring pleasures, I win. If my opponent shows that it brings happiness, he wins"
This doesn't tie in with the resolution that the sewage swim to be stopped. I would suggest it be altered to "If Pro proves that the Olympic sewage swim should be stopped, Pro wins. If con proves it should not be stopped, con wins"
Olympic sports weren't made for the happiness of their participants. It is not just an entertainment outlet. Since when does boxing or wrestling give happiness? The losing team has always ended up with bruises and lack of morale, and that doesn't justify the sport being stopped. Sports is a ground for competition of the physical prowess, and doesn't necessarily bring happiness.
I had heard something called extreme sports. I think we can put the sewage swim under that. Besides, why would you ingest water while swimming? They could use some masks or something similar to make sure they don't ingest water while swimming.
No it can't be fully cleaned, but some disinfectants and chemical treatment could reduce the risk of death from 99 percent to perhaps 80 or 70 percent. Plus, pro hasn't mention what infection shall be caught, so I would assume it is curable.
While neither I nor pro would swim in these waters, still there are people out there who want to try out these kind of extreme sports. This can be justified by the fact that the sewage swim still has an adequate number of volunteers. Those who want to do this should be allowed to this. Who knows, maybe these swimmers actually feel happy after completing the swim. While there are people who think the sewage swim is wrong and extreme, these swimmers want to take some risks at their own free will, and the common people have no right to stop them. Everything has risks attached, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. While forging you could burn yourself, while parachuting your parachute may fail, while cutting wood you may cut yourself, but still people should be allowed to do it. Skydiving, underwater swimming etc.
O1: My opponent provides no offense in the debate, he only makes his rebuttals. Therefore, it is impossible for me to actually make my rebuttals in this round, because there is nothing to rebut. Therefore, I will only defend my case this round.
My opponent says to change the burdens into that, but does not even say why we should do it into that. My opponent has to buy my happiness framework, because he did no attempt to refute it, and refuting it in the third round, or in the middle of the debate is bad conduct, so it is not allowed. Therefore, you have to buy my happiness framework, because it is the only framework.
Con says that not a sports give happiness. Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers. There is happiness, as they achieved their goal in being a boxer, so for them, there is happiness. However, in my sources I proved that the athletes hate this sport, and they main point they play is that it brings happiness, and they like it. But this does not bring happiness, so this rebuttal is wrong.
Con says that who will ingest water in swimming, and they can wear masks. I said that, and if you touch or swim in the waters, you have 99 percent infected, as I said in the source. So this is a bad rebuttal, and it is impossible to do so.
Con says that we can decrease it a bit, but the 8 treatment plants are decreasing. How can 480 swimming pools be clean by just 8? It is decreasing, and it won't work anyways, so this is dropped too, and the rebuttal is wrong.
Con says that some people might like it. Con says they have the liberty to do so. That is only some. Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? No. Therefore this argument is rebutted. Also, in my happiness and Util framework, it was the majority, and the majority do not like it. And, this is a bare assertion, therefore this argument is rebutted 3 times.
I have successfully refuted, and defended my case, and refuted my opponent's argument which doesn't even count as an argument, because it is a bare assertion. My arguments are dropped by my opponent, and my opponent's arguments are refuted, therefore, vote Pro.
The happiness framework wasn't ideal as something that doesn't cause happiness doesn't mean it should stop. Some examples are war and cancer treatment. But since we are already into the debate, I will continue with it.
"Con says that some people might like it. Con says they have the liberty to do so. That is only some. Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? "
I don't think the Olympic Sewage swim is mandatory, is it? Therefore those who are doing it must have some reason to do it. Indirectly winning the race would still give happiness to the athlete, or completing it provide a sense of accomplishment. Furthermore, no one else is suffering as it is not mandatory. While the athletes may find that they hate the race after doing it, it would satisfy their curiosity and also become a memorable achievement that will bring happiness.
Pro hasn't mentioned what type of infection is it, is it curable, is it lethal or nonlethal etc. We are blindly presuming that the infection is something more than a cough or cold, or some other slight problem. Furthermore, I quote "Kristina Mena, a expert in risk management says that athletes who ingest 3 teaspoons of water will get a 99% chance of getting infected " It clearly says that drinking the water will be the cause of infection, not touching it.
The athletes who did must do it for a reason that indirectly leads to happiness, therefore pro's argument is refuted. Some plausible reasons include simple victory, a challenge to oneself, extreme curiosity into the experience etc.
Pro said that "Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers." Its simple then. Why are there sewage swimmers? Because they want to be sewage swimmers. They have achieved their goal of swimming through the sewage.
The International New York Times, April 31st, The Olympic sewage swim
I have not found a free link to this source yet, therefore I am at a disadvantage here. Pro's other two sources include a dictionary and wikipedia's concept of Utilitarianism, and I am not able to verify pro's facts on the sport. I would request pro to give me a link to it if there is one, for the New York times is not delivered at my location. I can debate without it too, but it will be more problematic.
I think the free will argument wasn't a rebuttal, was it? Therefore I had some arguments for the offense.
Well at least a small portion can be treated, and furthermore, the length may not be 480 swimming pools. It can easily be reduced to the less dangerous area (the treatment can start slightly before the Olympics, such as an year before the event) and the number of laps increased.
Since this is a null vote debate, I don't think the "vote pro" slogan would help.
My opponent says that my happiness framework is wrong, but doesn't say what we should use, therefore, you have to buy the happiness framework. Con doesn't make any other framework. Con says that it is not mandatory. Well, they can quit, but people will probably swear, and make him feel bad, therefore, they have to. Imagine if Federer will quit a match, what do you think will happen? Con says that winning will bring happiness, but there is only one winner. The others don't have happiness.
Pro says that in my source, I only talked about ingesting it. Well, sometimes you can ingest water, and one of them said if you are in the waters, you would be infected. The infection is illness, which could kill, as it says in the New York Times, maybe more fatal.
I addressed this in the framework, Con fails to refute my argument.
My opponent has no source when I do. It is only logical for you to pick my side then. I made sourced assertions, when my opponent isn't, so my opponent is wrong, as he has no source to defend his claim.
That's your fault. It's not in the internet, and I am not wasting my time to try to find it. You find it. Why should I? You have no source. Therefore, I should have sources.
That is just a bare assertion, you can't even call that an argument, and anyways, I refuted it, and my opponent doesn't defend it.
Therefore, vote Pro.
Since Pro's source is unavailable, neither can I verify or refute the facts given in it nor I can determine its reliability. I didn't use sources as I abhor research and it wasn't required for this is more of a debate on moral grounds.
I already gave a reason as to why it was wrong and recommended to use the resolution as the basis, but since this is the final round it won't be useful now.
Pro still hasn't rebutted my arguments as to the infection lethality and cure. Illness is merely the act of being ill, which could be anything ranging from cancer to simple cold. In the old days, even cough and cold could kill after a few months, and thus the infection may not be serious enough in today's world.
I quote "Con says that not a sports give happiness. Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers. There is happiness, as they achieved their goal in being a boxer, so for them, there is happiness." "Why are there sewage swimmers? Because they want to be sewage swimmers. They have achieved their goal of swimming through the sewage" "The athletes who did must do it for a reason that indirectly leads to happiness, therefore pro's argument is refuted. Some plausible reasons include simple victory, a challenge to oneself, extreme curiosity into the experience etc."
Therefore the happiness argument has already been refuted and has not been acknowledged by pro.
In the last round I said it is optional and only people who want to do it participate and therefore there is no loss of happiness, yet pro didn't rebut. My argument still stands. Pro claimed "Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? " But since it was not mandatory and no one is being forced, this rebuttal is invalid.
The sewage swim mustn't be stopped as it gives happiness to its participants, provides a sense of achievement and is still a competitive sport.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.