The Instigator
padfo0t
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

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: 10/18/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,820 times Debate No: 5752
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

padfo0t

Pro

I hope you had a good retreat jh.
I know I did (except when I spent twenty mins looking 4 my bag)

The above statement is absolutely true and I know you know it.
But, please, argue with me. I find such things entertaining.
burningpuppies101

Con

Post an argument, and then the debate can start.
Debate Round No. 1
padfo0t

Pro

hmmm, trixy hobbit.
Who says that you get to do that?
As I see it, you might be agreeing with me for all I know, and I will win!

Slaughter is just fine with almost all people.
It doesn't affect/effect them at all!
In my opinion, it is just surprising when they hear about it, that's all.
Therefore, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAUGHTER!!!

I win so far.
burningpuppies101

Con

So the way I see it, my opponent is trying to prove that it is perfectly fine by ethical standards to slaughter. He has not mentioned what. From the topic, I can only assume he is going to affirm the entire topic. Therefore, the way I see it, my opponent is trying to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in any case. Therefore, I only have to show one case where slaughter is wrong, and I win. Heres a chain of logic:

The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter.
My opponent has not provided any clarification to the topic.
We must therefore assume that he wants to debate the whole topic.
My opponent's job is to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases.
I have to prove it is not, but I only need to prove it once to win.

Definitions:
morally: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
slaughter:the act of killing

Refutations:

Restated, you are saying that the act of killing is fine with almost all people. Wrong. Plus, you haven't shown any proof. You just made an assumption. I win on this point.


I kill you. From your above point, it doesn't affect you at all. I have slaughtered you, and you claim that it doesn't affect you.


You said it yourself. IN YOUR OPINION. Since when do opinions win debates? I win on this point as well. Also, again, you fail to prove the point. I'm very sure that I and most others will be suprised to hear that a close relative or friend just got slaughtered and killed. Common sense.


Look above. I just proved you wrong. I win on this claim.

My own contentions:
1. Killing is wrong. Nothing gives us the right to take life. We may do it, but we can never justify it. Even if it is necessary, it may not be moral. Morality is a unbendable law. Either you are doing a morally right act or you are not. There is not middle ground. Killing is a wrong action. Killing goes against just about every system of ethics we use.

2. Because killing is wrong, slaughter is wrong, by extension of logic. Therefore I win.

Example: Slaughtering a human is wrong. It is against the law and you will be punished for it. It is also wrong by just about every system of ethics available.

I win, since I have shown all my opponents arguments to be false, and presented valid arguments that prove my side of the case.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
padfo0t

Pro

Dear Con,

I have no choice but to disagree with the following statement:
"The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter."

I must admit that you have the wrong idea for this debate. The topic is actually:
"There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)"

Also, I do not have to prove there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases.
I have to prove, however, there is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter, in all cases.

I agree with your definition of slaughter, but slaughter is irrelevant to this debate.

From the preceding statements we can conclude your following arguments have no use in this here debate, and I shall forget them as useless rubbish.

to remind the readers, I make the following statement capitalized:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG, MORALLY, WITH SLAUGHTER, LOUISIANA.

Yes, that is right. I did not mean the act of killing as you have stated I did, and I have clarified the topic now we can begin with useful arguments.

To the readers,
PLEASE IGNORE ANY REFERENCES OR ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY MY OPONENT BECAUSE HE WAS THOUROUGHLY CONFUSED. THANK YOU.

Unless, you can name one thing wrong with the Louisiana town containing 1031 residents by the name of Slaughter, I win this debate. That was my point; there is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter.
As you can see, all references to Slaughter have been given a capitol S as not to confuse my opp with the killing definition.

I rest my case (until next time.)

pS
I repeat,

PLEASE IGNORE ANY REFERENCES OR ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY MY OPONENT BECAUSE HE WAS THOUROUGHLY CONFUSED.
burningpuppies101

Con

Dear Pro.

"The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter.">
Really? Last Time I checked, that was the essence of the debate.

Same difference.

Wrong, look at the topic line.


This statement has nothing to do with the debate, as I will show later on.


Too late, as you will soon see.


The topic has nothing to do with Slaughter the town. I'll tell you why later.

Everyone, my opponent has decided to present semi-valid arguments saying that the town of Slaughter has nothing morally wrong with it. I'm not going to attack the statement, but I'll say this; even if I concede this point, I still win the debate because I have shown how slaughter is wrong. The fact that Slaughter in the topic line has nothing to do with the fact that it excludes slaughter, the verb. That would be like saying that any topic that happens to have a towns name in it must therefore be talking about the town, not the actual word we are all talking about.

Many words can be capitalized, but that does not automatically exclude the fact that the word must defended on all counts. Just because the word has a possibility of being a town's name, it does not automatically exclude all other meanings of the word.

You, my opponent, have attempted to change this topic, in the middle of the debate. If you wanted to argue in favor of a town, and only a town, you should have said that earlier. It is too late to change the debate, and what you want to debate about. If you wanted to debate about a town called Slaughter and only about a town called Slaughter, then you should have said so before we started debating. Also, I have provided good logic as to why you must defend all of the resolution, not just select parts of it that you happen to think will help you.

Here is that logic again:
My opponent has not provided any clarification to the topic.
We must therefore assume that he wants to debate the whole topic.
My opponent's job is to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases.
I have to prove it is not, but I only need to prove it once to win.

Also, you have not refuted any of my points. Because nothing in your previous 2 speeches have attacked my points, then I win this debate. In the last round of the debate, which we are approaching, you may only use points and arguments used earlier in the round. Not doing so would be against the rules of debate. Seeing as you have not attacked my points, they can be extended to this speech, and through the above logic, into the final round. They have therefore been dropped through this entire debate. Therefore, I win.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
padfo0t

Pro

Dear burningpuppies101,

I am dearly sorry that you are hopelessly confused. The essence of this debate is definitely:
There is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter. (notice the capital S)

As for the proving explanation, I was trying to make it as clear as possible in the case of your confusion once again.

I can assure you that I have read the topic, not to mention written it, and I completely and thouroughly understand what I have written.

You cannot seem to get the topic of this debate in your head and it seems as if this debate is deating what this deate is debating! Seriously, the topic is (in clearer terms)
There is nothing morally wrong with the town of Slaughter, Louisiana.
This is the same as the topic originally presented.

This has nothing to do with killing and everything to do with the town in Louisiana.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KILLING AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOWN IN LOUISIANA.

Notice that I took the time to capitalize every mention of Slaughter, and you still seem to think that I am referencing slaughter, which I of course am not.

Because you have not provided any evidence of the town of Slaughter being morally wrong, I win, unless you present it in the next round which is not a good strategy.

]
burningpuppies101

Con

Dear padfo0t,

I am dearly sorry that you are hopelessly confused. The essence of this debate is definitly:
There is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter.

I can assure that I have read the topic, and I completley and thouroughly understand what I have written.

You cannot seem to get the topic of this debate in your head and it seems as if this debate is debating what this debate is debating!

Ok, now I'll be serious.
Padfo0t, you cannot redefine the topic in the middle of a debate. If you wanted to debate about a town called Slaughter, then you should have mentioned that in the topic line. You were merely trying to get me to debate about the topic, and then claim I was not debating the actual topic.

Again, I have shown that you must defend the entire topic. I agree, PART of the topic we are debating is about a town called Slaughter. I'm going to concede that fact that there is a chance that there is nothing wrong with a town called Slaughter. However, that is only a tiny portion of this debate. Padfo0t, you fail to realize that this debate is also about Slaughter, the verb. You can capitalize it all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that Slaughter is still killing. To Slaughter someone is to kill them. It doesn't matter is you capitalize it. Here is a valid example as to how Slaughter does not reference the town.

Slaughter is a wrong act, and is punishable by law.

Just because one word is capitalized, it doesn't negate the fact that there are multiple meaning of the word. You have only argued about one small insignificant portion of the word. I have argued that there is something morally wrong with slaughter. You have not provided any arguments against my arguments, so they can be extended to this speech, and we can assume you agree with me, since you have not taked time to refute them. Therefore, I win because I have proven that there is indeed something morally wrong with slaughter.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
no, that would be specifying, which I did not do, (not topicly)
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Just to clear all the hatred up peoples,
I did not change the debate."

Actually, yeah, you kind of did... you changed it from something nonspecific to something specific.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Just to clear all the hatred up peoples,
I did not change the debate. Also, It's not like making him/her lose wouild ruin their entire life.
Geesh.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct? Con - Changing the debate using semantics is low.
Spelling and Grammar? Con
More convincing arguments? Con - He did a good job arguing against Pro even after the goal post was so ashamedly moved.
Sources? Tie
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
hah good one ragner :P
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
http://www.fedstats.gov...

Here ya go.

(Slaughter is part of East Feliciana Parish).
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
the debate topic is extremely misleading creating this as a trap i dont support that as a legitamate debate there for puppys win
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
dear hamster,

i dont like the fact that it is a trick debates arent meant to be fooled with and even so if that is your debate it is a boring subject (tricks are for kids), puppy win this one sorry
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
dear iq_two,

Notice I made no arument in the first round to lead him into thinking it was a slaughter debate.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
dear mastajake, my picture depicts a hamster, not a puppy.
;)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tmf_luvs_debate 8 years ago
tmf_luvs_debate
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
padfo0tburningpuppies101Tied
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:07