The Instigator
Luteraar
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

There isn't anything in the world you can't joke about.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Dmot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,130 times Debate No: 36443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Luteraar

Pro

To be clear from the very beginning, I am not some psychopath because I do think you have to be careful where and to who you joke with some topics, for example; Cancer can be funny in some cases, but you shouldn't joke about it in a room full of cancer patients or to someone who just lost someone to cancer.

Everything can be funny but only if you make a good joke; "LOL, his dad had cancer and died" is NOT Funny, but this http://www.lowbird.com... is funny to me and many other people, I believe the fact it is a popular picture all around the Internet is a good reason to say it is funny.

I also believe that being able to joke about everything is an important aspect of freedom of speech.

All of the above was just to explain what the debate is about, those were not my arguments and that is the reason I didn't use any sources. but con should use his first round for arguments because I would like this debate to be con saying what things can not be funny and why and then me saying why they can be funny in some cases, of course I will also post arguments of my own.

I would also like to ask voters not too be too strict on my grammar because I am from the Netherlands so English is not my first language.

This debate may contain jokes that can be considered offensive to some people, it is not my intention to offend anyone but those jokes may be necessary to prove my point.

Good luck to my future opponent I hope this debate will remain friendly.
Dmot

Con

Hi Pro, this is my first debate on here, I am a new member.

It is my position that there are some things we should not joke about. Of course I am not saying that these things should be illegal to joke about, because I believe in freedom of speech. I am saying however that there are some things that are certainly out of bounds for jokes.

Some people may find these jokes funny in some circumstances. However, I contend that this does not matter. There are situations as you mention where a particular joke may be out of place. Some may still laugh. This however does not make it right to joke about that particular thing in that particular situation.

My argument is that regardless of whether or not people find a joke funny, there are some joking topics that are off limits in EVERY situation. The reason is that the situation does not effect the nature of the joke. The joke remains improper because ANY PARTICULAR situation does not override the universal situation of human beings.

Take for example extreme Holocaust jokes. You would certainly agree that some situations these would be out of place (e.g. in a room full of Jews). However, I would say that the PARTICULAR situation does not matter so much as the UNIVERSAL situation. That is, the universal situation that we live in, namely, that less than 100 years ago Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews. This was cruel and unthinkable. Because of how evil this was and how much of a historic effect it had, there is no situation that would justify making a serious Holocaust joke. These are always out of place.

I would argue that there are many other topics which are always out of place. We should never joke about certain crimes against children for example. These are just not right.

To conclude: Reasonable people should simply reject certain offensive jokes. They are not offensive because of the situation but because of the human condition that we all find ourselves in. Certain jokes are off limits and even if we find the urge to laugh, we should control ourselves and know that the joke is just not right.
Debate Round No. 1
Luteraar

Pro

Luteraar forfeited this round.
Dmot

Con

My argument stands
Debate Round No. 2
Luteraar

Pro

Luteraar forfeited this round.
Dmot

Con

Is my opponent forfeiting the debate entirely?
Debate Round No. 3
Luteraar

Pro

Luteraar forfeited this round.
Dmot

Con

Is my opponent forfeiting the debate entirely?
guess so
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
Luteraar
I am so sorry Dmot, after I started this debate I changed my email address because I couldn't access my old one for reasons I won't bore you with (I was able to access it again a few weeks ago) , so I didn't see get the mails saying it was my turn, therefore I forgot about it completely. I am sorry and you fully deserve your points, good luck debating in the future.
Posted by DT 3 years ago
DT
* You can joke about something, but you can't joke about NOTHING, as a state of absolute emptiness were matter, space-time, consciousness and even God do not exist.

If you find something funny about NOTHING, it must be because you suffer from a mental illness.

* You can't also joke about an explanation of the joke since there is no better way to kill a joke than to explain it.
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
"can't" or "shouldn't"
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
It's a stupid debate. Pro will always just say it's "black humor" if the subject is inappropriate.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Make this a three round debate, it's far to many rounds for such a basic topic.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
LuteraarDmotTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct to Con for finishing the debate. Pro forfeited every round after the first... - S&G to Con for more content. - Obviously Con's arguments stand. - Pro used a source... Con did not. However, Pro doesn't deserve any points, so the point goes to no one.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
LuteraarDmotTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
LuteraarDmotTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con's argument is unchallenged.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
LuteraarDmotTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF