There should be more action taken in cases of "Swatting"
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept. As nothing was defined in the resolution or in the first round, I will propose definitions.
1) Swatting: the intentional act of killing a fly, moth, or other small insect with a fly-swatter.
2) More: additional.
3) Action: a specific act.
4) Taken: a quite good movie starring Liam Neeson as Bruce Mills, a retired CIA agent. Also, it can be used as a synonym of "do."
5) Cases: specific events.
Seeing that Pro forfiets the debate to Con, I'd stop. But I am no ordinary debater, for I shall present a constructive to futher my case.
When one swatts an insect, once is enough.
Pro is calling for you not to stop at one swat, he thinks you ought to take further action. He thinks "swatting" is not enough, that you should pulverize the fly, incinerate him, perhaps. But is that nessesary? No. No it is not.
In an interview with Guder Volchinez, a three-time gold medalist in fly swatting, 2 meters, stated:
"Ven eye svat zee fly, eye use zee precision uf a tiger, but eye alveys make sure tu recognize one zing. Eye unly need to svat zee fly vunce, and unly vunce. Eif eye use mure zen one svat, et is unnesszary, and eye may get a foul fure unneszezary ruffnez (1)."
(Note: this quotation has been translated to the best of our ability into english.)
If you are to take anyone's word that swatting a fly once is enough to kill it, take the word of Guder Volchinez. Also, P. Ickle, PhD, has writen on the effects to a fly after one swat.
"It dies (2)."
Seeing all the evidence before you, it is clear to see that it only takes one swat to kill a fly. No further action is needed to kill it.
Pro's plan to gas all the insects in the world is clearly flawed. The food chains that these insects are a part of would most certainly suffer: birds would starve, certain plants would grow without predators, etc.. Pro's plan ignores this simple fact, that it would ruin almost every ecosystem. Thus, I am not only "another animal lover," I am one that campaigns to not destroy the ecosystems by killing off every insect on the face of the earth. For this reason, and my unrefuted arguments above, vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 2 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This was almost a clean sweep for con and this debate serves as a reminder to always put definitions. Conduct goes to con for the following calling for his opponent to forfeit and refusing to put forth any arguments until the final round. S/G goes to con as I had to read pro's "arguments" a few times in order to understand what he was saying. Learn to use proper spelling. Pro's Round 3 "arguments" were unintelligible because the whole text was a huge run-on sentence. Pro argues that only one swat is enough to kill flies. Con argues that we need to round them up and put them all in a gas chamber. Con effectively shows that pro's plan is ridiculous and the ecosystem will suffer. Sources are tied because con's sources were fake.
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.