The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unitomic
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Those who support bull fighting are backwards and ignorent, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Unitomic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 72463
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Bull fighting is cruel, therefore anybody who supports it is cruel. They may not be cruel individually if they are ignorant to the cruelty they are supporting, but then they are ignorant. People who cannot recognize the injustice, are bereft of a sense of morality that my 5 year old already shows. For me, this demonstrates an extreme lack of awareness, bordering retarded. I understand that human culture has a history of extreme ignorance, and its considered a cultural sport that dates back, but I think people in the modern world are not excused by such things. This is because the knowledge is there that animals are creatures and that love is good. To be honest, I don't know what life lessons need to be lacking, to allow for acceptance of bullfighting. For 'love' is an ancient message, 'not to be cruel' is also pretty ancient. One who thinks bull fighting is fair and should be continued, is if not cruel, pretty socially/mentally lacking from a philosophical perspective.

also as a side-note: Its not a 'fight'.
Unitomic

Con

Preface: Given that there are only two rounds, and I’m the second part of the round, I am required by rationality to post my arguments in the First Round (of course Pro has already done so).


Synopsis:The Resolution is quite simple. “Those who support bullfighting are backwards and ignorant, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all. (fixed for grammar) Let’s break this down. Firstly, Pro does not detail a degree of support, nor does he specific a quantity of people, meaning all people who fit the description are included. Lastly, Pro states them to be either “backwards and ignorant”, or “selfish and cruel”. Or both.

Proposition I: Definitions

I shall go over a few definitions of importance here, since Pro has failed to list any.


Backwards: (Of a movement) in the direction of one’s back {1}

Ignorant: lacking knowledge or information {2}

Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. {3}

Cruel: used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it {4}

Pro’s 5 Year Old: A presumed to exist child of a relative biological age of 5, with an an uncertain moral development, possibly ranging from nonexistent to that similar to an elderly hermit.

Retarded: A petty insult which has cost Pro Conduct.

Retarded (2): characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc. {5}

Philosophical Perspective: A pseudo-intellectual statement which allows people to provide the appearance of depth to their beliefs, without actually adding substance.


Proposition II: BoP and the Requirements to Win

BoP is a complicated matter, however there are three standard ways to determine who has is. Whoever is Pro, Whoever instigated the debate, and whoever is demanding a change from the status quo. Now Pro fits all three, and therefore must provide the evidence to support his side. Pro must fully affirm the resolution, which means Pro must show that ALL people with even the slightest support whatsoever for bullfighting fit into either Category A (Backwards and Ignorant), or Category B (Selfish and Cruel). Not part of a category. The entirety of at least one category. If Pro fails to provide adequate support for this resolution, then he fails to affirm the resolution. I need only to show that not every person who supports bullfighting doesn't fit in one of those categories. Despite absolutely desiring to, I have determined to take this debate mostly serious. Mostly.


Case I: Category A; Subject Group are Not All “Ignorant”

Thesis:This is a rather simple matter. Pro says they may fit into Category A (Backwards/Ignorant). I will show that not all people who support Bullfighting are “ignorant”.


Rationalization: Given the definition, we know that ignorant means lacking knowledge. Now it is for Pro to show that they are in fact lacking knowledge (and not by just saying they are dumb). In spite of that, I shall preempt it. Ernest Hemingway. He was one of the foremost literary forces in the 20th century, {7} Among his works are included; A Farewell to Arms,{8} For whom the Bell Tolls,{9} and The Old Man and the Sea.{10} He even had the honour of his books being included in the infamous Nazi Book Burnings. {11} If that doesn’t say “intellectual”, I don’t know what will. Now Ernest Hemingway was a lover of the Bullfights.{12} Are there anyone else? How about Alexander Fiske-Harrison {13} (A name which screams intellect). This man was a journalist and eventual book writer who adored the art. But if you want book smart, let’s try Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado (a Spanish name if I’ve ever heard one). {14} This man was a Yale University Professor of Physiology who is known for extensive work which has opened many doors into study of the brain. What does he support? Bull fighting. Top that. I shall make a jab at the “backwards” remark in a later Case.


Conclusion: This shows that not all supporters of Bullfighting can be considered “Ignorant”. I have given an excellent example that there are in fact intelligent supporters of the art out there, and in doing so, I now leave Pro with the immense task of providing real proof that the vast majority of supporters are ignorant. And by vast, I mean so great that the Voters can actually conclude there to be a real and overwhelming correlation. I will reiterate that, unlike I, Pro can not prove his point through simply listing a few examples.


Case II: Category B; Subject Group are Not All Selfish


Thesis: This is also a simple thing. Pro makes the claim that Supporters of Bullfights fit into Category B. (Selfish/Cruel) I shall prove that many Bullfight supporters are in fact not selfish.


Rationalization: We are all aware of what “Selfish” is. Technically we are all a little selfish. So I’ll work on the idea that Pro means substantially more so than normal. Say hello to the female Matador, Conchita Cintron. {13} She was considered by Orson Welles (another high intellect supporter) to be a great representative of women in Spain at the time. She was also known for spending many of her later years striving to save the Portuguese Water Dog. {14} Want to talk about selfishness? This woman has done more to help an endangered species than most could ever say they’ve done. I would hit harder here, but I have a character limit I intend not to hit.


Conclusion: This has been a rather short Case, but as I said, I have a character limit. And again, Pro must prove the an overwhelming number of supporters are actually cruel and selfish (and not just somewhat so. We are all a little inside. Pro must prove these people carry these traits are unusually inherent in the entirety of the supporters life.)


Counter-Case I: The Opponent's “Argument”


Summarization: Pro has made a confusing and messy first round. I shall work to point out the issues in his cases here.


Counters: Pro starts with a massive “Association Fallacy”. {17} Essentially Pro says that by supporting something, we somehow carry all of that things traits.I support the US. Does that mean I support our “enhanced interrogations”? No. Does supporting our police mean I am racist? No. Pro states


“They may not be cruel individually if they are ignorant to the cruelty they are supporting, but then they are ignorant.”


This is a simplification of the matter. Firstly, we can conclude that they are not cruel individually, thereby further removing Pro’s ability to affirm that supporters are in Category B. But now we get to the ignorant part. How many of these people are actually unknowing of what they support? They are quite aware, and yet they are not cruel individually. Pro tried to shut out the idea through a “False Dilemma” Fallacy. {18}


“People who cannot recognize the injustice, are bereft of a sense of morality that my 5 year old already shows.“


Firstly it’s more an insult then something of real merit to his case. We don’t know how morally capable his son is? History has shown that “morality” is a joke. It changes from age to age, town to town, room to room. Pro is claiming some form of objectivity which is simply not found in history. He acts as though those who do not share his morality simply “cannot recognize the injustice”. Until Pro proves his morality objective, this is an empty point for him.


“For me, this demonstrates an extreme lack of awareness, bordering retarded.”


Deny Pro Conduct.


“I understand that human culture has a history of extreme ignorance, and its considered a cultural sport that dates back, but I think people in the modern world are not excused by such things.”


Again, claiming that his morality is superior to any other. This falls in line with “Presentism”. {19} Pro fails to substantiate why people of the “modern world” should be any different than those of the past.


“This is because the knowledge is there that animals are creatures and that love is good.”


Pro fails to see that the knowledge about animals being creatures is not exactly new. Nor does it matter. Then Pro throws in an Appeal to Emotion, {20} by saying Love. I remind Pro that this is the real world. “Love” is simply a chemical in the brain. Not a magical force that makes everything right or wrong.


“To be honest, I don't know what life lessons need to be lacking, to allow for acceptance of bullfighting.”


Well hopefully Pro eventually finds the answer. Until then, we continue on.


“For 'love' is an ancient message”

What is love, baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more!! What is love though? Again, a chemical. And it being ancient means nothing. {21} Know what else we’ve had for a long time? Bullfighting.


“'not to be cruel' is also pretty ancient.”


See Source {21}


“One who thinks bullfighting is fair and should be continued, is if not cruel, pretty socially/mentally lacking from a philosophical perspective.”


This is what we call an opinion piece. Until Pro manages to substantiates this, it’s a null point. And “philosophical perspective” is a meaningless statement. This is simply an attempt to add justification to his morality.


“also as a side-note: Its not a 'fight'.”


This means nothing. The end.


Conclusion: As I’ve shown, Pro’s entire case is built around a messy display of fallacy and simple displays of hate, as well as through implied claims of Moral Superiority (which is a thing found more strongly in the past then the present). This in truth does more to place him into “Category A” then the people he hates.


Closing Statement: Pros Turn

I have shown that there are people who support Bullfighting who fit into neither category. It’s time now for Pro to prove beyond a doubt that those who support the art nearly entirely fit into one group or the other. Appeal to Emotion and opinions (especially on morality) will not work. Sources are needed. Pro must give up proof. Pro's turn.


Source: http://tny.cz...


==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Thank you for your response.

Firstly I assumed that my opponent would understand that by 'ignorant' and 'selfish' I didn't meant that in every single aspect of their lives. Human beings are complex, and its obviously foolish to assume that every person who supports bullfighting is selfish, or ignorant, in every aspect of their lives and to every thing in their life. For instance, Hitler had people he cared for, and considered himself a good person (presumably). People are not altogether evil in a simplistic sense. I admit I was rather rash in my wording, I should have said 'supporting bull fighting is ignorant or selfish'.

However, if we are going to be scientific and specific, then I can still put a case forward. For everybody fits into the category of 'ignorant' - as everybody is ignorant to some extent. Also everybody who supports bullfighting can be considered 'selfish', by the definition of the word, as they encourage the suffering of one creature for the pleasure of themselves. My opponent stated that 'selfish' meant to be primarily concerned with ones well being other that of others. But to make someone suffer and die for the mere entertainment that one receives, is by any definition of the word, 'selfish'. This is indisputable by definition. I look forward to see how my opponent can make the act of making one suffer for mere entertainment not selfish, and if he can do so, then I'm interested how he defines selfishness. He can list people who he has never met and assume their characteristics all day, but this escapes the real issue. For instance, Aristotle and Hippocrates believed that some people are born slaves, you would not then say that slavery is not a reflexion of ignorance and selfishness just because Aristotle is okay with it! One should instead assume that such culturally accepted practices (slavery, or in this case bullfighting) are reflections of a cultural ignorance or a cultural selfishness. Aristotle was cleverer than I, but he was still more ignorant to mankind if he believes slavery is acceptable, because he has not been brought up around the same, more 'socially forward', philosophies that I have been brought up around. Likewise I'm sure Winston Churchill was very clever indeed, but he still didn't think women should vote. So my opponents attempts to prove his point with individuals is flawed, because human beings are flawed! Just because the people my opponent mentions might be 'clever' or 'kind' in some respects, doesn't mean they are perfect and thus free from ignorance or selfishness in regards to their support of bullfighting.

So, if we argue in a literal sense, my case is: Ignorance definition is: 'lacking knowledge or information'. So everybody can fit in this definition, because nobody knows everything. And 'selfishness': 'concerned with own interests regardless of others'. I explained above how tormenting and slaughtering someone for entertainment kind of fits the definition of selfishness quite effectivly.

The rest of the argument I'm going to focus on the supporting of bullfighting as reflecting selfishness and/or ignorance, as this is the only way we can clarify anything.

So I'm going to try an convince you that supporting bullfighting means your ignorant-in reguards to the bull or animals in general. I know that confirming a human to be entirely 'ignorant' and 'selfish' is impossible, but I am showing that one who supports bullfighting could rightly be assumed to be ignorant to animals suffering. This is presuming that they are not willing to make someone suffer for their own enjoyment- for if their happy to make someone suffer for their enjoyment then their exempt from the ignorance argument because they are fully aware of their actions consequences. So, simply put: If you don't want to make someone suffer for your own enjoyment, then you must be ignorant to the fact that your doing just that. I think that's indisputable, is it not? People may not be ignorant to other things, but if they are not selfish then they must be ignorant to the fact that they are causing suffering, or else they wouldn't enjoy it. My opponent does not explain how this is not the case, he merely lists people that he considers not to be ignorant to certain things. I don't dispute what my opponent says here, its just that he doesn't make it relevant to the support of bull fighting and its psychological ramifications.

I believe most bull fighting supporters fit into this category (ignorance). This is because I think most people are good natured, but also we have a tendency to be self-centred in the sense that we have difficulty seeing the world from the perspective of others. Racism, slavery, war, genocide, oppression of marginalised groups in society: these are all far too common in human history and are testimony to our inability to see the world from the perspectives of others and recognise their needs. Animal cruelty is the biggest one of all, its so big that it's not even a concern for most people, because ignorance to the perspectives of animals is still with us and engrained in our cultures. I'm sure many of the readers are members of a small number of us in the world, ahead of the current culture, aware and concerned for, the well-being of a wider group. But this group in over-represented in educated social groups and websites such as these, the reality is that most people/cultures are ignorant to the needs of animals. Remember that slavery was justifiable to good people, and genocide and war also deemed acceptable by good, law abiding people, bull fighting is also accepted by good and clever people. But, this does not change the fact that these people where brought up in a culture that was less enlightened, and thus they themselves where more ignorant, due to their culture. So my opponent can list people all day, I could also list intelligent, social reformers all day who all agreed with slavery, female oppression, animal cruelty and war. This does not make these culturally accepted practices, or support for them, any less ignorant or selfish.

The selfish part is quite simple. If you know what your doing, and what your doing is torturous to one, for the pleasure of another, then your selfish to support such cruelty merely for your own enjoyment. The definition of 'selfish' fits this act perfectly without any grey areas. I'm keen to see how my opponent is going to dispute it. So, selfishness is to be concerned with ones own 'enjoyment' (or gain) with disregard for others (say for instance, ignoring the suffering of a bull). So to be at ease with cruelty towards one, when it brings one pleasure, is by definition, 'selfish'.

I think the real issse is ignorance and the sheep-like behaviour of human beings. I think most people are unaware of the psychological capacity of non-humans, and humans have tendency to treat things they don't understand like objects. This doesn't need referencing (just look at slavery, animal welfare, women's rights, oppression). Alongside this general ignorance about the pychological capacity of non-humans, we have a tendency to copy those around us and 'go with the flow'. This has been proved the world over by psychological research. I think most people just go along with it because everybody else does.

This view is supported by the fact that many Europeans are disgusted at bullfighting because people they don't understand are doing it. They support animal cruelty when it comes to food, but its easy to condem others, and particularly others from another country. So they see this thing (bullfighting) and they recognise its barbarism and cruelty and condem it, but when most Spaniards are introduced to it, its when they are young and manipulable and there social group all support it.

I think also, many people just don't like to admit it, from personal experience. I used to eat meat, and although I didn't like to admit it, I accepted that I was being selfish and also that I must of been somewhat ignorant to the suffering I was supporting. I admitted I was being selfish, and that before it was a concern for me, I must have been ignorant. I knew these things all along (obviously not when I was ignorant!) but I didn't want to admit them because I loved meat so much. Admitting these things would compromise my character if I continued to eat meat, and I really didn't want to give up meat, so I denied it. I think it's much the same with bull fighting, people either don't think it's wrong (ignorance) or know its wrong and do it anyway (selfish).

Thank you

Ps. Conduct for con should be questioned due to his insult regarding my use of the phrase 'philosophical perspective'. He assumes: "A pseudo-intellectual statement which allows people to provide the appearance of depth to their beliefs, without actually adding substance." This is due to his lack of understanding of such a phrase, this perhaps reflects why he doesn't understand why bullfighting is wrong, I will attempt to explain anyway below.

Pps. My opponent is struggling with the 'philosophical perspective' term when talking about intelligence. I will try to enlighten the readers if any are also struggling: I'm talking about spiritual intelligence, wisdom, morallity and social: not for instance, mathematical or scientific intelligence. An intelligence and wisdom of all things rather than specific things, Stephen Covey says "Spiritual intelligence is the central and most fundamental of all the intelligences, because it becomes the source of guidance for the others"(1). For me, this kind of intelligence is what brings societies forward and makes social change. The welfare of animals is the next step-we already have laws protecting animals in the UK-so those who support animal cruelty could be considered to be more lacking in spiritual intelligence than somebody who is aware of it all.

(1) Covey, Stephen, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (Simon and Schuster, 2004, p.53)
Unitomic

Con

Preface:As this is the final round, I shall present only counter-cases. I’ll point out that Pro has only used a single source in all his cases, and it is a book and page number.


Counter-Case

Summarization: Pro attempts to state that everyone is ignorant and selfish. However he must show that those who support bullfighting are substantially more so enough to qualify as uniquely ignorant or selfish.


Counter: Pro starts by pointing out his mistake in the resolution. However the resolution still stands as is. He must show those who support bullfighting are overwhelmingly more so than normal. Pro states everyone fits into “ignorant”, but he fails to show how bullfight supporters are more so as to warrant the title when we wouldn’t normally title everyone as such. He says that that these people are inherently more selfish because they use animals for fun. However wrestling (and UFC) is an incredibly popular sport. {1/2} Many of our most popular sports are by nature aggressive {3/4} He says it is “selfish” by definition (saying “indisputable”), however every single thing we do can be considered selfish. Pro takes a concept (violence) that seems literally built into our being, and says enjoying it makes one more selfish than the average person.


He attacks me for listing people I’ve never met, but he generalizes an entire demographic. He claims I can’t use these people as examples. Except I can. As I’ve stated I need not prove the point for everyone, simply that we cannot generalize such a group. He attacks the subjectivity of morality in historical cultures by saying that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is selfish. People who support bullfighting don’t necessarily support slavery. Does that make them less selfish than aristotle? If so, then how are we determining overall selfishness? Not based off single variables which may only be minor (again, Pro has to force his generalizations on anyone who even remotely likes this). We base it off an overall view of their being.


“Aristotle was cleverer than I, but he was still more ignorant to mankind if he believes slavery is acceptable, because he has not been brought up around the same, more 'socially forward', philosophies that I have been brought up around. “


There are multiple problems here. Firstly he contradicts himself, calling someone ignorant, and clever at the same time. But the biggest sin here is the crippling Presentism. {5} There is no such thing as “socially forward”. There is what Pro thinks is right, and what he thinks is wrong. And it is being thrown over the whole of civilization.


Pro states that people are inherently good natured, and yet shows this isn’t true by listing the immense number of horrible things we have done on a regular basis. He then implies that bullfighting is the worst on the list. And that of all those things, it is that one act that makes one truly bad. He implies we can’t even see animal cruelty (a horrible misconception on his part), and of course claims we are ignorant because we don’t see things his way (which could instead show ignorance on his part). I’ll remind Pro here that smooth-talking the Voters by saying they fit into his clique of “morally better” people is not proper etiquette in a debate.I will not even go into detail on how the remainder of this paragraph is a horrifying example of pros “moral superiority”, claiming that every other culture is “less enlightened” because they are not in line with him. He claims that the best people supported horrible things. Again, this shows that most people support bad things. Pro has to show a distinct enough increase in ignorance and selfishness in order to affirm the resolution.


Pro spends the next paragraph trying to present an absolute that these acts are selfish. Claiming there are no grey areas. Yet he doesn’t actually show how this is the case. As I’ve stated, violence is a natural aspect of our culture, and thus supporting it is simply “normal” selfishness, not an enhanced selfishness that warrants a special title of selfish.


In his next paragraph (“I think the real issue….”), he presents what is more a speech then a real presentation of fact to support his case. Simply going back to that “everyone is ignorant” argument. He says it doesn’t need referencing that we are aren’t aware of animals (he includes women’s rights in the list of examples. Are women animals?) capacity, yet most people will state that animals are smarter than we know. He must present real evidence that this is the case. Most people know full well that animals have feelings. They still find it acceptable. It doesn’t make them ignorant. It simply means that they have a different view from Pro. And to Pro this means they are ignorant and selfish.


After this Pro shows cultural relativism at work stating that many Europeans don’t like bullfighting because they don’t understand it. This shows the non-supporters to be ignorant. But as these Europeans agree with Pro, he considers them “socially-forward”.


“They support animal cruelty when it comes to food, but its easy to condemn others, and particularly others from another country. ”


Pro proves my case right here. He is so quick to condemn others of a different culture, and calls them “ignorant”, when the only one fitting that definition is the guy performing a sweeping generalization of an entire demographic. He states the Spaniards are blind because of a bias in how they are raised. Yet Pro implies himself to be a vegan (and I’m a cook. I cut and burn your chickens and cows. Mwahaha), which shows himself to have bias. Everyone has bias.


He ends (other than the P.S.) by saying he used to eat meat which means nothing. This is not proper evidence. It’s a simply Appeal. It has no benefit to his case. However this quote does:


“I think it's much the same with bull fighting, people either don't think it's wrong (ignorance) or know its wrong and do it anyway (selfish)”


Pro says they are either ignorant or selfish. However he must show they fit both aspects of a category, not just one. In failing to do so, Pro fails the resolution.


Conclusion: Pro attempts to shrug off my cases by saying that everyone is ignorant and selfish. As I’ve stated, he must show that the subject group are overwhelmingly more so enough to warrant being titled as such whereas the average person wouldn’t carry the title. He fails to do so entirely, neglecting that there are little (if any) variables large enough to single handedly warrant these distinctions. Pro fails to show how a detailed analysis of a persons being shows a distinct increase in Ignorance or selfishness in correlation with support for bullfighting. I however have prior shown proof that this distinction is not so apparent. He spends much of his time with presentisms and claims of moral superiority. Lastly, Pro fails to show that supporting bullfighting actually shows a lack of information (as they are quite aware of the animals mental capacity)


Sources: http://tny.cz...


Counter-Case II: P.S


Summarization: Pro puts a few “P.S”’s after his arguments. I shall deal with them here.


Counter: Pro tries to argue against a conduct point. He claims I’ve insulted him with the “perspective” remark. “And “philosophical perspective” is a meaningless statement. This is simply an attempt to add justification to his morality.” This is not insulting. It’s an argument. I feel Pro is simply upset that one would question the superiority of his vegan morality. In the end, he ends the “PS” by claiming I simply don’t understand it. Again, those who don’t agree with him don’t have explanations or proper rationalization. We are simply “Ignorant”. Because we have a different view.


“PPS”. Here Pro actually insults me saying I am “Struggling” with this concept. He shoots himself in the foot calling it “spiritual”. This is not a religious debate. Not everyone believes there is a “spiritual” aspect to things. For those of us who use something other than an undefinable metaphysical principle, we don’t in fact consider it to be true intelligence. He source Steve Covey, yet his source is a book we can’t all read (nor are we guaranteed the page number are the same if we could). Regardless of the source, Steves quote again present a metaphysical “spiritual” concept, calling it the most “fundamental”. This is not backed by any scholarly study, and is purely an opinion. He ends with a remark about “forwardness” in society (again, presentism), and claims animal-cruelty is the next big step. No gay rights, or equality for women and Races in third world countries. No, it’s animals. This debate however is not about animal cruelty. It’s about the people who support bullfighting. He finishes by again saying those who aren’t in line with his opinion are ignorant, based off some metaphysical morality that any one can define. Those who support bullfighting could claim they are right due to some “spiritual morality” (how do you argue against that?). How would Pro say that are wrong? He Can’t.


Conclusion: Pro spends this section trying to argue that I should be denied points (take a look at his opening post however). He spends it trying to cast support under some self defined spiritual morality that ultimately doesn’t work for many, especially in the increasingly secular Europe.


Closing Statement

Pro has failed to squarely show that people are actually lacking of knowledge, or unusually more selfish then everyone else due simply due to support for bullfighting (support being a broad sprectum). He instead spends his time saying that everyone is bad if they don't share his morality, in the end justifying it as objective through calling it "spiritual intellect". This is not acceptable. Pro has failed to affirm the resolution as I stated necessary (a matter Pro did not argue against), dropping entirely the aspects of "backwords" or "cruel", therefore failing to fit the subject into a full category, as he must. In failing to do so, he fails the resolution.


==Unitomic==



Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
I didn't say it wasn't selfish. Simply that it wasn't enough for that one variable to outweigh all others. As you said, humans are complex creatures. We are selfish on some subjects, and not selfish in others. We must examine the entire person to determine if they are truly selfish (enough so to actually be considered selfish by others, who themselves are also going to be somewhat selfish). My argument was that we can't generalize them on a single variable. It would have to be somehow overwhelmingly selfish by unfathomable depths to outweigh any other combinations of variables which may unfold.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Untomic - (this is not part of debate just curiosity) you compare UFC and talk about aggression in sport being linked to selfishness. You do understand that the aggression aspect has nothing to do with it, thT its the treatment of the bull, for the point of pleasure, that I'm talking about. Can you answer that for me I'm just interested how this works? How can you think that its not selfish to treat a bull as such for pleasure? I don't feel you answered this and this is my main point. This is not part of the debate so please don't say I'm attempting to get points lol
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
I'll point out to voters that you prior held belief should not be taken into account. You should not vote because of you're personal views, nor should you vote because of who you think is actually right. You vote base of the actual context of the debate, in regards to the exact resolution itself.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Lol this has been the bitchiest debate iv ever had lol, I apologise for my behaviour, and to myself mainly as I'm the one who has embarrassed myself haha. No, sorry guys.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
It's pretty frustrating when the Instigator tries to make new arguments in the last round, and then claims that their opponents are being unfair in pointing out flaws in the Instigator's arguments and his or her breach of the rules.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Okay, okay, mate you can get extra points for the rules. I like to focus on debate content more, and its pretty frustrating when opponents try and scrounge all the points they can through pointing out things such as grammar and conduct. This is what people tend to do when their philosophy is and reasoning is lacking (im not suggesting yours is). But this is the way things are and one must abide or suffer the consequences, but try not to focus on extra points through spelling and all that because its a less honourable or even legitimate way to win.
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
It's not my rules. It is standard DDO rules. They apply to every single debate, unless otherwise agreed upon. As we didn't agree upon those alterations, standard rules apply. Site rules, mate
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Donald Keller, mate, I didn't state any rules. I'm challenging my opponents action of putting his own rules on the debate without consideration. I know its general etiquette to not state arguments in the final round, but when there is only one round (after opening round) one must adapt to the conditions. This was supposed to be a short debate, or more of a situation whereby two people make their case, and those cases are then judged.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Mate... This isn't "Your" debate as though you own the rights to it. Also, just because you instigated doesn't mean you can make up rules last minute. All rules must be stated in the Resolution or in the first round, so Unitomic can accept them knowingly. Any rule not posted in the first round does not count. Also, it's basic DDO and basic RL Debate rules that you can not post new arguments last round.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Dude, calm down.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Tommy.leadbetterUnitomicTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As for the arguments vote, there was a failure of Pro to uphold his BoP. He provided little evidence supporting his claims; he made generalizations and made subjective arguments (the use of "I think" or "I feel"). Pro also seemed to make circles in his arguments; he kept coming back to the same argument (which was only a generalization and was not supported by enough evidence), even after it was practically disproven by Con. Even so, Pro was unable to prove without a doubt that everybody who enjoys bullfighting fit into either established category, and so, as said before, he fails to fulfill his BoP. Con had one spelling error, but Pro had substantially more. Con used more sources (although they appear as one link) than Pro, not to mention that Con's sources were accessible, unlike Pro's. Conduct is tied, as I could not make up my mind about who composed themselves more properly.