The Instigator
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Garbanza
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Tits or Azz

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 10 votes the winner is...
Garbanza
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,263 times Debate No: 68433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

I am Pro Tits, Con is Pro Azz

Shared BOP. Con starts first and passes in his last round.
Garbanza

Con

Thank you to Pro for this interesting topic.

tit: a titmouse or other small bird (1)
Azz: Ahmed Azz, an Egyptian businessman who is allegedly monopolizing the steel industry (2)

The stark resolution asks readers to the debate to choose: who lives and who dies between a group of small birds and an Egyptian businessman?

Several species of titmouse are protected by the Migratory Birds Program (3), but they are not endangered (4). This means that they can be legally killed if certain restrictive practices are followed, depending on the jurisdiction. For an example, see the restrictions for Indiana here - (5). Even if killing the tits was a violation of the hunting regulations, it is a minor misdemeanor, carring a maximum penalty for first offense of $1,500 in Maryland, for example. (6)

On the other hand, killing a human is murder, a very serious offense (7). Killing Azz in order to save a group of tits would not be seen as a justifiable offense by most people. The maximum penalty for murder is many years of imprisonment and even execution in some jurisdictions. (8)

Therefore, when it comes down to choosing between tits and Azz, of course we must choose Azz and sacrifice the birds.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...;
(2) https://arabicsource.wordpress.com...;
(3) http://www.fws.gov...;
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) http://www.in.gov...
(6) http://www.courts.state.md.us...
(7) http://www.fbi.gov...
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

What Con fails to realize is that I am the affirmative in this debate, and can structure the debate how I wish. It is similar to or refereed to as a plan in formal debate [1][2] , except this is a shared BOP and we are meeting halfway. Meaning I am allowed to specify the definitions, not him as the negative. At least I am allowed to specify what term I am going to argue. He cannot chose that term for me. For all practical purposes, as the affirmative I reserve the right to define the terms in this debate. I am partially playing this due to the semantics game, but it was well obvious the context of this debate. I will at least challenge the definition under the context that the debate was intended for, as I reserve the right to define my own term if anything.

Tits - Ta Tas - Boobs - Breasts - either of the two soft, protruding organs on the upper front of a woman's body that secrete milk after pregnancy.[3]

Azz - Butt - Bottom - buttox - Gluteus maximus - the broad, thick, outermost muscle of the buttocks, involved in the rotation and extension of the thigh. [4]


C1) Soft

Tits are better than Azz, because they are soft and jiggly. If you ever get near them, you can curl up and use them as a pillow. Womens tatas are made of fatty tissue, so this amplifies the softness to a higher level . [5]




C2) Visible Face

Another great aspect that you get from the breasts and not the back, is that you can see a woman's or man's face while you stare at it. It's like double pleasure. You get the firm stare, the intense eyes, and the beauty of the face mixed in with the glory of the teets.





C3) Nips

The nips are also here, and they are a focal point for orgasms. Win win





[1] http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca...
[2] http://www.cs.jhu.edu...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.webmd.com...
Garbanza

Con

Structure of the debate

Pro is entitled to define terms as the affirmative, but only for the first round. If the affirmative side fails to define terms in the first round they lose that right. This is standard:

"If the first Affirmative speaker fails to define the resolution he or she must accept any reasonable definitions proposed by the first Negative speaker." (1)

The same rule is listed here (2) as well as in the new beginners' guide on DDO. Airmax (citing Darkkermit) writes: "the general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first," (3)

Neither of the two sources that Pro cited in relation to this issue mention definitions at all.


Dictionary definitions

The first definition of "tit" is a small song bird on dictionary.com(4), the oxford dictionary (5) and cambridge dictionary (6). It is the standard definition and reasonable interpretation of the word.

The word "Azz" does not appear in any of those three dictionaries (7,8,9). It is therefore reasonable to interpret it as a proper name, and a reference to an actual person.

Please note that Pro's source for defining "tit" did not actually mention the word tit, and his source for Azz does not mention the word "Azz".

Pro chose not to define his terms in round one and therefore these reasonable definitions apply.


Tits or Azz

Pro has so far failed to argue on the substantive issues of this debate. He has one more round to do so.

All arguments extended.

(1) http://www.saskdebate.com...
(2) http://www.debatingsociety.ca...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
(4) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(5) https://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
(6) http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;
(7) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(8) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
(9) http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Con fails to realize how debate works. The affirmative issues a plan, and the negative generally responds with a counter plan. This is especially true in this case as the BOP is shared. I will grant con he is allowed to use his own definition for his term as long as it was sensible, because I did not define his term for him and he went first. That does not however translate to him defining my term for me.

Both of the new user guide and other source, are rules that are not applicable on DDO. DDO has no set rules around debate, where as debate does. The negative usually would offer a counter plan in this case, to negate the affirmative plan. He was allowed to define his own term to build his contentions since I did not put one in round 1 (not my term though), but he did not even do that, nor did he do it properly.

The issue with this is that pro criticizes me for using an abbreviation and he does the same.

In fact his definition is just false. The correct person he is trying to argue for is Ahmed Ezz

Ahmed Ezz - is an Egyptian businessman and one-time politician, the former owner of Ezz Steel and the former chairman of Egypt's national assembly's budget committee[1][2][3]. If you even notate Con's source his own definition is broke so he fails to define his own term properly and argues for a term that does not exist.

So the Azz my adversary is arguing for does not even exist, nor does his link work to support it does


=Why I Win=



My adversary builds a case around a false definition, with no contentions. He picks a definition for me and only provides rebuttals for points not made. He never even built a case for himself. This was also with the wrong term

In addition he chooses to drop every one of my points.





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://english.alarabiya.net...
[3] http://www.albawaba.com...
Garbanza

Con

Pass, as per R1 structure.

Sorry about the broken Azz link. Here it is again:

https://arabicsource.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmmm...interesting. An account barely a week old racks up over 40 debates, and is closed the moment he starts losing.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
He probably asked to close his account
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
hmmm...so why did PRO get banned?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD---
At first glance this looked like an easy pro win, with con amusingly using semantics (and not against a truism), however it is a lot deeper than that, it's an intelligently set up debate to challenge base perceptions of BoP and who has to prove it (IMO all three sides). In favor of base English was actually con, with pro using semantics against it.

R1 con has to argue first, with no hint of any alternative definitions pro may desire. Con had a mild formatting error on his links, which caused a space to be attached onto the end of each (easy to fix, but harming presentation of sources). I disagree with the claim that a titmouse of Mr. Azz must die, yet the usefulness of each for whom is spared works for the comparison all the same.

R2 pro tries not only to switch the definitions away from common English, using multiple different dictionaries to cherry pick from, and then moves the goalpost further trying to include women's faces in with his chosen side. Worse he claims (via his source 4) that in R1 he spelled Azz "gluteus maximus" which from the debate resolution is simply untrue (and caught by con, along with tit not being on the page of his cherry picked definition).

The debate is then back and forth arguing over what should be DDO policy, instead of focusing on the resolution itself. Giving it some thought, if pro intended this to be about the gluteus maximus he would have put that into the resolution, instead of Azz, even then why would tits be plural but Azz singular unless this was done with clear intent?

Finally, were I to believe no semantics trap was intended when the debate was issued, that would mean pro continuously misspelled gluteus maximus (how that could end up being spelled "Azz" is beyond me) greatly distracting from the debate, costing S&G, while denying both the BoP required to tie-break on arguments.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
I think garb should win this one per debate rules.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Clever and well done, CON.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Pro got roused m8
Posted by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
Garbanza you rock lol
Posted by Garbanza 2 years ago
Garbanza
Yay :)
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Garbanza, you just made my day.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I suppose Con is correct with his "terms weren't defined so I get to define them." So I must then look to Con's arguments concerning the Egyptian business man and a small group of birds. Well I chose the small group of birds. The business man, according to Con is trying to monopolize the steel industry. I'm against monopolies. Birds have really never done anything to harm me. Maybe the businessman supports Islamic terrorism. I must side with the birds. People are generally more dangerous than birds. Plus Pro has some nice pictures to look at.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not establish the condition of the debate, yet insists that Con argue first. As such, it is Con's prerogative to frame the debate. With Con having done so successfully, Pro offers no affirmative case. Con is the victor.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments... NOTE: If pro did not intentionally misspell things to cause this situation, he should open a new debate challenge with proper spelling.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Even AFTER pro defined his terms to what he meant, con's definitions were FALSE! Con tried to use semantics to win, yet he still gave wrong definitions!
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro did not provide definitions in the first round, he waives his right to provide definitions later on. Thus he is debating off-topic. Con wins.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refused to provide a proper R1 with definitions. Con did so with more reliable sources. This debate should have been done with the 7 point system. Conduct, Sources- Garbanza.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Clear Con Win. Con provides far more relevant sources regarding the debate rules, Pro shoots hismelf in the foot by attacking Con's sources regarding defining terms being 'external', since his own source was also external and not applicable to DDO. Thus I am left concluding Con was correct in defining terms in his opening round, note that no notion of 'my' term was justified until the last round. Checking the sources I didn't find this entitlement to one's "own" term, thus I disregard this argument (since Con cannot respond to it). If I accept Cons definitions, which I do, then Pro's case is invalid (his dictionary sources don't even mention tits or ass, as Con showed). Furthermore Con's positive argument is unrefuted.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Cons case is entirely about a definition which he defines incorrectly... Pro provided an actual affirmative case, whereas con pretty much fails to negate. Con also failed to prove a random businessman is better than a woman's breasts, lol
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Per DDO and General Debate rules the affirmative must define terms in the first round. Any reasonable definitions set by the opposition during his turn must be accepted if the claimant has failed to do so. Since "tits" and "Azz" were reasonably defined by con using dictionary sources, the debate must carry forward with his definitions. Since the BoP was shared, and since con was the only one to make supported arguments with the accepted definitions, he takes the debate. Well done con.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Valar_DohaerisGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con is playing with semantics.