The Instigator
Chrislam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lavaguava
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

To put Stephen Hawking in a mental hospital quarantine will curb spread of Poverty&Mad Alien Disease

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 2 votes the winner is...
Lavaguava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 78643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Chrislam

Pro

Thanks to people like Stephen Hawking, billions of dollars have been flushed into MAD (mad alien disease), and now, once again, 100 million dollars have been set aside for further research into this good for nothing project which is based on psycho-logic illusion...? Although, millions of people are dying of hunger and poverty or people who are under severe dept, uncertain future and bankruptcy specially the young & elderly. Is this the definition of Humanity? All of this time wasting research is being done thanks to the pressure of proving a useless Illuminati Theory.
It is high time now, that we realize the fine line (that differentiates a genius and an insane) that makes even a super genius insane, to the level that all that person sees is a dream world made of all the predictions he has prophesized but, completely lost and unaware of reality and the the suffering of others.
Lavaguava

Con

Maybe the authorities should consider your permanent placement within a mental hospital. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, claiming that Mr Hawking should be placed in a mental hospital. Other than being unable to walk, in what way is Mr Hawking unable to live to the same extent as the next person? He has made quite possibly the largest contribution to humanity of any single person, you on the other hand are most probably a benefits claimant who does little more than visit your local job-centre plus and shoplifts a Nisa.

The decision to fund research into disabilities is a governmental decision, not being disabled myself I still am in full support of this. However, you should consider your thoughts if you were placed in a life of disability, you would not be so quick to make your insane judgements if you were in the position.

Before you call on the capital investments of medical research which could be invested in the poor, I believe that you should consider the other ways in which capital may be re-distributed to the poor, I list two ideas below.

The people subject to poverty could possibly stop reproducing at the current rate. Our entire human population is already growing at an unsustainable rate, if the situation for these people is so dire, why exactly do they continue to reproduce? Granted, many of the people put in dire situations now did not get there through any fault of their own, I am however of the school of thought in favour of reducing foreign aid, due to the fact that the aid promotes population growth, thus returning the area to a state of poverty.

Benefits could be more rigorously monitored. Benefits are required for those who are completely unable to find or take part in work, however people are being supplied to those who squander the money or who are not concerned with morals.

Certainly within Britain, NHS expenditure is wasted on nonsensical items such as sun-cream and yogurt. I can not recall the exact figure, however at least several million pounds have been wasted on these perfectly non-medically obtainable items.

The above courses of action would be far more logical, the first is, of course, peoples' individual choice. You may not be concerned with the greatest of human endeavours, discovery, however many people are, many of which would be willing to have money invested in research that may extend the life of a great scientist.

I have many lengthy arguments which I may use, I await your attempted rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrislam

Pro

Chrislam forfeited this round.
Lavaguava

Con

Why, exactly, have you chosen to forfeit? A lack of confidence in your initial argument, perhaps? A little discriminatory, maybe? I require a counter-argument in order to present further case.

This course of debate has also occurred my other debate participation, on the matter "Should the 2017 Ford GT cost $400,000?", possibly my logic prowess is too great to overcome.

Please further your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrislam

Pro

Chrislam forfeited this round.
Lavaguava

Con

This is somewhat hilarious. You have been out-witted by a fourteen year old who does not attend private schooling, more over on a topic you were so quickly to deal judgement upon. Any onlookers must understand, I am unable to further an argument due to lack of resistance. There is no more to say, both debates I have entered in have involved myself putting forward valid, logical arguments, only to find the instigator forfeiting.

My disgust, Lavaguava.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
If people were truly concerned about the poor, they would encourage taxation of the churches. Many study's show that there would be over 70 billion dollars in taxes to be had. That is enough to pay for all the food stamps and still have enough to house all the homeless.
However the religious know that running a house of worship is expensive and life is cheep.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
ChrislamLavaguavaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Luharis 1 year ago
Luharis
ChrislamLavaguavaTied
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: Pro forfeited twice therefore losing conduct, and since pro couldn't counter any argument, con wins that.