The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

We shouldn't have fun at the expense of people with Tourettes Syndrome

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,304 times Debate No: 8369
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

First of all, viewer discretion is advised on the first embedded YouTube clip as it contains very strong language from the outset. I wasn't aware of this the first time I played it when, as it happens, I was in a rather upmarket bistro. Forgetting my laptop volume control was set to full, I pressed 'play' to view the video and, to my horror, the audio blared right round the room and everybody turned round and stared at me in absolute shock and disgust. Meanwhile, I desperately tried to find the volume control on the toolbar but I couldn't find it, so I tried to close the application but then, for some reason, the cursor froze and all the time this filth was blasting across the dining tables. It wasn't before an old lady had had a minor nervous breakdown that I managed to shut the computer down to save myself from any further embarrassment. Needless to say, it will be a while before I go back there for lunch!

Anyway, now to the debate.

Oh yes, it's very funny, isn't it? Look at him, spontaneously swearing and lashing out at people. He's got Tourettes. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Well, you would think it was so funny if you were a sufferer.

Tourettes is not unusual. Indeed, there are several WANKERS debaters on this site with this medical condition. Why don't you BUGGER OFF take a look at this ongoing debate for example?

http://www.debate.org...

You can clearly see that my opponent has, through no fault of her own, lapsed into a stream of obscenities. What a BITCH shame.

I, therefore, assert that we shouldn't have DIRTY SEX fun at the expense of Tourettes sufferers.

Thank you.
MTGandP

Con

Make fun of someone/something: to make someone or something seem ridiculous by making jokes about them (thefreedictionary.com)

My opponent has not actually made a case. He has merely stated that Tourettes Syndrome is involuntary.

I do not need to make a case, since my opponent has conceded in at least two places.
"Why don't you [] take a look at this ongoing debate for example?
http://www.debate.org...
You can clearly see that my opponent has, through no fault of her own, lapsed into a stream of obscenities."
My opponent is making fun of Tourettes. His opponent in the linked debate does not necessarily have Tourettes, but is merely an incoherent typist. By falsely assuming that she has Tourettes, my opponent is making fun of those with Tourettes. Since my opponent is doing it, it is okay.

"WANKERS...BUGGER OFF... BITCH...DIRTY SEX"
My opponent has placed pseudorandom interjections into his text, as though he has Tourettes. But Tourettes does not apply in writing; it is verbal. So my opponent's interjections can only serve to make fun of Tourettes Syndrome. Once again, my opponent is supporting my case by ridiculing Tourettes Syndrome.

I rest my (opponent's) case.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate, MTGandP.

If I may, I'd like to address my opponent's second argument first and state that the profanities in R1 were not "pseudorandom interjections" as he claimed.

As it happens a friend of mine has a cousin who is a student nurse, and is, therefore, well-versed in medical matters and she came round and diagnosed me as having a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy. What happens there is that when sufferer watches a YouTube clip of someone exhibiting socially unacceptable behaviour online, they involuntarily mimic their bad language when writing.

In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that, since I was a boy, I have suffered from Tourettes Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) - the two conditions are linked (1). Today children who swear and behave boisterously are given sympathy and drugs, but when I was a kid medical science wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now and my elders didn't realise I was ill. Instead, after being "naughty", as they termed it, I often felt the buckle-end of my dad's belt or received "six of the best" courtesy of my teacher's cane. Still, it is remarkable how effective those old fashioned remedies were and, for sometime after receiving a dose, my symptoms completely disappeared.

Now to address MTGandP's first point. If you revisit the link I provided in R1 you will note that my opponent in that debate has since posted a perfectly legible contribution. This proves that, like me, she suffers from a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy, and needs sympathy and drugs, not typing lessons.

In conclusion, it is wrong to make fun of Tourettes sufferers, or indeed, any other type of lunatic.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.nhs.uk...
MTGandP

Con

"As it happens a friend of mine has a cousin who is a student nurse, and is, therefore, well-versed in medical matters and she came round and diagnosed me as having a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy."
I find this difficult to believe. Firstly, my opponent has provided no evidence. Sometimes I don't have a problem with that, but for this extraordinary claim I would like some evidence. Secondly, I Googled "Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy" (http://www.google.com...) and got no relevant results. Thirdly, before posting his arguments my opponent had the opportunity to edit his post, so he could have removed any of these outbursts.

"I often felt the buckle-end of my dad's belt..."
This entire paragraph provides no arguments, and is merely an appeal to emotion. But unfortunately for my opponent, I have no emotion.

"Now to address MTGandP's first point. If you revisit the link I provided in R1 you will note that my opponent in that debate has since posted a perfectly legible contribution. This proves that, like me, she suffers from a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy, and needs sympathy and drugs, not typing lessons."
I went back and read it earlier. It is legible, but difficult to read. However, it is not profanity, nor is it a random outburst. My opponent's opponent's post is completely relevant to that debate. It is simply a case of unusual typing.

In conclusion, my opponent has provided only faulty and anecdotal evidence, while supporting CON at the same time. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by destructor 8 years ago
destructor
good job CON, you caught the situation fast
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FlashFire 8 years ago
FlashFire
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
brian_egglestonMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07