The Instigator
UnStupendousMan
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Werewolves Should Receive Equal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,897 times Debate No: 20050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

UnStupendousMan

Pro

Full resolution: In a Free Society, Werewolves Should Receive Equal Rights to Normal Humans


*THIS IS A SERIOUS DEBATE!*



*Note* Werewolves are assumed to be real for the purposes of this debate.


Rules:


I will support the resolution, and my opponent will negate the resolution

1st round is for acceptance and the defining of terms. Debating begins round 2

Burden of Proof is shared. In other words, I have to prove my case and my opponent must prove his.

8,000 Character limit, but conciseness is urged.

72 hour gap max between arguments, but promptness is urged.

3 month voting period.

Semantic arguments are prohibited.

Humor, even though this is a serious debate, is appreciated.

Otherwise, standard operating procedure applies.



Definitions:

Free: existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community http://dictionary.reference.com...

Werewolf: mythological or folkloric human with the ability to shape shift into into a wolf after being placed under a curse. This transformation is associated with the appearance of the full moon; vulnerable to silver bullets and silver arrows and can cause others to become werewolves by biting them. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Should: must; ought http://dictionary.reference.com...

Receive: to have (something) bestowed, conferred, etc http://dictionary.reference.com...

Equal: as great as; the same as http://dictionary.reference.com...

Rights: that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type http://dictionary.reference.com...

Humans: Homo Sapiens http://dictionary.reference.com...


If my opponent finds any of the following to be unfit in any way, he or she may give an alternate definition (that is within reason).



I hope for a fun and interesting debate.

jm_notguilty

Con


Challenge Accepted. Good luck and thank you for instigating.
Debate Round No. 1
UnStupendousMan

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Though that huge picture was unnecessary.



Werewolves should receive equal rights to humans. They should be able to marry the same people, go to the same schools, and drink the same booze. Here is why:



1. Werewolves are people, too!


Read the definition of werewolf that I have provided (and my opponent did not dispute):



Werewolf: mythological and folkloric human with the ability to shape-shift into a wolf after being placed under a curse. This transformation is associated with the appearance of the full moon; vulnerable to silver bullets and arrows and cause others to become werewolves by biting them.



I highlighted the word “human” because, unless my opponent has any evidence suggesting otherwise, humans are people. “Person” has many definitions, but we are going to use “a human as distinguished from an animal or thing.” [1] Well, when the full moon is not out, a werewolf fulfills that definition. And in a free society, which consists of persons otherwise known as individuals [2], guarantees rights to those individuals.



However, my opponent will obviously start to question the werewolf’s personhood, especially around full moon time. I will admit that werewolves are not people as wolves under the full moon. However, this brings me to my second point:



2. Werewolves do not have a choice


In most works of fiction that includes werewolves, including works as old as “Bisclavret” (which was written about 1175)[3] and as new as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [4] describes the transformation into the werewolf as an unwanted affair. The definition also describes two scenarios which are not exactly desired: being cursed and bitten. It is unreasonable to punish the lycanthropes for crimes that they did not commit.



3. Werewolves are not always people


This matters because the werewolf, when as a person, does not want to harm anybody. And trying to sentence a werewolf for something that he/she did as a non-person, and therefore not able to comprehend what they were doing, would be like sentencing a regular wolf for murder charges. It would be illogical and Kafka-esque, the only difference being that for most of the time the werewolf can feel remorseful-and wronged.



4. Werewolves can benefit society



I have explained in the above that werewolves are people. People can benefit society. So it is only natural to say that werewolves can benefit society, maybe not as much as normal humans, but it would be nonsensical to bar them rights, and thereby harm society.



I hand off this debate to my opponent.



Sources:


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...



[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...



[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...



[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...


jm_notguilty

Con


Thanks for responding. I’d like to point out that my opponent’s burden is to argue that Werewolves should be given equal rights. My BOP is to prove otherwise. It can be to argue that Werewolves should be given rights, but not as equal to humans or to argue that they shouldn’t be given any rights at all. If I satisfy my BOP to uphold any of those premises, then it’s sufficient to negate the resolution and to ensure my victory.


REBUTTAL


RE: Werewolves are people


This argument is too shallow. Humans are part of the species of Homo sapiens, so that means other related species (like gorillas, chimps, monkeys, etc.) can be considered humans or human-like. My opponent claims that werewolves are human so we need to give them equal rights. If that’s so, then why can’t we give chimpanzees the same rights as a human being?


RE: Werewolves have no choice


My opponent states that because werewolves do not have a choice to become werewolves, we should give them equal rights and that we shouldn’t blame them on crimes they didn’t commit. What does this argument have to do with Werewolves being bestowed with equal privileges to normal people? My opponent needs to expand this contention further before I accurately refute it.


RE: Werewolves are not always people


PRO is saying that because a Werewolf is not always a person, we should still give it some rights as equal as a human. What? If we follow PRO’s logic, does that mean we should also give equal rights to other animals?


PRO also states that by not giving them rights, they will be harmful to society. How so? PRO didn’t offer any evidence to support this. Also, how are Werewolves (which are part animal) capable of understanding these rights? How can they be less harmful if we give them equal rights? Werewolves are harmful, what we need is better protection from them and we need to restrain them. Giving them rights without the knowledge of them actually understanding it is a bad idea since it will make due process more complicated. Would you like the Werewolf who massacred your family get off trial due to a technicality?


My opponent further argues that a werewolf doesn’t want to harm a person, yet he fails to give evidence to this. A werewolf is an animal, wolf, it cannot think properly so it does whatever it wants, it can kill whenever it wants. Yes, convicting him is like convicting a regular wolf. But a lycanthrope doesn’t need to be convicted because it is not capable to stand trial. So if a werewolf is to be caught, it would probably be killed or be tested. If we give them rights like humans do and give him a fair trial, it would be a waste of courts’ time, it would be like putting a normal wolf to trial.


RE: Werewolves benefit society


My opponent’s argument to support this premise is:



  • A werewolf is human.

  • Humans benefit society.

  • Therefore, werewolves benefit society.


This is a correlation-causation fallacy. Just because werewolves correlate to humans being beneficial doesn’t mean that werewolves are beneficial. Apes are related to humans, but does it have significant benefits like humans do? No.


CASE


These are my contentions for now, please note that I may expand them next round if challenged. Furthermore, my arguments in these premises have additional points to refute my opponent’s premises above.


C1: Werewolves are not capable of thinking properly.


This is somewhat the core of my argument, to prove that werewolves shouldn’t have equal rights like humans, I must show that Werewolves are different from humans.


Werewolves are part human, part animal. So they are not 100% sentient human beings. So we must consider the latter that they are animals (particularly wolves). Lycanthropes are not self-conscious, they are not aware of deaths. They have no sense on life, morality, the law and their surroundings {1}. So why give these creatures the same rights as humans if they do not think like humans?


Ask yourselves; are lycanthropes capable of signing a legal contract? Are lycanthropes capable of giving consent on marrying a human? Are lycanthropes capable to adequately stand trial? Can a lycanthrope communicate to other humans? The answer, obviously is no, because the animals’ brains are not fully developed like a human brain, they cannot distinguish from what is right or wrong.


C2: A werewolf’s harmfulness overrides its benefits to society,


If werewolves exist, then it would probably be considered as the most dangerous creature in the world. We get wolf attacks per year {2}, so don’t tell me there are benefits on that. Werewolves, according to popular culture, have the tendency to attack the nearest human, which makes them hated by society, and by this, lycanthropes have a grudge on their oppressors {3}. So this means that they are highly dangerous. If we give them rights, we would be like letting them roam the streets at anytime, we wouldn’t want that.


What makes a normal wolf different from a werewolf? What makes a gorilla different from a werewolf? Why don’t they have equal rights as humans? Do these animals benefit society like what we humans do? No, because they are animals, they are not capable of understanding.


C3: Giving Werewolves rights are useless


Again, a werewolf is 50% human and 50% animal. And since today’s rights only affect sentient human beings, we must not consider a werewolf a sentient human being. Giving them rights is unnecessary because they cannot fully understand, recognize and exercise said rights.


CONCLUSION


My opponent needs to give evidence that a Werewolf can be capable on understanding human rights, he needs to show that a werewolf is psychologically and mentally equivalent to a human being. If he cannot adequately show these things, then it is sufficient to negate the resolution because I’ve argued that when we give equal rights to other creatures, we must have knowledge on their capacity to understand.


I know these arguments aren’t enough, but seeing that my opponent somewhat made a weak case, I made this brief for him to expand his contentions.


CITATIONS


{1} http://www.realtruth.org...


{2} http://en.wikipedia.org...


{3} http://harrypotter.wikia.com...


Debate Round No. 2
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I really did not want to do this, but because of my habitual procrastination with this debate, I forfeit this round. I will continuing arguing next round. Conduct goes to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank my opponent for being patient. I will defend my points and then attack my opponent's.

1. Werewolves are People
.

My argument is NOT too shallow. I contend that related species, such as gorillas and chimps, are not people because they are not Homo sapiens. Werewolves are, in fact, H. sapiens (see definition). Humans (and werewolves who are not in the presence of the full moon) are people, and people deserve rights. This contention stands.

2. Werewolves have no choice
I concede that this point was now well-thought out and it did not proove anything.

3. Werewolves are not always people

Here is a quote from my opponent's case:
PRO is saying that because a Werewolf is not always a person, we should still give it some rights as equal as a human.

Yes I am saying that because a werewolf is not always a person, we shoiuld give it rights...sorta. Because werewolves are not people in the presence of the full moon, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. People have the mental capacity to know they have done right and wrong, non-persons do not. See the "sending the wolf to jail" analogy. Werewolves do not have the capacity to understand what they are doing in their wolf state--my opponent, to rebut this point, must prove conclusively that werewolves can understand what they are doing in their wolf forms.

Here is another:
PRO also states that by not giving them rights, they will be harmful to society.

I did not explicitly say this in this point. This is actully found in my next point; this is a waste of space, along with the paragraph that follows.

Here is another:
My opponent further argues that a werewolf doesn’t want to harm a person, yet he fails to give evidence to this.
I may have not have made it clear; I meant that werewolves, in thier human form, do not want to kill people; I can back this up with the fact that most humans--which werewolves are for the most part--do not have sadistic or murderous urges. If werewolves have sadistic and murderous urges as a wolf, then okay; but they are not people as wolves, so they cannot be charged.

This contentions stands.

4. Werwolves benefit society.
My opponent says that my logic is flawed in this point; he brings up the correlation-causation fallacy, and uses apes as a counterexample. While the counterexample is laughable (werewolves are humans while apes are not) I would like to take a closer look at it:

-Werewolves are humans
Non-contestable point; in the definitions that my opponent has accepted.

-Humans benefit society
Humans buy goods, use services, work jobs, etc. and benefit the economy, and thereby the society.

-Thereby, werewolves benefit society.
Because werewolves are humans, and can buy goods, use services, work jobs, etc.; werewolves benefit the society by benefiting the economy. Apes, etc., cannot benefit the society because they cannot buy goods, use services or work jobs like humans can.

This contention stands.

Now I will move on to attacking my opponent's case.

C1: Werewolves are not capable of thinking properly
My opponent says that werewolves are part human, part animal. I concede that. However, this manifests itself as 100% Human for most of the time, while being 0% human for the rest. There is no mix. So, for the majority of the time, lycanthropes can think exacly like humans, and the rest of the time they cannot. from here, see my contention 3.

This point is rebutted.

C2: A werewolf's harmfulness overrides it's benefits to society
I will admit that werewolves are dangerous. However, "letting [lycanthropes] roam the streets at anytime" is a misleading scare tactic. Lycanthropes, most of the time, are humans, and should be able to walk the streets.

My opponent also commits what is known as a "non-sequitor." From his first paragraph he leaps into a paragraph that suggests that werewolves are not really connected; he asks wheather, "
What makes a normal wolf different from a werewolf? What makes a gorilla different from a werewolf?" What is different is humanity.

This point is rebutted.

C3: Giving Werewolves rights are useless
First of all, werewolves are NOT 50% human, 50% wolf. The more accurate ratio is 80% human, 20% wolf. And for 80% of a werewolf's life, he/she is sentient. Giving werewolves rights is necessary becuase they can understand, recognize and exercize said rights.

This point is rebutted.

Seeing that I have proved my points and have rebutted my opponent's, I rest my case. Vote PRO.
jm_notguilty

Con

Thanks for responding. This debate is over. My opponent hasn’t satisfied his burden of proof to prove why Werewolves should receive equal rights as human beings. So, I’ll make this brief.

REBUTTAL/DEFENSE

To clarify, my opponent has played with technicalities here and stated that we should only give werewolves rights when they are in human form. This was never stated in R1. Do note that when the creature becomes human, they retain their rights as human beings. So, this premise falls. We need to focus on the fact that it can turn back into a vile creature again thus asking the question, should werewolves, even in human form who can transform to something dangerous, have equal rights as humans?

RE: Werewolves are people

Okay, sorry, don’t know much about biology. But from what I know, humans are related to apes. My point here is that werewolves aren’t complete human beings, and that if we grant them the same rights, we should also grant apes some rights because they are like werewolves. They are not complete human beings, but they are related to humans.

Again, please note that when werewolves become human again, they retain and still have their rights. That’s that, no argument there so this point is irrelevant.

What we’re arguing is if werewolves per se should have equal rights.

RE: Werewolves have no choice

My opponent conceded this point. Please extend.

RE: Werewolves are not always people

I don’t get what my opponent is trying to prove here. He’s saying that werewolves have no capacity to know what they’re doing and thus we must grant them equal rights. He also states that I have to prove that werewolves (in wolf form) have the capacity to understand things

What?

I’ve already proven that werewolves are 50/50 human/animal. They have no capacity to understand and be properly conscious on their surroundings. If we grant them the same rights as human, it will harm society as I’ve already proven.

Quoting my opponent:

“Werewolves in their human form, do not want to kill people; I can back this up with the fact that most humans--which werewolves are for the most part--do not have sadistic or murderous urges.”

My opponent didn’t give evidence to this. But as I’ve already proven in my 3rd source in R2, werewolves have sadistic, murderous rages and hatred towards humans.

If werewolves have sadistic and murderous urges as a wolf, then okay; but they are not people as wolves, so they cannot be charged.”

I don’t get the last statement, but from what I understand from the underlined phrase, it’s safe to assume my opponent agreed that werewolves have sadistic rages (since I’ve already proven it). So vote CON right there.

RE: Werewolves benefit society

I’ve already backed up my ape-werewolf-human argument above. His argument fails because he didn’t support the fact that when humans become creatures, this ‘benefit’ he’s talking about is useless. I’ll explain this in my defenses below.

DE: Werewolves are not capable of thinking properly.

Again, werewolves in human form already have the same rights as human if they return to being human. We need to focus on the fact that they can turn into a dangerous creature. My opponent has failed to address and conceded this contention. He also fails to offer proof that lycanthropes think exactly like humans.

Ergo, extend.

DE: A werewolf’s harmfulness overrides its benefits to society,

It isn’t a scare tactic. My opponent failed to address this accurately, he admits to it being dangerous but still claims that they should be given the same rights as humans and that because werewolves are humans most of the time.

Again, he had no proof to support this. Extend.

DE: Giving Werewolves rights are useless

80/20? Proof please, otherwise invalid.

Oh wait, it’s the last round. Sorry.

This point stands.

CONCLUSION

Again, we’re talking about if werewolves should be given equal/same rights as human beings. It’s my opponent’s BOP to prove so and my obligation is to prove otherwise. As I said, it can be to argue that Werewolves should be given rights, but not as equal to humans or to argue that they shouldn’t be given any rights at all.

My opponent only supported equal rights to werewolves in human form and not in mythological form, which is crucial to this debate because giving them rights collide with their transformation or morphing into vile creatures. He doesn’t see the fact that werewolves in human form already have the same rights as normal humans.

If we give werewolves the same rights, this will harm society than benefit them. So, affirm only if you want a werewolf Prof. Lupin (as seen in HP3) to roam the streets or a werewolf Jacob Black and his pack (as seen in Twilight) to go around and intimidate people. Affirm if you want the Big Bad Wolf to become the next Pedobear. Werewolves need help. They deserve rights, yes, but they should have limited and not equal rights.

In summary, I have satisfied my burden of proof and my opponent hasn’t.

I thank him for instigating this interesting debate.

Voters, vote CON. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iPwnuNOW 5 years ago
iPwnuNOW
I'm seriously starting to think this is a troll debate.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
@BDE: Read the debate, moron.

@16K: Bull RFD is bull, as always. *sigh*
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
I don't care.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Okaaay.... so u want me to post now so u can reply or shall I wait so you could save time for research?
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
I think I just need a reset. I need more time more 2 hours that I gave myself after procrastination. This brings to mind a quote I've heard: "There are two things that one needs to get things done: a plan and not quite enough time." I have broken that in every possible way. : /
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Aww, disappointing. But anyhoo, how much time do you need? I'll wait.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Easier said than done.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol XD
Posted by UnStupendousMan 5 years ago
UnStupendousMan
@PeacefulChaos: YOU create that debate
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
What about vampires, such as this nice fellow?

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

I demand justice!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
UnStupendousManjm_notguiltyTied
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 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. Con proved why the werewolves would cause harm to society. Both had sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
UnStupendousManjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: the BOP here was mostly for the pro to argue why werewolves "mythological and folklore" should be given equal rights, and some of his arguments were rather weak and overall, not convincing enough. therefore arguments go to the con, along with conduct for the FF, but sources do go to Pro though
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
UnStupendousManjm_notguiltyTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. pro proved that a werewolf was a human therefore it deserves rights. Can't refute a definition. 2. he proved they have no choice 3. he proved they may not benefit society, but might. vote goes to pro. con conduct for FF