The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,306 times Debate No: 19519
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




This is for Wierdman’s tournament. I wish PR luck and hope to have a fun and enjoyable debate!


No semantics, and by that, standard debating rules/ethics will apply, with 72 hours of argumentation where the maximum character limit is 8K, also each debater has 3 rounds to argue then we proceed to voting, where the RFD voting style will take effect and voting lasting 1 week.

R1- Acceptance of terms

R2- Opening

R3- Rebuttals/Clash

R4- Final Rebuttals/Summaries

Burden of Proof:

PRO must argue that it was not Goldilocks’ fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

CON must negate all of PRO's contentions and argue that Goldilocks was at fault.

Goldilocks and the Three Bears:


Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in.

At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she said

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

“Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

After she'd eaten the three bears' breakfasts she decided she was feeling a little tired. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Goldilocks sat in the first chair to rest her feet.

"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.

So she sat in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" She whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

"Ahhh, this chair is just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest, it broke into pieces!

Goldilocks was very tired by this time, so she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.

As she was sleeping, the three bears came home.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," growled the Papa bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair," said the Mama bear.

"Someone's been sitting in my chair and they've broken it all to pieces," cried the Baby bear.

They decided to look around some more and when they got upstairs to the bedroom, Papa bear growled, "Someone's been sleeping in my bed,"

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" said the Mama bear

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and she's still there!" exclaimed Baby bear.

Just then, Goldilocks woke up and saw the three bears. She screamed, "Help!" And she jumped up and ran out of the room. Goldilocks ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into the forest. And she never returned to the home of the three bears.


Additional Note:

I don’t think we need to set up accurate definitions but just in case, ‘fault’ will be defined as responsibility for failure or wrongful act {}.

Well PR, I hope you agree on the terms and accept. Comment if you suggest a change. Otherwise I’ll see you in R2. Good luck!



I accept. Since Goldilocks obviously went into the house uninvited, it's the burden of Pro to show that it wasn't Goldilock's fault entering the home.

This will definitely be interesting.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks PR for your acceptance and hope to have an enjoyable debate with you.


To fully understand my arguments, we must imagine what Goldilocks looks like, her characteristics, her age. So, instead of boring you guys with fancy words, I’d like to describe her via pictures, after all, they’re worth a thousand words.

Sweet and innocent ^_^


These are my arguments for the opening round. Please note that I may introduce new arguments/rebuttals as the debate proceeds further.

The Door was unlocked.

As said on the very first sentences in the story, Goldilocks went in after no one answered. She had the courtesy to knock, but since it no one answered, she tried to open it. It was unlock, in our society, we would usually lock our doors, but no, the three bears were so naive and thought, “Should we lock the door in case a blonde human breaks in and enter and possibly destroy our meal? Nah.”

When a door isn’t locked, we can safely assume that no one lives there, that it’s a vacant house. After all, it’s in the middle of the forest.

Goldilocks had a reasonable cause to enter.

She had a rational basis and consideration to enter that home. Again, since she probably taught that since it was unlocked, in the middle of the woods, it was abandoned. Aside from that, consider the following:

  • She was probably looking for a new home

We don’t know her backstory, since the storyteller didn’t state it, but everything has a reason, we just need to speculate. What if, Goldilocks went to the forest to look for a home, since maybe she ran away, or her parents kicked her out, or her former house was set on fire, who knows.

  • She was hungry

The storyteller stated that when Goldilocks entered the house, she was hungry. She could be hungry before she entered the house. We don’t know her backstory, so we can assume that she could’ve ran away from home looking for a new place.

  • She was tired

Similar to the one above, the storyteller stated that she was tired after eating, but a meal isn’t enough to make you tired, but considering that walk on the words plus the meal, it surely made her tired.

Ergo, her motive for going in was justified in a way to find shelter.

Who’s to blame?

  • Blame the three bears

Admit it. It’s obvious that the three bears were partially negligent on Goldilocks going inside their home. It’s their fault for not locking the door, their fault for leaving their porridges uneaten. And seriously, why the hell did they go outside anyway?

  • Blame Goldilocks’ parents/guardian

Again, Goldilocks has no backstory. So all we need to do is speculate. What’s a more likely reason for an innocent 6-year-old little girl to go for a walk? I say she was abused, she may have some mommy or daddy issues, fighting, spanking, raping, etc.

But of course, we can go to the other reason, like what happened in Little Red Riding Hood, she asks for her parent’s permission to go to the forest. But then again, a reasonable and loving parent won’t allow this to a 6 year old girl, shame on them.

But I like my first reason better.

Anyway, that can be a result to Goldilocks’ motives on breaking and entering, she was abused, she needed a new home.

  • Blame the government

We can blame the local government of the jurisdiction in the story for two things. First, if Goldilocks does NOT have any parents/guardian, it’s up to the state to have jurisdiction and responsibility over her, she might be living in a government-funded orphanage or children’s social service and ran away for God-knows-what reason. And if she is living on the streets, let’s blame the government on that too for failing to care for a child and her needs.

Second, the government needs to be blamed for giving a home to 3 animals.

Obviously, if those are one of the cases, we can safely assume Goldilocks is a troubled child with lots of issues, she needs a family and a home. This may also result to Goldilocks’ motives on breaking in.

Goldilocks isn’t responsible for her actions.

We move on to my last premise, which is my favourite. As I’ve stated above, Goldilocks’ legal guardians may and should be negligent on Goldilocks’ behavior, and not Goldilocks herself. Here’s why:

  • Goldilocks is a juvenile

She’s a child for Pete’s sake, she shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions. Now, you might argue that this is a legal argument and is irrelevant to the debate, but I’m making it relevant. Why, because this is an important factor to satisfy my burden on defending Goldilocks. This story was made a few hundred years ago and was set in the middle ages, and in the middle ages, and if breaking and entering was serious crime then, then Goldilocks would probably be punished regardless of this insanity-like defense (assuming the three bears reported her).

  • A juvenile like Goldilocks is immature, irrational and above all, childish

This relates to Goldilocks’ psychological state and her brain, you see, everytime we think or feel, it affects our brain, our actions comes from our brain, and a brain isn’t perfect until we’re in our 20’s. Goldilocks is six, seven years old, but either way, her brain is as small as a pea. The Prefrontal cortex (in our brain) is the part that develops at the last part. This thing controls our reasoning and judgment. Goldilocks isn’t even a teen yet, so we should not blame her for any wrongdoing because she’s a child. It’s not fair if we do so.


To support this claim for the final time, refer to the contention below.

  • Goldilocks is a blonde, making her stupid

Okay, that blonde bit was probably uncalled for, but in seriousness, Goldilocks is actually an idiot. (Definition of stupid:

Now let’s review the story, shall we? Here are some quoted lines:

"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she said

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.

Goldilocks was alone while she was eating, and if you notice, I underlined a few phrases, you see, a decent child wouldn’t comment on something in that way, she could’ve just said ‘urgh’ or something. But no, she had to shout an unnecessary and lame full sentence.

Next, she went to sit.

"This chair is too big!" she exclaimed.

So she sat in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" She whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

Again, she was alone. No need to shout out if something is wrong, just think in your mind, jeez. Then she whined, meaning she cried, a decent and normal child won’t do that, especially to a silly think like a chair being too big, seriously? This just shows how troubled Goldilocks is.

To add more stupidity, it’s also very idiotic for a person to break and enter a home, eat a meal, sit on a chair then break it and eventually go upstairs to take a nap.

In conclusion to this, it very much supports my juvie-insanity-defense, and I’ve legitimately argued that Goldilocks entering the three bears’ home wasn’t Goldilocks’ fault.

Well, that’s it for me, good luck, PR!



I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this interesting topic. I will argue that it was goldilocks fault for entering the home of the three bears.

One is responsible for their actions
The obvious must be brought is responsible for their actions. Now, goldilocks, being a wee lass, seems to be getting some sort of lenience for her actions, which is completely ridiculous. She was responsible for opening that door, nobody had a gun to her head. Let's take a minute to think about the story at hand.....Goldilocks went up to a house, knocked, and when nobody answered, proceeded to go inside. She went in the house, therefore it's her fault.....

Now, I could just end the debate with that, but I will entertain more contentions in hopes to fully clarify this horrible tragedy bestowed upon these bears.

Upon trespassing on private property, she then proceeded to destroy their chair and gobble up their porridge. Do we live in a world where bears (or people!) can't leave their butter and oats sitting out in the comfort of their own homes?! And they can't leave doors unlocked!? These bears have been devastated by this little vagabond's actions, it is clear. She could have walked away from that house, she could have gone home. She most likely has a home too, for the picture my opponent brings up shows her well clothed and happy. Wandering children without homes are not groomed and happy.

She acknowledges right from wrong
Within the story, we can see that goldilocks can identify right from wrong. While she tasted the porridge, she knew that the cold porridge was wrong, and the warm, delectable porridge was right! Even if it only benefitted her, she still grasped at the concept of right and wrong. This leads you to believe that she can obviously see the error in her invading these poor bears' home. Rather then make the right decision, she deliberately makes the wrong decision. SHE MAKES THE WRONG DECISION. I can't iterate that enough. This "child" is cruel. Refer to the picture to understand the type of person we are dealing with. The link will take you there.

Terrifying, I know. Just the thought of someone like that walking around would make me want to sleep with a gun. Luckily, this is just a fairy tale, and will never come into fruition (hopefully).

Little ol' goldilocks also sat in the wrong chairs, until she found the right one, and ditto for the beds. Like I have illustrated, she understands right from wrong, and therefore is not excused for invading and trespassing.

I would like to finish up my case against the evil goldilocks with a thought for everyone.....

If I were to go down the street and open up an unlocked door, could I argue in court that the door was unlocked, so it was obviously ok? Could I also argue that since the porridge was sitting there, it was justifiable to eat it?

It was not her home. Therefore, she should not have been in it.

I thank you all for braving through this storm with me. May goldilocks forever remain imaginary.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank PR for his splendid response.


Re: One is responsible for his/her actions.

My opponent made this argument as an attempt to refute some of my premises, but failed to give accurate reasoning to rebut it. His response was that it’s a ridiculous argument but didn’t state why. He then pointed out some obvious parts of the story that I already pointed out in R2 then argued that she went in after no one answered. I’ve already theoretically and legitimately explained why she entered the house in R2 and making her not responsible for her childish actions. They weren’t rebutted, therefore extend please those arguments.

I’d like to note that her insanity made her gobble up the bears’ porridges, the chair being destroyed was obviously an accident, but her stupidity probably blocked her common sense on the chair being too small.

As for her home status, orphans and street children like Goldilocks (assuming) probably got their clothes via donations, saying that homeless children don’t look good is kind of offensive, mind you. Oh, and homeless children aren’t always unhappy, they are very cheerful, actually. And in this case, the picture showed Goldilocks smiling is because she is eating, she probably was hungry and finally found some food, like I said. But of course, we need to consider the other arguments that she might have parents.

Re: She acknowledges right from wrong.

My opponent starts this contention by citing the part where Goldilocks started tasting porridges but this argument is kind of misleading. Just because the warm one was the right one does not mean that it is really the right one. This argument doesn’t really back up Goldilocks’ capacity from what’s right or wrong. One could argue that the cold one was the right one for him/her, but it isn’t really the right one. Every person has a different opinion.

The picture CON showed us is a pre-teen attempting to kill a person, and we don’t know if she’s blond or not. She’s more likely to not be Goldilocks. It’s also a misleading picture since it has no relevance to the story, but nevertheless, this just shows Goldilocks’ insanity, and as an insane juvenile, she isn’t responsible for her actions.

Again, Goldilocks is stupid, adding to her insanity. She had to try 2 out of the 3 chairs and beds before having the ‘right’ one for her.

As for my opponent’s question, yes, it may be justifiable and the court can understand that if a juvenile delinquent who has issues goes to the middle of the woods and found an unlocked house, where she assumes it was vacant and decides to take a rest, then yes, you can argue that in court. A juvenile is not responsible for her actions, and therefore must not be taken seriously and not be at fault.

Again, she had the courtesy to knock (in a house in the middle of the woods), and since no one answered, it was safe to assume no one lives there.

Additional Argument: Animal Ownership Right

Obviously, in real life, animals technically have no right to own a house. So if we go to court now and claim this, we can assume that the house is under the ownership of the state or that it has no ‘real’ owner, and that the bears are living in that house illegally. And who knows, probably the real owner was dead and his body was somewhere inside. Surely, it this is the case, the three bears won’t have enough evidence to prove Goldilocks’ negligence and that the case would be tossed, since the court would be asked, “Was this juvenile delinquent who has some parental or house-issues at fault for entering an unlocked vacant house located in the middle of no where? Where she had the courtesy to at least knock and then safely assumed that it was in fact vacant?”


In conclusion, ladies and gents, I know these arguments are out of this world, but as extraordinary as it can be, it is valid and is important, as to satisfy my BOP, to argue that it wasn’t Goldilocks’ fault since she was not responsible for her actions.

I rest my case for now and await PR’s response.

Thanks again and good luck!



PartamRuhem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Lol, that was disappointing.

This is my last post, meaning that I couldn't respond to PR's next argument, so I hope he ethically abides to not construct new premises to rebut my arguments as it would seem unfair.

Nevertheless, thanks PR, you did a splendid attempt to refute my arguments. But we all know, from what I argued, that Goldilocks is a delinquent, and may she forever be imaginary.

Voters, thank you for the time and vote PRO! :)


I must apologize for my forfeit. I found little time for the round, but still, the timeframe slipped through my fingers.

In this round, I will summarize the debate, while not bringing in new points, but refuting attacks against my case that Goldilocks was, IN FACT, at fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

My opponent seems to be making a key mistake in this debate. He is mixing up punishment and responsibility, with fault. I am arguing that it was goldilock's fault that she entered the home of the three bears. Pro is arguing it is not. He is not arguing that she shouldn't be punished.

What everyone must take into account is that this is a fantasy story. One cannot bring in the reasoning that would apply to a nonfictional tale, such as the government being responsible or her parents. What we, as the viewers, have to go off of are the facts, and they remain that Goldilocks was a well clothed, upbeat girl with a curiosity that was bigger than her. She entered the home of another, without permission, and decided to eat their food and sleep in their bed. IF you were to take the case that the door was unlocked to a cop or a court, it would fail instantly. Doors are not REQUIRED to be locked.

Also, in regards to her age, we must look at the resolution. I am not saying that Goldilocks deserves to be punished for her actions, but she should be the one who is at fault, and she is. My opponent tries arguing that Goldilocks in a minor, but that does not excuse her from doing the action. Whether she is excused from punishment is a whole other debate, and one where age matters. Now, however, no matter the age, if a person does something, they did it. Murder, stealing, spilling juice, eating SOMEONE ELSES PORRIDGE (totally unjustified, by the way), they are at fault, for they did it.

My opponent tries arguing that she is not responsible because she is a child. I am arguing that it is her fault, not that she should be held responsible. We both had mentioned responsibility and fault; I labeled my contention as such, and discussed a couple sentences revolving around responsibilities. This however, should not be what this debate is judged on. It should be judged on fault. There is a difference. The resolution states fault, not responsibility. The term fault is used when an action, usually resulting in a problem, occurs. The fault lies on the cause. If a person falls out of a second story window and kills another person, then it is that person's fault, intentional or not. That person is not necessarily responsible, for it was an accident. What I am arguing is that the two terms are different; fault is the one to be used in this debate.

As regards to her home life, we can rule this off as irrelevant, for no matter what her situation, she was at fault for entering the house. It's not a fair assumption that her life was in danger, seeing as she tasted different porridges and decided which one was the best. If she was starving, and truly in danger of death, she would have devoured the first dead animal she came across, let alone taste different porridges.

Even if she were to be insane, which isn't backed well, considering that she ate some porridge, broke a chair, and took a nap (does not qualify you as being insane), it still doesn't dismiss the FACT that she was the one to enter the house. If an insane person murders somebody, they blame the insane person. It's still their fault that it happened, for if they didn't exist, it would not have happened.

Now, my opponent attempts to refute my right from wrong contention with personal preference. It is illogical to say that she doesn't understand right from wrong. She completely understands it. Preference isn't relevant here, because no matter who likes what, they KNOW it to be either right for them, or wrong for them. Thus, she grasps the concept, making her understand right from wrong. She knows there is a right thing and a wrong thing, and she chose the wrong thing every time, realized it was wrong, and corrected herself. She knows how to take actions that benefit her, making her greedy and selfish.

I have already explained the one is responsible for their actions contention. It should be named One is at fault for their actions . However, it wasn't. Still, the argument that it was her fault stands, as my opponent cannot disprove that simple point.

It must be reinforced that throughout this debate, the fault must have been proven, not the responsibility and the punishments following. My opponent AND I have both misinterpreted this, though my opponent to a much greater extent. I have proven that goldilocks understands what right and wrong is, and I have shown how it is her fault that she entered the home of the three bears. My opponent's points on parenthood, government, and so on are discarded due to the lack of evidence that ANY OF THAT is true.

Thank you for reading and judging. Please vote Con, but give Pro conduct for the forfeit.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
RFD: Hmm. A pretty funny debate. Conduct goes to PRO for the ff. Spelling/Grammar goes to CON, since I spotted less careless errors with CON's arguments. Furthermore, PRO used small font. -.-' Arguments-wise...It was a close one. CON - Morals and ethics do not = opinions on what the best 'fit' is. PRO - LOL. A lot of arguments that relate to the real world...But the setting is completely different, and this is a child's story. CON presented better arguments about who is truly at "FAULT"... Some of PRO's arguments were based on the premise of 'punishment' as CON pointed out. Overall, I thought that CON's arguments and rebuttals showed that he was slightly superior. Good debate and good job to both of you :O
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
Everything's the government's fault.
Posted by PartamRuhem 4 years ago
GOD I wasn't trying to forfeit! haha I was like, I have plenty of time! Oh well, I can't argue with you getting conduct. And I will keep new contentions and sources out of the last round, though you still be going down!
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
"It's obvious that the three bears were partially negligent on Goldilocks going inside their home. It's their fault for not locking the door, their fault for leaving their porridges uneaten."

Criminals the world over would love this.
Posted by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
Nope, that may be easy for PR to refute. I may plan to use all words in there.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Only the first 4 sentences of the story are relevant, right? Right...?
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
This is a great topic!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Spritle 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoyed this debate! I saw Partam's argument as more convincing. So he gets more convincing. His FF definitely cost him more points though. I gave spelling to Pro for Con's FF. All in all a close debate and both debaters did well!
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Eh, you both were weird-y. But assuming this was a humorous debate, there was no foul conduct and I actually really enjoyed it. However, it is obvious who the points must go to even though the pro side was not entirely sane...which really supports pros arguments...