Would it be painful to shove a fork up your anal cavity?
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is NOT acceptance.
I have decided to run a Masochism Kritik in this Debate that will disprove the resolution while challenging definitions.
Masochism can be defined as Fedoroff, Paul J. MD (2008). "Sadism, Sadomasochism, Sex, and Violence". Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (Canadian Psychiatric Association) 53 (10): 637–646.)
Notice that I didn't say "world shoving a fork up your anal cavity and then taking it out repeatedly be painful?". I said " Would it be painful to shove a fork up your anal cavity?". This is an important distinction.
Now, as for cutting. Cutting is done because it relieves psychological pain. However, it is transformed into physical pain. This does not relieve pain, but rather changes it.
Now, for my arguments.
Shoving a fork up your anus doesn't only cause blunt tearing, but can cause the fork to puncture it, causing infection. Would anyone honestly argue that an infected anus is not painful?
Also, it doesn't matter which end you shove up, because it must go up all the way. The resolution isn't, "would it be painful to shove a fork halfway up your anal cavity?".
I thank my opponent for such a timely response, but I believe it was a too rushed.
I absolutely agree that shoving a fork all the way in would be better. Especially since my opponent has dropped my masochism argument we can see that his infection argument can be flown to my side of this debate. This dropped argument is important because it shows that any pain caused by the fork is instantanously transfered into pleasure. So Pro's argument for it being extremely painful, the infection that is, creates a tremendous pleasure for the individual creating a greater amount of happiness. Now I shall provide a Link for the argument.
John Stuart Mill argued that society must work to created the Greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of Sentient beings.  We can use his Utilitarianism to not only show that the individual showing the fork up their butt should be allotted due to the pleaure, but we can see that any attempt to stop this or saying opposite is imposing on the will of the public, becasue such an act is pleasurable.
Finially we must observe Kant's Kingdom of Ends.  Here Kant argues that no one human must be used as a Means to an end, but only as Ends in the Kingdom of Ends. Thus you cannot use people to do something for you or do something that makes people do something, like remove a kidney if they don't want to, in order to reach a betterment of the whole or for another ends. For example, say the USFG institues a manditory Organ Harvesting program. It would be breaking the Kingdom of Ends by using people to get to an ends. Thus it shouldn't be accepted as it violates the Kingdom of Ends. Telling them to not do such a thing, because of the pain is a violation of their individual rights by forcing them to not do that. A simple claim to tell them that their actions are painful and what I mentioned earlier is a violation of the Kingdom of Ends and a just society is required to uphold the Kingdom of Ends. 
With that we can attest that Con holds the correct stance and of that of a higher moral standard.
2. ( http://plato.stanford.edu...)
"Especially since my opponent has dropped my masochism argument we can see that his infection argument can be flown to my side of this debate."
I did NOT drop that argument. I simply said that, even in the case of sado masochists, people inflict physical pain on themselves to help psychological pain go away. However, slowly dying of an infection is not converted into pleasure by anyone. Even for sado masochists this is true, and they make up a very small percentage of the population. This debate is whether it is or is not painful on balance (the average amount of pain it would cause if it became a common practice.) It is intellectually dishonest to twist an argument to fit your side.
Even so, this is your definition of masochism : "the condition in which sexual gratification depends on suffering physical pain or humiliation." The key words here are physical pain. Sado masochists still feel pain like the rest of us, but they enjoy it.
This debate is also not about whether shoving forks up your rear end is good for society, but rather if it is or isn't painful. This makes your paragraph about utilitarianism invalid.
Let us continue the debate and I'm offended that my opponent would insult me and I'll address that later, but let's get to the debate.
My opponent has dropped my sexual pleasure argument, but we can see that though it's not repiticious it still causes the same kind of pleasure and thus this side is flown to my side of the debate.
Now onto the masochism argument. My opponent states that they feel the pain, but they enjoy it. The thing is that we have to look at is that the pain causes pleasure meaning that there is no longer any pain, but pleasure. Thus this argument is negated. My opponent argues that an infection will spring up causing death and thus it is bad and they won't find it pleasurable. There is a double edge sword here for my opponent that he has to land on some side or another. We have to observe the Mill argument on GHFGSB to see that we have to look at what causes the greatest amount of pleasure on ballence. We can see that this is the case. My opponent has not specified Who is shoving the fork up their butt, so there's a great chance that it can be a masochist and thus it would be flown to my side. We can see that "your" can go any way. If he is refering the two people in the debate we can see that I may be a masochist and via semantics I win the debate. If it refers to my opponent it too may work as he might be a masochist due to humanity's animalistic instincts as shown by Thomas Hobbes in the Leveitent. The same can be applied to the whole. We can actually see that whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we all enjoy pain and even death.  It creates a certain comfortable pleasure for us as it also shows us that there might be a threat. This causes an addrenaline shot in our boddies to increase our awareness. This releases addrenaline and Endorphine into the body. Endorphine has the effects of things like harroine and crack, but without the bad side effects. So since we know there is no known threat this occurs and is an actual pleasure that naturally occurs in the body.  The same thing occurs with near death expierences as it is known as a Head orgasm.  Thus we can see that this argument is flown over to my side of the debate.
DEBATE KRITIK VIOLATION
Here in this debate we can see that my opponent has attacked my side by using an Ad Hom attack against me to disprove an argument stating that I had twisted arguments, but that doesn't defeat the argument as my opponent himself has done that, but yet it is unprofessional to call them out on it. I have done so due to this attack as it harms the tradition and fundamental values of debate here on Debate.org and that my opponent must face punishment for his actions. No I'm not advocating for his banning, but the voters should vote down my opponent on the grounds of attacking the basis of this debate and an utter violation of traditional debate. This violation holds a great deal of water in this debate and if it is not refuted then I win the debate by default as punishment for my opponent's violation. Due to me arguing in Round 1 I have to waive round 4 to make this a fair debate between the both of us.
I thank you and please vote Con!
1. (Sigmund Freud, "The Uncanny" (1919), in Studies in Parapsychology (Alix Strachey trans.)
Now, even if Con's argument of physical pain holds true, what about psychological pain? Wouldn't it cause physiological pain knowing you were about to die, or at least living with the shame of shoving a fork up your rear end, and it getting infected? This would surely be a blow to ones dignity, would it not?
No round as agreed upon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that shoving a fork up one's anus is a masochistic action because there are nerve endings near your anus and by triggering these nerves you are technically masturbating. Con stated that the definition of masochism states that sexual gratification depends on physical pain or humiliation, and thus all arguments in favor of shoving up a fork being painful is automatically transferred to Con's said because it is, in actuality, pleasurable. Pro never rebutted Con's arguments and simply re-stated that doing this action is painful, yet Con has already made a sturdy case explaining why all "this is pain" arguments transfer to his side. Thus, arguments go to Con. Con used sources to provide a definition of masochism, show why masturbation is pleasurable, and show why masochist pain is really better described as pleasurable rather than painful. All these sources supported Con's case and gave weight to his claims. Pro used no sources at all and relied on assertions. Sources go to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.