The Instigator
koolcat
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

do you think charlie sheen should be permenantly removed from the show Two and a Half Men?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,070 times Debate No: 18033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

koolcat

Con

there has been many ways mentioned to remove charlie harper from his house in malibu. the most recent one ive heard is for him to drive his car off a cliff and die. one i had heard before was for him to move away with rose and occasionally send letters and items to allen and jake, therefore still being a character and able to one day possibly return to his house in malibu.
which are you for? him being permenantly removed or him becoming a minor part of the show?
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank CON for his response.

Full Resolution: do you think charlie sheen should be permenantly removed from the show Two and a Half Men?

The resolution asked for my opinion, and since I take the PRO side, I will argue that 'he should' be permanently removed and negate the assertion that he should stay as a character (regular or recurring) in the show.

Rebuttal:

C1: Sheen's Fiasco with Lorre and Cast.

As we all know, a few months ago, a controversy happened between Charlie Sheen and Two and a Hald Men creator Chuck Lorre, where Sheen verbally attacked Lorre in a radio and online interview, and continued the attack in a CNN interview in TV, where Sheen got fired. He also attacked fellow show member Jon Cryer, who plays 'Alan' Harper, not 'Allen'. [1][2][3]

Also, Sheen sued Lorre for a 100 Million USD. [4]

Sheen was fired for that, which means he's unable to have a role on the show and having an appearance, maybe even a short cameo, will make things complicated.

Now, simple logic, how will you fire and re-hire someone back when he verbally abused you in public? With no apologies whatsoever. How can you work for someone who sued you for a crapload of money and be okay with that.

C2: Rumors Without Sources.

My opponent failed to prove those rumors, so they are irrelevant. I will prove them in my next contention.

C3: Sheen Character Already Dead.

Since he got fired, he has no use in the show, except a bad memory, since Lorre already stated to TMZ that Charlie Harper will 'die' and the 1st episode of the 9th season will show Charlie's funeral. [5][6]

In conclusion, Charlie is dead, he should be permanently removed because we can't let dead people rise from their graves.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.tmz.com...
[3] http://www.aoltv.com...
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.tmz.com...

Debate Round No. 1
koolcat

Con

I think they shouldn't kill him though, because it would be more intresting. They could make it where they send letters to Allen and his son. Charlie Sheen dosent have to come back on the show but they should keep his memory on it.
jm_notguilty

Pro

Please extend my arguments as my opponent failed to refute them

My response:

They could make it where they send letters to Allen and his son. Charlie Sheen dosent have to come back on the show but they should keep his memory on it.

We need to get something straight, we are talking about the permanent removal of Charlie Sheen, the actor, not Charlie Harper, the fictional character.

Your responses and suggestions are considered irrelevant since they are baseless and not related to this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
koolcat

Con

i am 14 and was just looking for an innocent debate.. this is my first time debating anything and i am on a mobile device therefore it is difficult for me to cite sources.. i am sorry if i inconvenienced you. you win, i withdraw from this debate.
jm_notguilty

Pro

No problem.

For the future, please consider posting in a forum rather than a formal debate like this one, so it can be much easier. DDO has a forum located at the top if you scroll up. You can post some topics there and have a nice discussion.

Again, no problem, and I urge the voters to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
koolcat

Con

thnx for the info i will be sure to check it out :)
jm_notguilty

Pro

:)

Arguments Extended, Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
koolcat

Con

heyy i am just ending this i guess soooo hi lol :)
jm_notguilty

Pro

Thanks, and again, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
There's a general problem with the debate titles being limited to 40 characters. I agree that Con could have been more clear, but the opening argument specifically said "Charlie Harper" and argued that the character should be kept alive remotely. I think it's clear what was being argued, and you should have responded to the argument rather than relying on the semantics of the title. You avoided the whole point of the debate.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Roy, my opponent failed to clarify the resolution more accurately in R1, just because he is a new member does not excuse him from instigating this debate and making a poor argument in his 1st round.

The resolution clearly states 'Charlie Sheen', and in no way abbreviates it to 'Charlie Harper' or 'Sheen Character'.

And as I said, his arguments with his assertions on the Sheen character being killed have no sources, it was irrelevant, yet you still voted for him. I've made relevant arguments, which he somewhat didn't make an effort on refuting.

My opponent can refute them in the following rounds or in R2 saying that we are talking about the Charlie Harper character, but he didn't, he could go with your arguments if he got the idea, but didn't, like your examples of characters being retained with different actors are good ones, but then again, my opponent never got the idea of introducing them. Does that make it my fault?

We had 72 hours of debating time, he may be in an iPhone, but it's enough to at least go to a PC and spend the time to debate.

As to Koolcat, I wish him good luck on his upcoming debates.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Con's first round made it clear that the debate was about the character, not the actor. Therefore, Pro's arguments were entirely irrelevant to the resolution. Failure to discuss the resolution is a conduct violation independent of the abusive behavior.

There are prior examples of characters being retained when actors are changed. One noted case was the husband in the series "Bewitched." There is nothing remarkable about suggesting the character be kept as an off screen role, because he might return without Sheen playing him.
Posted by koolcat 5 years ago
koolcat
well i think they should just make it where they can bring him back at anytime.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I thought the plan was to permanently remove him.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
koolcatjm_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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "You win" - Con
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
koolcatjm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Effectively a forfeit
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
koolcatjm_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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was grossly and inexcusably impolite to a new debater. The subject is a reasonable one for debate, and Con took a legitimate position, saying in the first round it was about the character, "remove charlie harper from his house" not the actor. The title abbreviated "sheen character" to "sheen" Pro's arguments about the actor were therefore non-responsive. Repeating them stridently does not make them relevant.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
koolcatjm_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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: For a minute there I thought JM was debating Seabiscuit.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
koolcatjm_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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff