eagles should be forced to wear shoes
Debate Rounds (3)
Definition: Eagles - A soaring bird . You'll notice that none of the other definitions for eagle apply; the rest have to do with coins, seals, etc. -- none of which can be forced to do anything. So I assume this ridiculous resolution is aimed at the only definition of eagles which applies, and that is the bird. Note that "eagles" cannot reference a player on a sports team called The Eagles or else that would have had to be specified either in the resolution or in R1 by Pro in order to not be considered abusive.
Arguments: (1) At present, there are no shoes that currently fit eagles properly therefore you might not even be able to force them to wear shoes if you wanted to. (2) Pro hasn't explained why eagles should be forced to wear shoes, and of course he cannot offer any "legitimate" arguments in the last round that can be counted, since doing so in R3 is considered bad conduct and prohibited by debating standards. Therefore, none of what he says in R3 will matter anyway and he won't even have the opportunity to try and pretend to respond to this spam debate which I doubt he is literate or intelligent enough to do anyway. (3) Forcing eagles to wear shoes provides no immediate or long-term benefit to either humans, eagles or anybody else. (4) The use of force imposes upon rights; not everybody believes that animals - including eagles - don't have rights and Pro hasn't proven that they haven't. I s'pose I'll leave it at that for now... And with no affirmative arguments to be counted, the resolution has just been successfully negated.
Conclusion: My opponent is a troll who presumably has no life and no friends outside of teh internetz, so he created this spam debate for attention because he's too insecure to see a psychiatrist or school counselor about his problem (if he even acknowledges that he has a problem). He may even be a college student, which in turn makes him more pathetic (Askbob - is that you?). Nevertheless, he obviously had no intention of arguing in a debate-like fashion leading one to presume that he took this debate for lulz @ whoever accepted this debate and tried to argue it legitimately as I have just done. In reality, I have nothing better to be doing at the moment (my girlfriend is cooking me breakfast and I'm killing time before we eat) so responding senselessly to this is really not a bother. I type fast anyway. In the end, I don't really care if Pro is lulzing away at me so lulz right back. I win. I win this debate, and I win at life. Ciao!
Danielle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years 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||7|
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.