The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 58829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person. consider a deserted island hypothetical or maybe stranded in the desert w no end in clear site, or something like that.

the normal rules of not being able to kill others at this point no longer applies.
aburk903

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro. In the Merriam Webster Dictionary, alone is defined as "separated from others" or in short, isolated. In the topic, the word you can be reasonably assumed to represent the reader and someone can be reasonably assumed to represent another human being. If I (as the acting "you") were to find myself isolated in the desert I would indeed be quite alone. However, were I to be accompanied by another individual (an acting "someone") I would cease to be alone. My premise is quite simple: because the proposition is reliant on the concept of being alone with someone (which is fundamentally impossible) it cannot be defended logically.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"alone with someone" is a common vernacular phrase. look it up.
at best it can be criticized only semantically. in reality, you can be alone, in terms of you are with someone and together you are alone.

con tries the cheap shot of semantics, and did a terrible job while doing it.

vote pro
aburk903

Con

I do not deny that my sole contention is a semantic one- but that does not intrinsically make it a cheap shot. I also wish to remind my opponent that there is an additional round, so making a voting decision at this juncture in the debate could only be premature and potentially misinformed.

I also contend that (at least) my sources are superior- as I have provided a valid dictionary definition to support my semantic case, whilst Pro merely requests us to "look it up". This all being said, I will further contend against my opponent's case for the additional chance to gain the points for argumentation (as I believe spelling and grammar and sources to be ((somewhat)) a given)...although at this point, increasingly not conduct.

At best it can be criticized semantically (as my opponent points out) which is exactly what I intended. So, we will continue pursuing this line of thought in a semantic way, which is the best possible way I may pursue it (an mutually agreed upon position from myself and Pro). Pro has suggested that semantics and reality are at a disjuncture. This burden of proof is surely unfulfilled while mine is sufficiently offered. I have provided the semantic case against the basic form of this debate, which until countered with compelling evidence is valid. To counter this, my opponent has only asserted that in reality it is possible to do something which is impossible according to the definitions of the terms used to describe such an action. She also asserts that this very real contention is a cheap shot, at which I am somewhat startled. This casual dismissal of serious and academic contradiction to her case seems unjustifiable. I encourage my opponent to reconsider this approach (in this final upcoming round) and to either rationally defend why reality is contradictory to the semantic definition of aloneness, or to concede.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i'm not going to dignify your contentions about 'look it up' being inadequate, cause your contentions are based on semantics and a 'cheap' argument.

if you look up 'alone together' or the phrase i used, youd see it's common vernacular.

if you look up in the dictionary, you can see example sentences that use the word the same way i do. or, just look in the comments section that explain and illustrates this more.

con says it's best to approach this debate with semantics, but in fact it's best to engage the debate on the substance, which con is clearly unable to bring himself to do.
aburk903

Con

I do not see the comparison between my opponent's refusal to provide material evidence that her contention holds any validity while I have at least provided a dictionary definition that is contrary to the interpretation that my opponent presents. I would also contend that labeling my argument as "cheap" does not make it so- it merely states an opinion. Opinions are not arguments.

I ask all potential voters to disregard my opponent's request to research the validity of this debate by reading the comments. If my opponent had anything to contribute it should have been here, within the debate, and not a referral to someone else's work in the comments. Again, voting should regard only content presented within this debate itself- and my opponent has presented little of that. Saying that my argument is cheap and asking readers to look up something or consider the common vernacular bear no weight in the world of academia and are too hastily dismissive. Perhaps my opponent could have defended her side had she presented any evidence to contradict mine but none of this was done. It is for this reason that I respectfully ask that you vote Con today.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
As much as I appreciate a good bible verse, I do not know what mocking God, or sowing flesh to flesh, and spirit to spirit, have anything to do with the debate, your arguments (BoP and premise) or my RFD.

Galatians 6:7-8King James Version (KJV)
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

https://www.biblegateway.com...
Posted by aburk903 3 years ago
aburk903
Galatians 6:7- Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (KJV)
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
Previous comment by you: "Here, I'll debate you as well for the sake of simplicity."

You are inferring I am the fool in your bible passage. You have engaged my RFD. This would then make you a fool as well. Quoting this verse AFTER you have already responded does not bode well for you.

My RFD remains the same after Round 2. (I will be sure to keep you updated since your initial interest.

You have still not cited your source, you have merely stated it is Merriam Webster. (This is the same as saying "look it up" as you state Pro has done.) In case you still don't cite it, I will again for you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Your BoP is still a failure by your definition of alone and the examples given by the source you derive the definition from.

Still a clear vote for Pro.
Posted by aburk903 3 years ago
aburk903
Proverbs 26:4- Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (KJV)
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
You are not debating me, you are trying to sway my RFD. Perfectly acceptable if you do not agree with it. However, I am not swayed in my RFD.

Despite the term isolation, which you are again arguing semantics, like in the debate, is not necessary for my RFD.

You gave a premise that 'one cannot be with someone and be alone'. Merriam Webster's sentence example for alone, states: "I got him alone and asked him what had really happened.". This infers a group of people can be alone.

You have argued your own premise with your definitions and have failed the debate.

You can say whatever you would like in the following rounds, this does not change the premise you affirmed, as Con, in Round 1, which you have refuted yourself with the definition source of Merriam Webster.

The semantics you tried to argue, are the same semantics that caused you to lose this debate after one round.

This is not a premature RFD. You argued your own premise, therefore failing BoP. There is no argument to be made by you any further as you have already argued your own point.
Posted by aburk903 3 years ago
aburk903
Here, I'll debate you as well for the sake of simplicity. You cannot make a reasonable RFD based on one round of the debate. I might have said "Purple snake monkey rapist", and then in my opponent conceded, I would be justified in winning the debate. Additionally, should my opponent not make the same arguments that you have and argue invalidly, then I will win- because an invalid proposition countered by an invalid position become valid. So, your RFD is premature- and nobody likes premature RFD'ers...

Additionally, note the term "community" in your comment "isolated community" versus in the context of referring to a singular individual. An isolated community implies that there are no communities around it, just as an isolated individual implies that there are no individuals around it.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
I have every right to give my Reason For Decision based on the Round 1 arguments. I choose to give mine before voting because you have lost the debate as of Round 1.

I will give one more RFD.

You also gave the term isolated to mean alone.
Example on MW for isolated:
"The town remains a very isolated community."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Meaning more than one person, actually an entire community can be alone. This also goes against your premise. Your definitions (which you said come from Merriam Webster) conflict with your premise.

You chose to ignore the premise given by Pro, define the terms, and affirm your own premise. Per your definitions your premise is flawed.

My decision is a Pro win. They need not make any further argument because you have argued yourself into a loss.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
con's comments are comical. i hope that's what he intends them to be. 'alone' 'with myself and we' etc etc and such
Posted by aburk903 3 years ago
aburk903
Didn't realize I was debating you as well @Domr, or that the voting had opened up yet. Somehow, I assumed that I accepted this topic to debate only @dairygirl4u2c, but perhaps you were alone with her and I simply misunderstood the concept of singularity is this dualistic world. Thank you for introducing reason to be illogical and abstract mind, I think I'll go away together with only myself and we'll reconsider everything.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
Troll debate failure.

Con has affirmed a premise " because the proposition is reliant on the concept of being alone with someone (which is fundamentally impossible) it cannot be defended logically."

To put into simpler terms: you cannot be alone if you are accompanied by someone else.

Con has taken on all of the BoP.

However the definition given of "alone", by Con, is said to derive from the Meriam Webster Dictionary. (Which Con has not cited)

The MW dictionary gives this sentence to us as an example of the word alone:
"I got him alone and asked him what had really happened."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This implies a more than one person can be separated, or isolated, from others and still be considered alone.

Per Con's own definition source of the premise, he is proven false. Winner Pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con's argument strayed a bit too far and ultimately sealed his doom as all of his arguments turned into straw-mans
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2caburk903Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It's clear what Pro intended to argue. Con tried to dodge the "real" question entirely, and focus on a semantical argument. However, the debate is clearly PREMISED on this. So, we can either prefer Pro's description, or Con's. Con asks that we presume that the conditional that is inherent to the motion is impossible, Pro asks that we take the common vernacular understanding. In the end, Con doesn't answer the question, and contends its unanswerable. If you're going to run a semantic argument, you run the risk of losing if you don't run it perfectly. In this case, the conditional was PART of the resolution itself, taken as an assumption. IF X, then Y. The debate was intended to focus on the legitimacy of the "then Y". Con's attempt to illegitimize the "IF X" fails, because it was to be presupposed as part of the resolution. Had there been a semantical quibble on the "then" statement, it would have gone better for Con. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.