The Instigator
bluepawn24
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Viper-King
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards

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 6 votes the winner is...
Viper-King
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,322 times Debate No: 22938
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

bluepawn24

Pro

hi my name is Pam and i think parents should pay their teen children if they get a's in their report card. 2 reason why are 1- they should get something in return for having such good grades. 2-parents should always pay their kids once in a while
Viper-King

Con

First of all, I will be giving out definitions. She had no definitions but obviously we know what she's talking about. After these definitions, there will be no debate about the definitions.

Definitons:

Parents: A source or cause; an origin. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pay: To give money to in return for goods or services rendered. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Teen: The numbers 13 through 19. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Children: Unborn infants; Fetuses. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Straight: Heterosexual. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A's: Area. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Report: An explosive noise. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Cards: A win list. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Thus my opponent must prove that sources give money to 13-19 fetuses if they earn heterosexual areas in their explosive noise win lists. That absolutely makes no sense. If the resolution makes no sense, how do we expect this case to make sense? Let's find out.

My opponent's first statement is that there are two reasons for this resolution. It's that the 13-19 fetuses should get something in return for getting good grades. Where is anything about good grades? I don't see anything about good grades so in my opinion that's absolutely irrelevant to the resolution. The part my opponent is supposed to be arguing is that 13-19 fetuses should get something in return for earning heterosexual areas in their explosive noise win lists. Well, that makes zero sense for an argument. I ask my opponent to make more than 1 sentence arguments for her contentions.

My opponent's 2nd argument is that parents should always pay their kids once in a while. What in the world? This argument has nothing to do with children and why should sources pay something that has nothing to do with the resolution? I have no idea what my opponent is talking about since both her arguments have nothing to do with the resolution.

Now I will say the BOP is on Pro but that doesn't mean I can't state why the resolution makes no sense at all.

Contention #1: The Resolution makes no sense thus the argument doesn't make sense.

See the resolution is that sources should pay their 13-19 fetuses to get heterosexual areas in their explosive noises' win lists. I don't understand this resolution. Thank you people. As I've said, the BOP is on Pro and I have nothing to prove except to refute my opponent's arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
bluepawn24

Pro

Well my opponet restated lots of my facts and i just to tell the truth dont know how to respond. so id like to say id like to FORFEIT.
Viper-King

Con

I refuse to allow my opponent to state that I restated her facts. Thus I will have some contentions.

Contention #1: Facts don't belong to anyone besides Adolf Hitler.

We all know this. Why most people don't acknowledge this is the mystery. Adolf Hitler is the only one who has facts. Everything anyone says is always an opinion. Whether we think it's a fact or not, facts are an illusion. Such as most people believe that the fact is that Innomen is exactly who he claims to be. However, little do we know that Innomen is actually Zeus. the God of the Sky, trying to appear to all mankind like a human being. He looked all over the Earth and found the figure he matched with most, then came onto DDO and struck lightning at all who didn't worship him or opposed him which is why you don't see The_Fool_On_The_Hill, SocialPinko, Askbob, Cobo, Rhea97, and everyone else. Thus we can assume that no one has a "fact" because there are no facts. The only person who has facts is Adolf Hitler. Why? Adolf Hitler doesn't exist thus only he can have facts. You may say, I thought you said there are no facts, which is true. Someone who doesn't exist can own something which doesn't exist but someone who does exist can not own something which doesn't exist just like someone who doesn't exist can't own something which exists.

Contention #2: The 13-19 Fetuses would destroy the world if they got paid.

Well, fetuses are already straight in their mother's wombs and have "areas" in their ears which is the orgin osf the explosive noises and their minds which are the sources of win lists thus if they get cash, the world will end. They will use that money to carve out oft heir mother's womb, kill her, and then slaughter everybody in the hospitals. Then they would be super-powered since they could make explosive noises, win lists and have "areas", they would use the money to kill everyone since we all know fetuses are the smartest, and kill everyone alive. Thus this idea is horrifying.

I'm done for tonight.

Sources:

http://www.counterbalance.org...
(My other source is in the PM of Innomen)
Debate Round No. 2
bluepawn24

Pro

First of all I just said id like to forfeit this debate but it looks like you didn't let me. okay fine first of all how does the name, idea, or thought of Hitler have to do with this debate!!?. I never mentioned him and were talking about teens not him!. second you said that if parents paid there teens we would "DESTROY THE WORLD", OKAY THIS IS A MAJOR EXXAGERATION AND WERE JUST TEENS WE CANT DESTROY THE WORLD!. Mainly what I'm trying to say is this two contentions have nothing to do with the debate. Thanks for debating against and I still think parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards. thanks for your time
Viper-King

Con

First of all, my contention #1 from Round #1 stands unrefuted. 2nd, my opponent thinks Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with the debate. That is extremely false. Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with this debate because he's the only person who can have facts. No one else can have facts. Why? Because Adolf Hitler doesn't exist thus he can have a fact that's non-existent because all facts are non-existent. My opponent says he never mentioned Adolf Hitler. I think he just did. Also 13-19 fetuses will destroy the world if they get paid. My opponent fails to staate why it is such a big exaggeration and fails to state why my contentions have nothing to do with the debate.

I ask for the conduct point for this debate due to the Round 2 forfeit by my opponent and his "less than 1,000 words" arguments.
I ask for the spelling and grammar point due to my opponent having bad punctuation and misspelling multiple words.
I ask for the arguments point due to my opponent not fulfilling his BOP.
I ask for the sources point because I got more sources thn my opponents.

Sources:
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
oh i get it
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
Viper, your hitler points were amazing. I am deeply impressed.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
What's going on in this debate is an attempt by Con to get an easy win by deliberately misinterpreting the resolution. For example, the resolution says "teen children" but Con decided to take "children" to mean "infant." He can't get away with that because "teen" makes it clear the subject is teenagers. By deliberately misinterpreting the resolution, Con claims that the resolution is nonsensical.

Con apparently succeeded in confusing a new debater with his semantic horsepucky.

Accepting a debate and then refusing to debate it is a conduct violation. Failing to respond to the instigators arguments leaves them conceded, which loses arguments. Readers understanding the rules and conventions of debate will give the win to Pro. Con should man up and apologize.
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
i still dont get it
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Of course, words that are undefined in a debate are take with the ordinary dictionary meaning that makes the most sense in the context of the debate. If it were not so, an opponent could redefine every word to his advantage.
Posted by baltadakis 5 years ago
baltadakis
okay, explain to me what Hitler has to do with all this?
I think that parents that parents that gives money to their kids because they study or such, should think about the consequences latter...
Posted by baltadakis 5 years ago
baltadakis
why should parents pay their kids if they get straight a's in their report cards? the majority of the teens don't work, they dont have much to do... they should do well in school!
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Spoiled brats.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Even though Viper trolled a good resolution A) Pro forfeited B) Her arguments were extraordinarly bad C) She never gave forth one definiton. I wouldn't have really counted this against her if it wasn't for A and B.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? Obvious abuse of definitions.
Vote Placed by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I would have voted Pro on this but they backed off they could have instantly trashed his definitions but decided not to. If she called him out for trolling he would have lost but instead she choose to forfeit. She didn't have better arguments because she failed to argue, I'm new to voting so i hope this is the right way. Conduct goes to Pro for being a good sport.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: A good troll knows when to troll and when to not troll. This was a case of the latter and not the former. For shame Viper. For shame.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Viper, this was uncalled for. You wrongfully trolled the Pro for no reason. This wasn't a bad resolution that gave her a free win. She wanted to debate the topic and you refused to do it. That is a conduct violation. Your arguments were that her arguments were extratopical, which is clearly false. So, you lose arguments. The Pro may not have been a good debater, but I think that it was wrong of you to troll this debate instead of helping a newbie out.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
bluepawn24Viper-KingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Viper-King totally trolled Pro.