The Instigator
jfmamstepsonpuppies
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points

resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,010 times Debate No: 10177
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

jfmamstepsonpuppies

Con

There once was a time when hobos enjoyed the deliciousness of the taquito. That time is long gone. For this reason, my partner and I must negate resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos.
This will be a public forum style debate.
Hobo is defined as one who wanders from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood.

Contention 1- hobos don't deserve taquitos. They are not part of society and contribute nothing. If they realize they don't contribute to the U.S. economy due to their hobo status, they will come to the realization that they don't deserve the chicken taquitos anymore than the hard working citizens do. Because of this, hobos are unable to appreciate said taquitos.
Contention 2- Dr. Seuss once stated that "cup, pup, pup in cup". The pup represents the hobo hiding in his/her temporary residence, the cup. As expressed in the illustrations, the pup does not appreciate the cup that it is given. How can a hobo appreciate chicken taquitos if they can't even appreciate their home? According to answers.yahoo.com, 32 because ice cream doesn't have bones. Also, it was stated that I have a clowns hand in my pants. These quotes clearly refer to the demise of appreciation in hobos as a people, therefore proving that hobos do not appreciate taquitos.
Contention 3- since hobos are dirty, they have dirty hands. This will then contaminate the taste of the taquitos. I ask you, how can a hobo fully appreciate a chicken taquito that is dirty? The answer is.
For all of the above reasons, my partner and I urge strongly that you vote for the negative side. Think of the children.
wjmelements

Pro

Oh, boy.
My opponent has kindly provided a definition of "hobo", but not one of "hobos".
Hobos- plural (more than one) n - people who wander from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood http://www.medindia.net...

NEG:
My opponent's first contention does not follow because whether one deserves something or not does not affect thier appreciation. See my first contention.

My opponent's second contention also does not follow because one's appreciation of a cup does not affect their appreciation of taquitos.

My opponent's third contention also doesn't follow. A "contaminated" taquito can still be appreciated. See my first contention. Also, not all hobos have dirty hands, as this is not directly follow from the definition of hobo and is not included in the definition of hobo.

Now, for the AFF case.
Contention 1: Appreciation
A hobo would appreciate any kind of food. http://meurte.com... http://www.food.gov.uk... http://www.medindia.net...
Taquitos are a kind of food. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Therefore, a hobo would appreciate taquitos.

Contention 2: There is no practical way to negate the resolution.
My opponent would have to prove that either that zero hobos appreciate chicken taquitos or that only one hobo might appreciate a chicken taquito. My opponent cannot supply this proof.

The resolution can not be negated and also easily affirms. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
jfmamstepsonpuppies

Con

My opponent has talked repeatedly about my contentions not "following" something, but has never specified what they aren't following. Follow is defined as to go after in or as if in pursuit (dictionary.com) I bet if my contentions were following chicken taquitos, they would appreciate them, unlike hobos.

Secondly, appreciate is defined as to recognize the quality of (thefreedictionary.com). If hobos are used to eating poop, as stated in my opponents own source, how will they recognize the quality of chicken taquitos, as they will just seem like another poop sandwich to a hobo. A person who does not eat normal food does not have the ability to recognize the quality of chicken taquitos. Also, many homeless people do not have teeth, stopping them from eating the taquito in the first place. You can't appreciate a food you can't eat.

Fourthly, my opponent hasn't given a single instance where a hobo has enjoyed a chicken taquito, but I have given 74 examples where one has not. You're welcome.
Lastly, homeless people kill bunnies (http://www.thaindian.com...)/ If my opponent thinks that hobos can enjoy chicken taquitos, then he likes to kill bunnies. Killing bunnies eventually leads to the murdering of babies. Therefore, my opponent is a baby killer, and any vote for him is a vote for the death of babies.
Nuclear genocide.
wjmelements

Pro

I'm trying to avoid stooping to this guy's level. Because this was not started as a fallacy debate (http://ddofans.com...), I will continue to argue without intentional non sequitor.

My opponent drops all of my contentions and therefore concedes them. The resolution is affirmed.
He also drops all of his original contentions.

Now, to my opponent's (new) contentions.
The first argument that hobos would not appreciate chicken taquitos because something else would is a false dichotomy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...).

The second argument relies on the premise that "A person who does not eat normal food does not have the ability to recognize the quality of chicken taquitos." This premise is false. One conditioned to weaker tastes would find an especially tasty food delicious, while one conditioned to extremely tasty foods find that something slghtly less tasty is bland. Therefore, the hobo would appreciate a chicken taquito more than anyone better fed. Also, because the hobo is in a constant state of hunger, he will appreciate any tye of food, as my opponent has conceded.

The third argument is the result of composition. My opponent argues that because some hobos don't have teeth, no hobos have teeth and therefore no hobos can appreciate taquitos. Besides the fact that chicken taqutios can be tasted without teeth (http://www.medicinenet.com...), the fake syllogism is exposed where it can be found that not all hobos lack teeth.

The fouth argument has a false premise. My opponent has provided no specific examples. Further, I have provent that every single hobo would appreciate a chicken taquito (and my opponent has conceded this).

The final argument is quite the mess.
-First, the premise "Killing bunnies eventually leads to the murdering of babies." is unwarranted and, further, absurd.
-Second, the first two sentences obtain a conclusion from one line, which is invalid (http://www.thelogician.net...).
-Third, because hobos only kill bunnies out of hunger (my opponent's source), the feeding of chikcen taquitos to them would actually save bunny lives.
-Fourth, one's endorsement of a theorectical statement does not mean that one is acting on it.
-Fifth, the argument that people should not vote for someone because they are a baby killer is an Argumentium ad Hominem and invalid (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...).
-Sixth, one who does an action does not necessarily mean that they endorse or enjoy that action.
So, there are 6 logical errors in 4 sentences, which is rather impressive in a fallacy debate, but not here.

My opponent has conceded my arguments and dropped his originals. His new arguments are fallacious. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
jfmamstepsonpuppies

Con

I wold like to start off by saying that your face is fallacious, and since this is "not a fallacy debate", nothing my opponent says can be trusted.
Contention 7- Here is a better definition for hobos: " Hobos are a Latvian rock group formed in 1991 by Rolands dris (vocals), Burk Vics (bass guitar), Egons Kronbergs (guitar) and Vilnis Krievi. As they are Latvian,and wouldn't eat taquitos, this is one of the billions of examples of how hobos don't appreciate chicken taquitos.
Contention- If you look closely at my opponent's typing you can tell that he is the type of person that eat little children. There is also the chance that he has microwaved small animals sometime in the past. If he wins this debate, that will encourage baby-eating around the world. According to barackobamaeatsbabies.com, wjmelements "eats babies."
Since my opponent hasn't rebutted a single one of my arguments but I have proven he can't be trusted due to his baby eating and fallaciousness, I win........,,/,/
wjmelements

Pro

O, boy.
Contention 7 is fallacious, like the others. Even if my opponent could change the definition of hobos(http://fallacyfiles.org...), one's eating of taquitos does not indicate their appreciation of them. For example, a poor african farmer incapable of purchasing a taquito would still be capable of appreciating it. The argument is simply non sequitor.

Contention 8 is ad hominem http://fallacyfiles.org.... It is also non sequitor:
-Logical structure does not indicate one's habit of eating children.
-Chances are not realities.
-One's winning of a debate moves forward their advocacy, not external and unrelated factors.

My opponent's source is an extreme example of quoting out of context. http://fallacyfiles.org...

To the real debate, my opponent conceded my contentions a few rounds back and all of his arguments have been proven fallacious. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
jfmamstepsonpuppies

Con

I would like to start off by saying why my opponent is a meanie-pants. First of all, he repeatedly says "O, boy" which is a slander to the female gender. Also, his face is a hominem. My opponent is accusing me of quoting out of context. But who would you rather believe: a nice child who loves rainbows and unicorns and sunshine or a baby killer who eats bunnies? I thought yes.
My opponent's only argument is that my contentions are fallacious, but as I have already proven the fallaciousness of my opponent's face, none of his arguments count for anything.
Now on to my arguments.
Contention 156- DON'T YOU HATE PANTS?! . I SURE DON'T HATE PANTS!!!!!
(http://www.fazed.org...)
Contention 7 - Steph Berger reportedly stated on twitter that she "accidentally killed a few hobos on my [her] drive to taco bell. 5 words for them: I want some f***ing taquitos." This shows that hobos do not appreciate taquitos, as they attempted to get in Berger's way as she went to buy them.
Contention 9- My opponent has not proven that a single hobo likes taquitos, yet I have given many examples of hobos not appreciating them. He has also not given a single argument. Also there is the definition of appreciate, which clearly helps the negative case.
Contention 10- According to Yo Gabba Gabba, (http://www.gabbafriends.com...)
Brobee Cake: "You want a piece of me?"
Muno: "Razzle dazzle!"
Muno is clearly referring to hobos not noticing the "pizazz" and "razzle dazzle" in foods like taquitos, meaning that they don't appreciate them. If Muno says it, it must be true.
Lastly I would like to give a few quotes to clear up some questions about something.
Wait, how about CLOWN Taquitos? (http://www.fanfiction.net...)
Don't be a mickey mouse clown in the hands of society- Mrs. Butermore
I would appreciate it if you did not read my opponents last argument as he will probably write lies and pro-baby killing propaganda.

You're welcome.

nuclear genocide
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent's rebuttal reduces down to an ad hominem. One's arguments are not fallacious based on a property of their face.

My opponent's contention which he labeled 156 has has no conclusion and does not affect this debate at all.

My opponent's contention labeled as 7 does not follow either. The motif for hobos running in front of the car has not been proven, and even if it were proven, it would not demonstrate that they did not appreciate taquitos because the property of a part does not necessarily indicate a property in the whole, especially when that part is hand-picked. http://www.nizkor.org...

My opponent's contention labeled as 9 is true, kind of. I have not proven that a single hobo likes taquitos. However, that is not the topic. I am required to prove that hobos (plural) like taquitos, and my opponent conceded my argments in round 2. While the definition of appreciate might somehow help the CON case potentially, it has not. The definition of "hobos" has insured that the resolution cannot be negated, as conceded in round 2.

My opponent's contention labeled as 8 is an argument from authority (http://www.nizkor.org..., http://fallacyfiles.org...), but also an example of quoting out of context (http://fallacyfiles.org...).

My opponent's last quotes do not negate the resolution.

CONCLUSION
My opponent has not negated the resolution. Further, I have affirmed it. My opponent conceded my affirming arguments in round 2. My opponent also conceded that the resoluton could not be negated in round 2.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jfmamstepsonpuppies 7 years ago
jfmamstepsonpuppies
I urge strongly that you vote off points not brought up in the debate.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Do not vote off of points not brought up in the debate.
Posted by birdman3377 7 years ago
birdman3377
Hobos appreciate anything given to them...therefore the very meaning of the term appreciation loses its relativity...so no...hobos don't appreciate chicken taquitos anymore than a tickle in the pants....

Or/and...hobos don't appreciate anything...which is why hobos are hobos...therefore a hobo would not appreciate a chicken taquito nor a tickle in the pants...because hobos don't feel...

they just consume...

aren't we all hobos?
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I loved reading this debate.
Posted by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
When I saw this debate, all I thought was "Oh I am SO votebombing the Pro." But I did a well thought out examination of this debate, and ended up vote-bombing pro. Wait, what? Does that count?
Posted by homieq 7 years ago
homieq
we are not the same person but we know eachother and helped eachother with our cases.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"They are each others only friends, other than 1 person,"

Lol, that one person being me. :D

I like their style.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It's plausible.
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
i believe homieq and jfmamstepsonpuppies are the same person. They are each others only friends, other than 1 person, and they both made ridiculous topics. The other one being lemons and aardvarks, and this one being taquitos and hobos. Any one agree?
Posted by homieq 7 years ago
homieq
epic. i agree with jfmamstepsonpuppies. Here is evidence to support his claim:
http://www.flickr.com...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by username03 6 years ago
username03
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by birdman3377 7 years ago
birdman3377
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by homieq 7 years ago
homieq
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
jfmamstepsonpuppieswjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07