Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

RFD for Dog fighting

fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 4:24:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Dog Fighting Should Be Legal

Danielle (Pro) v.s. ThinkBig (Con)

http://www.debate.org...

My apologies if my old RFD was horrible. It was around 11p.m., to 1 a.m. in Paris when I did it, so I wasn't really thinking carefully. I just wanted to do my vote, and go back to sleep. I apologise if I didn't read the debate carefully, and seriously many others might also. The problem with Pro's argument is that it starts with off-topic, then connects them. But then, by when she is connecting it, people will just say it is off-topic, because no one would really want to read a very long argument about an off-topic thing in half of it, and they give up. So, if you now know, it was cause of that. And, I was lazy to change my vote, and I am now less lazy, so I'll vote on it better.

The burden of proof is on Pro, but both sides are to provide offense.

Con provides defense, which is unfair, as Pro didn't have a turn to. Con says that his rebuttal on off-topic is not rebutted, when I will explain that Pro's arguments are on topic, and that isn't really a rebuttal, as there isn't much to fix. To make it fair for both debaters, I'm not buying Con's defense, as it is unfair if I do.

ARGUMENTS

Pro argues that animal abuse is legal, as we torture animals, and animals do not have right because we eat them. Pro says, "Why can't be have dog fighting when we can eat meat? Pro says that many places thing dogs as pests, which I don't really think is a compelling argument, as I don't like dogs, only small cute puppies. Pro says that many people enjoy dog fighting, so it should we allowed. Pro gives an example that it is unfair. She gives an example about a pig. Pro shows as study that a pig is smarter than a chimpanzee, and a dog, yet we kill them brutally, when we don't do that with dogs. Pro says that dogs aren't the most important animal, which is true.

Pro also says that animals do not have rights, as we can buy and sell them. Pro says that you can buy a lamb, and kill it, so Pro says that you can do same for dogs. Pro says that we allow animal cruelty for many other occasions, such as horses when pulling carriages, animals in zoos, etc. (I could have named way more.) Pro says we can do the same with dogs, and it is unjust to punish them, and it might have good effects because people like dogs.

Con rebuts my saying that he agrees if it is animal abuse, we should ban meat. Then, he said meat is good, which doesn't really fit, as bad and good make the rebuttal weird. To make it more weird, Con didn't really understand this argument at all. Pro's point was the animal abuse is currently allowed; why not dog fighting?

Con says that he does not find horse, and zoos as animal abuse. It is, as it limits their freedom. Con also drops animal rights, fairness, and many more arguments, for me to lose count. I'm gonna vote Pro because her arguments are standing, and she filled her BoP, but just to make things fun, I'll address how Pro wrecked Con's arguments.

Con's best case was moral status of animals, and he drops that in round 4, so there is no point in addressing it. Con's second case was about that children will become more violent when they grow up, and that it will bring illegal drugs, illegal guns, etc. Pro's rebuttal of this argument or basically like a counterplan is that children can be restricted to not watch, like violent movies. This isn't really true, many children watch them, but it is enough to refute the point. Pro says that it is already illegal, so it is not true, and in horse fighting, there is no illegal activity, so it will probably be the same. Pro also says that they are in a secret place.

OUTCOME/ CONCLUSION


The debate wasn't that great. The outcome is pretty clear. I am shocked why I vote Con. Pro's arguments aren't refuted, she has the BoP, and as she proved that dog fighting should be legal, she automatically gets the win. Con's arguments do no weight, as because he failed to refute Pro's arguments, there is no point for him to actually argue. Con drops animal rights, abuse, fairness, etc. Con drops his strongest argument about moral status of animals, and does not explain it, when he said he would. Therefore, I vote Pro.

FEEDBACK

Pro- Right why the argument connects first. As I said, many people will do the same thing as I do. And, just leave it like this, but connect your arguments first. Also, never forfeit, even if you are busy

Con- Don't drop your own arguments, at least try. Also, think about the whole point, Pro's arguments wasn't about the meat was bad, it was about meat is legal, which is animal abuse, so we should legalize dog fighting. Only saying that you agree to ban meat does not rebut this.

I hope this is enough for my RFD.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 4:24:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Therefore, I vote arguments to Pro.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:54:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 4:24:15 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con provides defense, which is unfair, as Pro didn't have a turn to. Con says that his rebuttal on off-topic is not rebutted, when I will explain that Pro's arguments are on topic, and that isn't really a rebuttal, as there isn't much to fix. To make it fair for both debaters, I'm not buying Con's defense, as it is unfair if I do.

I don't think this was a good RFD, but I'm too busy to be addressing that at this point.

But this, specifically, is wrong. Danielle brought up new arguments in the final round, so Con also has the right to do it. The reason Con brought up counter-rebuttals in R4 was because Danielle rebutted Con's arguments in R4. So it's perfectly fine.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 8:45:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 3:54:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:24:15 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Con provides defense, which is unfair, as Pro didn't have a turn to. Con says that his rebuttal on off-topic is not rebutted, when I will explain that Pro's arguments are on topic, and that isn't really a rebuttal, as there isn't much to fix. To make it fair for both debaters, I'm not buying Con's defense, as it is unfair if I do.

I don't think this was a good RFD, but I'm too busy to be addressing that at this point.

But this, specifically, is wrong. Danielle brought up new arguments in the final round, so Con also has the right to do it. The reason Con brought up counter-rebuttals in R4 was because Danielle rebutted Con's arguments in R4. So it's perfectly fine.

I did address some of the defense too. They both did rebuttals, but Danielle did not do defense, so it is unfair, but anyways, it is a Pro win.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 8:46:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 8:45:30 AM, fire_wings wrote:
I did address some of the defense too. They both did rebuttals, but Danielle did not do defense, so it is unfair, but anyways, it is a Pro win.

I have no interest in arguing with you over this.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 8:47:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 8:46:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2016 8:45:30 AM, fire_wings wrote:
I did address some of the defense too. They both did rebuttals, but Danielle did not do defense, so it is unfair, but anyways, it is a Pro win.

I have no interest in arguing with you over this.

me too.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka