The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Is torcher justifiable?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
funnerisbetter has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/1/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 96614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




This is a five round debate. In the first round you will not argue for a point (if you do it will not count,) but you will state what you are arguing in this debate. In the second round you give as much information to state your case as possible while ignoring what your opponent has said as rebuttals will be held later. Then in the third round we will give reasons "pros" using only the evidence used in the second round to support your case and expanding using examples that can be proven with your evidence paragraph hooking your evidence together. Then in the fourth round we give reasons why our opponent is wrong using your evidence. ANYTHING YOU SAY NOT USING EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND ROUND WILL BE DISCREDITED. In the final round you summarize what you think was important, and tell people why they should vote for you. The conclusion is expected to be shorter than most of the other rounds so you would then put some gg's and some good sportsmanship at the end. Thanks!


Thanks for the debate Con.
I gotta say, I've never debated this topic ever; it is rather strange, no?
Well, either way, I accept.
I was also instructed to "state what [I am] arguing in this debate," so here it goes.

Before I can state what I'm arguing, there needs to be definitions for the resolution, which were not provided 1st round.


torcher - one that gives light with or as if with a torch.

torch - a long stick with material at one end that burns brightly.

justifiable - able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible.

*What I'm Arguing*

While I understand that it's much more efficient and practical to use a tungsten filament bulb to illuminate dark areas, someone who chooses to use a long stick with a flammable end is completely justified in doing so, and shouldn't be judged negatively.

Torchers aren't unreasonable either.
They simply prefer the glow of a fire over the blinding burning metal inherent in standard bulbs.

Therefore, I'm arguing that a torcher is completely justifiable in their actions to use a long stick to make light; besides, fire is cool.
Debate Round No. 1


In the debate topic, torcher is a verb not a noun, so torcher would be defined as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something,,,,,,,,,,,, https://medium.comhomeland....


Thanks for that Con.
According to the rules, for the 2nd round, I am supposed to "give as much information to state [my] case as possible while ignoring what [my] opponent has said as rebuttals will be held later."

*My Case*

The rapid oxidation of combustible material at the end of a long piece of xylem is a justifiable way to illuminate the darkness and this thereby makes a torcher justifiable in their actions.


1. In ancient Greek times, a lit torch represented consensual love and marriage, so if one were to pay homage to ancient Greece and reasonably recognize the joining of two individuals within the tried and true institute of marriage, by lighting a torch, then that torcher is reasonable and defensible.

2. Since 1936, every Olympic Games selects athletes, celebrities, and famous political figures to carry a lit torch, and this is considered an honor to be selected by the International Olympic Committee for such an occasion. For one to accept the role of torcher is not only justifiable; it's virtuous and honorable.

3. In 1886, the world witnessed the construction of perhaps the most famous torcher of all time...the Statue of Liberty. While the statue itself is the embodiment of liberty enlightening the world, the torch represents progress, and Lady Liberty is most certainly justifiable in her actions to hold the torch, reminding the world of how important freedom is.

*A Reasonable Light Source*

If you ask any serious torcher, they'll tell you that they've saved tons of money on batteries, electric bills, and light bulbs. Wood is an abundant resource, can be attained free of cost from the forest, and disposal is both environmentally friendly and, in some cases, not necessary, because some torchers burn the entire stick to ashes.

Torchers are therefore justifiable in their actions to use a lit stick for light.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Gotta love the unaddressed glitches of DDO.
Posted by Conceptua 2 years ago
Funney but your opponent will probably forfiet at some point and the debate will be frozen :(
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
I'll take Con's definition as "Is person carrying a torch justifiable" isn't grammatically correct... But then again, Con means "torture". But what is that argument, if you'd call it that? Are you siting a bunch of sources as your argument? This is an awful debate. You know what? Spelling > Grammar. Pro wins. But Flashlights > Torches as well!
Posted by PsionicTurtle 2 years ago
Con you are the best.
Posted by serious_cat 2 years ago
Lol i cant stop laughing.
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 2 years ago
Lol I was confused on that too.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
...Please spell torture right, this is just... depressing.
Posted by funnerisbetter 2 years ago
Con= No
Pro= Yes

I am arguing that it is not.
Posted by PsionicTurtle 2 years ago
Which side are you arguing? You're Con, but in opening statement you say that " you will state what you are arguing in this debate." in the first round.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.