The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

There should be more action taken in cases of "Swatting"

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 94596
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round for acceptance


I accept. As nothing was defined in the resolution or in the first round, I will propose definitions.

1) Swatting: the intentional act of killing a fly, moth, or other small insect with a fly-swatter.
2) More: additional.
3) Action: a specific act.
4) Taken: a quite good movie starring Liam Neeson as Bruce Mills, a retired CIA agent. Also, it can be used as a synonym of "do."
5) Cases: specific events.
Debate Round No. 1


I am calling my opponent forfeit for his lack of understanding vote me thanks bois outeyyyyy


Seeing that Pro forfiets the debate to Con, I'd stop. But I am no ordinary debater, for I shall present a constructive to futher my case.

When one swatts an insect, once is enough.

Pro is calling for you not to stop at one swat, he thinks you ought to take further action. He thinks "swatting" is not enough, that you should pulverize the fly, incinerate him, perhaps. But is that nessesary? No. No it is not.

In an interview with Guder Volchinez, a three-time gold medalist in fly swatting, 2 meters, stated:
"Ven eye svat zee fly, eye use zee precision uf a tiger, but eye alveys make sure tu recognize one zing. Eye unly need to svat zee fly vunce, and unly vunce. Eif eye use mure zen one svat, et is unnesszary, and eye may get a foul fure unneszezary ruffnez (1)."
(Note: this quotation has been translated to the best of our ability into english.)

If you are to take anyone's word that swatting a fly once is enough to kill it, take the word of Guder Volchinez. Also, P. Ickle, PhD, has writen on the effects to a fly after one swat.
"It dies (2)."

Seeing all the evidence before you, it is clear to see that it only takes one swat to kill a fly. No further action is needed to kill it.


Debate Round No. 2


I will allow my opponent to keep going but i will present my argument swatting a insect is not enough the government must gather all of them and put them in a gas chamber to make sure their diseases do not spread my opponent is simply another animal lover and refuses to let the tought jobs get done so I encourage all to vote for me


Pro's plan to gas all the insects in the world is clearly flawed. The food chains that these insects are a part of would most certainly suffer: birds would starve, certain plants would grow without predators, etc.. Pro's plan ignores this simple fact, that it would ruin almost every ecosystem. Thus, I am not only "another animal lover," I am one that campaigns to not destroy the ecosystems by killing off every insect on the face of the earth. For this reason, and my unrefuted arguments above, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by David_Debates 2 years ago
Exactly what I was thinking Mala. It seems to be Pro's burden to provide definitions. I thought this debate was about "swatting" flies. It's Pro's job to make sure that his terms are clearly defined.
Posted by Skinnyp 2 years ago
Mala stay out of the debate please don't really care about your thoughts
Posted by malalo75 2 years ago
I don't see why Con should forfeit.
Pro failed to properly explain the premise. Con provided valid definitions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was almost a clean sweep for con and this debate serves as a reminder to always put definitions. Conduct goes to con for the following calling for his opponent to forfeit and refusing to put forth any arguments until the final round. S/G goes to con as I had to read pro's "arguments" a few times in order to understand what he was saying. Learn to use proper spelling. Pro's Round 3 "arguments" were unintelligible because the whole text was a huge run-on sentence. Pro argues that only one swat is enough to kill flies. Con argues that we need to round them up and put them all in a gas chamber. Con effectively shows that pro's plan is ridiculous and the ecosystem will suffer. Sources are tied because con's sources were fake.