Budgies are cute
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Thank you gugigor for accepting.
- Budgerigar, also called Shell Parakeet, popular species of parakeet (q.v.). 
Cute: attractive or pretty especially in a childish, youthful, or delicate way 
- a cute puppy
- a cute smile
- having or relating to the power to attract
- APPEALING: : having qualities that people like : pleasing or attractive
- arousing interest or pleasure: CHARMING
||| Source:  [merriam-webster] +  [Britannica]
Resolution: Budgerigars are attractive or pretty
As PRO I win if I prove the resolution to be true. CON must try to prevent me from achieving this validation of the resolution.
The resolution does not include every single budgie in existence. I only need to prove that some budgies are pretty.
I will now proceed with my argument.
BUDGIES ARE PRETTY
Budgies are indeed very pretty. Here is some EVIDENCE, and by that, I mean pictures that clearly depict pretty budgie. Budgies are pretty in the same way a dog or a cat is pretty. The judgement is subjective of course, but one would be mistaken in claiming that these budgies aren't as close as one can be to being objectively beautiful in every sense of the word. I furthermore bring up as evidence that I have budgies at home, and I think that they are pretty. It is an objective fact that my and many others's subjective judgement of budgies is that they are pretty. Nothing CON can say takes away from this fact.
BUDGIES ARE ATTRACTIVE
Attractive has already been defined in three ways:
1 Having or relating to the power to attract
Humans don't usually feed animals unless they eat them afterwards. The only exceptions are where the animals are studied or used for other purposes. This is clearly not the case with animals like dogs and cats. These animals are fed by humans, most often without any reason whatsoever. This is due to some unknown power of theirs, called attractiveness. Inhibiting this power makes an animal popular, and incentives humans to feed it without getting anything useful in return. I will show that budgies have the power to attract, and thus prove that budgies are attractive.
This task is very easy to accomplish. First some sourced evidence and then a logical syllogism.
There are more budgies in the world than any other type of pet bird. People have loved them from the moment the Australian budgerigar was first introduced into European bird collections in the 1840s. And if there’s one thing that’s propelled them to the top slot, it’s sheer personality. [budgies/most_popular_bird]
P1: Humans feed only attractive animals without getting anything useful
P2: Budgies are feed by humans without getting anything useful [take my budgies as an example]
C: Budgies are attractive animals.
This logic is undeniable.
2. Having qualities that people like
This is true for several reasons. First of all, it would be extremely odd if the world's most popular pet birds did not have qualities people like. PRO has to explain why that is and how that is possible before he can justifiably claim that budgies aren't attractive. Secondly, evidence proves that people are enthusiastic towards budgies.
Budgies have become the most popular and most common pet birds in the world - due to a combination of compact size, beautiful markings / colors of their plumage, playful nature, low cost and exceptional talking abilities.Budgie enthusiasts have long recognized how very smart these parakeets are; and appreciate that they are far less troublesome than their larger cousins.Budgies are amongst the most loved parrots around the world. They are smart, affectionate, and beautiful, and come in a wide spectrum of color variations and varieties.
My sources speak for themselves. There can be no doubt that Budgies have qualities that people like.
3. Arousing interest or pleasure; Appealing
Budgies have aroused a lot of interest, to the point where they are sold all over the world and kept as pets. Pleasure means "a source of delight or joy", and budgies have indeed arisen joy and delight into people. Unless PRO is ready to argue that pets don't bring us pleasure this should be considered a truism. Even if PRO can think of intellectual reasons for Budgies not being appealing, he can't deny that most kids and people find their own pets appealing no matter what animal it is. Therefore, PRO cannot claim that budgies aren't appealing or that they don't bring pleasure without denying the experience of every budgie owner in the world.
- My job is to prove that Budgies are pretty or attractive, which means that proving either to be true is a fulfilment of my BoP.
- Since the word cute is innately subjective, the statement "Budgies are cute" is a fact if people think budgies are cute.
- People DO think budgies are cute.
- I have proved that budgies are pretty.
- I have proved that budgies fit all three definitions of attractive, going in-depth on each one.
- PRO can't make intellectual arguments to dispute my evidence since it's all subjective.
- The only option for PRO to win is to deny that the information presented by me and my sources is valid.
Budgies are cute. The resolution is proven correct beyond reasonable doubt.
Pro argues "The resolution does not include every single budgie in existence. I only need to prove that some budgies are pretty."
However, as the premise ambiguously puts a generic idea about budgies being cute, I argue he has to prove budgies are generally cute. Just as the idea "humans are mammals", "these people are citizens", and other designation of "X are Y", nearly all, if not all, of X is designated to have quality of Y. So Pro is wrong. He has to prove nearly all budgies are cute.
Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals.
Attractiveness of Budgies
Pro has proved that budgies attract people, but does not prove that they are truly endearing, nor prove the youngness of the animals.
Cute =/= Beautiful: Cute Requires a puppy-like feature which Pro has not proved
Cute =/= Attractiveness: Cute requires a level of dedication that is endearing
- My R1 evidence was not disputed; especially not my evidence of Budgies being pretty
- CON admitted that budgies have the power to attract, and CON has thus conceded that budgies are attractive.
- The definition requires budgies to either be attractive or pretty. I have proved that they are both attractive and pretty, and CON has not disputed this
Impact: Even without my R2 arguments, the resolution still stands.
The definition of cute doesn't require a puppy-like feature, it only uses puppies as an example of a cute animal. CON's appeal to such a feature is too unspecific anyways.
- Cute: attractive or pretty [especially] in a childish, youthful, or delicate way
Something is cute if it is either attractive or pretty. Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute, they are merely traits that enhance cuteness. Something is cuter if it is childish, but things can still be cute without being childish youthful or delicate. The resolution still stands without me needing to bring any more information to the table. Yet for the love of Budgies, I am gonna prove that they are also childish, youthful and delicate. Just remember that I am actually proving more than my BoP requires me to do.
Budgies are childish
A budgie is a very simple animal. Without hands to manipulate objects, and with a small size, a budgie cannot accomplish much. Its shape is much simpler than that of other animals, especially pets like cats and dogs. The beauty of budgies is very simple, yet truly endearing. If you opened the link and saw the picture, you would instantly like the budgie unless you were intentionally trying to avoid that sentiment. Furthermore, as per my R1 source, budgies are playful by nature as well as affectionate, which are both traits typically attributed to kids. Budgies are also both curious and relatively smart, which is another set of traits we attribute to kids as well as puppies and alike.
Budgies are youthful
- Youthful: not old or mature
This word is of course dependant on the age of the budgie you are talking about. Yet remember that some budgies are cuter than others, and this does not take away from the fact that budgies are cute. Even still, budgies are moulting every year [omlet], which means that they will have yearly periods of new feathers. Therefore, no matter how old a budgie is (as long as it is not maltreated or sick), it will continue to look young and fresh. It is very hard to distinguish budgies' age because of this fact, as budgies can look young for many years of their 12-year lifespan. They also don't mature other than slowing down once they become older, and that is merely a result of being put in a cage.
Budgies are delicate
- pleasing to the senses: generally pleasant
- marked by daintiness or charm of color, lines, or proportions
- marked by fineness of structure, workmanship, or texture
As stated before, budgies are pretty. This is a direct result of their delicacy and being pleasing to the sense. Both looking at and touching a budgie (if the budgie agrees) is a pleasant experience due to their fine feathers and aerodynamic shape -- in addition to their beautiful colours and simple yet endearing bodily appearance.
Budgies are endearing
- Endearing: arousing feelings of affection or admiration
Budgie owners feel both affection and admiration for budgies, due to all of the reasons listed above. Dedication to budgies is actually strong enough that budgies were indeed royal birds, being owned even by Queen Elisabeth . If that doesn't show you that budgies are birds to behold I don't know what will.
The resolution was not challenged by any valid argument. CON has a much stricter standard for cuteness than the official definitions. Yet the victory of PRO isn't dependent upon CON's self-proclaimed requirement for cuteness. Without it being necessary for the resolution to be true, I have gone above and beyond in terms of detail and accuracy to show beyond reasonable doubt that Budgies are VERRY cute:
- Budgies are childish
- Budgies are youthful
- Budgies are endearing
- Budgies are cute, pretty and attractive as per my unrebutted R1 evidence.
The resolution holds. Budgies are cute. Only the degree of cuteness in budgies can be questioned, not the fact that cuteness is a trait of budgies.
My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted. The evidence I presented should be sufficient to conclude that budgies are indeed cute. Thank you for participating.
but like, who really knows?
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
"Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.".
But was this argued or brought up by Con? If not then surely that is a black mark against Con.. Though unless Pro argued this, that is also not worthy of expressing an opinion on.. And those appear to be your arguments, not arguments made by either of the debaters. It would require a seperate debate with yourself to establish that your opinions are correct. They may actually not be.. Also whilst a forfeiture may not be an automatic argument loss, perhaps had the party that forfeited, had not forfeited, then those points might have been raised and Pro might have had the chance to respond to those points.. The fact that we will never know should not reflect more badly on the person that did not forfeit and there is no reason to offer any benefit of doubt to the person that did.. But regarding the conduct point, you somehow managed to state that Con had forfeited, and that Pro had somehow handed the conduct point back by making some kind of violation. So should this not be a tie considering it is in your opinion one violation each? How did you manage to conclude that Pros violation was any more serious than Cons forfeiture?
So you felt like I declared victory when I literally didn't, and then you punished me for that? I only stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute, I didn't override boundaries for fairness as I have done before. My arguments were unrebutted, as I explained in R2 that PRO's R1 claims don't rebut my arguments, he merely challenged me to provide more evidence.
The adjectives being a part of the definitions isn't my choice, it's the choice of society that creates words and gives them meaning. In R1, I cited an official definition and showed why budgies fall under that definition. In PRO's R1, he made claims about my BoP that contradicted the definitions, essentially adding his own criteria for cuteness. My arguments aren't contradictory or self-defeating. I simply explained that I didn't have to provide more evidence, but did it regardless because I love budgies.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
Thank you for voting.
Also, I pay you respect for viewing the pictures and thinking budgies are cute.
Would you care to vote? I don't think it would take too much time.
Welcome to the website and all its dirty ways.
Your critique of my R3 conclusion is absurd. I simply stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute. I did not declare victory, lest you think that every debater in every argument's conclusion declare victory merely by concluding that their case is correct given the evidence they provided. In other words, you are giving CON the conduct point for a crime I didn't commit, and if I did then every other debater always commits the same crime. Your conduct point awarding is unfair.
Also, your granting of argument point to CON is also nonsensical. CON makes no argument, and you use your own reasoning to conclude that my argument is contradictory. You are not analysing a debate, you are acting as the CON party should have acted during the debate. My R1 evidence was enough to conclude that budgies are cute, and you simply ignore all of the evidence I provided. Nope, your vote is not fair at all.
Oh, I see.
-No argument for CON.
-No sources for CON.
-CON barely wrote anything.
-PRO's R2 arguments went unrebutted, and his R1 evidence not disputed.
-PRO's case being correct by definition -- the very definition of cute uses as an example a puppy, which signalises that subjective opinion is enough to call something cute. Thus by mere budgies being the most popular bird in the world proves they are cute. This argument is made and not rebutted.
Seems like the debate to vote CON, doesn't it?
I swear this debate contains more definitions than the actual dictionary.
Seeing semantical monsters like this, I don't know what to think.
Budgies are actually not from hell, they are from Australia.
Bop on pro, be careful
What the hell are "budgies"?
Your back as usual