Instigator / Pro
4
1456
rating
6
debates
16.67%
won
Topic
#3315

Men should sit down to pee

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
3,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Description

Read everything below before accepting or it is an automatic forfeit, for you

The resolution means I am arguing that men should sit down to pee in the bathroom. Don't be a smart ass. I don't mean everytime they enter a restroom. I just mean when they go into the restroom to urinate. I also don't mean when men are camping or otherwise in a situation where it is okay to pee outside. Clearly in a parking lot while drunk and tailgating, it is okay to urinate standing up. It is also okay to urinate standing up to put out fires. So the main rule here is to stay on topic, and debate in the spirit of what is trying to be argued here.

rules

1. everything I said above

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Resolution:

First, the resolution clearly means "All men should sit down to pee." It doesn't mean some men, it means ALL men.

Second, negating the resolution "Men should sit down to pee" doesn't mean that you are advocating that "All men should stand up to pee." Nowhere in the rules is this specified, thus, Pro saying this provides no weight for me.

Pro had a massive BOP that he failed to fulfill. He has not provided any good reasons that ALL men should sit down to take a leak.

Arguments:

Health > CON:

This by far was the most powerful argument for this debate. PRO first brings up that men are healthier when sitting down to pee. This argument is quickly dismissed by CON, in which they prove that the PRO's own source clearly says older men with conditions can sit down to pee. CON points out that Pro has not fulfilled his BOP by only proving that older men with health conditions should sit down. Furthermore, CON provides a study that proves that men have no health benefits from sitting down to urinate.

PRO tries to use his faulty source again to prove that men should pee sitting down reduces the risk of infection, but this is still quickly dismissed by CON, who exposed the fact that the reduction of risk only applies to men with prostate problems.

CON never addresses PRO's argument that a lot of prostate problems go undiagnosed, but PRO never provides any sources for this.

Sanitation > TIE:

PRO brings up a very valid point of sanitation. He accurately proves that standing up is less sanitary and spreads more pee around the toilet (his use of the invisible pee cloud is false though). CON tries to dismiss this by saying that nobody eats dinner in the bathroom, but this provides no weight as sanitation anywhere is still extremely important. (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation)/

CON then brings up that sitting down can also lead to infections and sanitary problems as well. He accurately proves that sitting down also has its risks. PRO fails to address this point.

Transgender > CON:

What was this argument's purpose? PRO provides no sources that transgender people will feel less awkward with men peeing sitting down. PRO only provides one absurd situation in which this would happen.

Conduct:

PRO regularly used curse words and inappropriate language even for a casual debate. He also used derogatory language, which CON pointed out. Even though CON forfeited, PRO's large use of inappropriate language negates that, thus this is tied. Both debaters engaged in inappropriate conduct.

Note: I delete this twice because I made mistakes in both votes. Sorry.