Instigator / Con

Mall

1469

rating

340

debates

40.88%

won

Topic

#3732

You pick the topic, I shall do my best with it.

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Mall

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 09.13.2022 08:38PM
Last updated date: 10.16.2022 02:40AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 20,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

Novice_II

1890

rating

debates

93.37%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.

Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .

Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1

Mall

09.14.2022 09:32AM

Con

You're up.

Novice_II

09.14.2022 11:40AM

Pro

As pro stated:

Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .

Meaning that for the topic I choose, I shall be pro and Mall shall be con. However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all.

z. Topic

The topic I choose is "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States."
In extension: I shall take the pro position, and Mall shall take the con position.
Definitions: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.
To make it fair for con, I will allow him to make his argument so we each have 1 round for argumentation.

Round 2

Mall

09.15.2022 07:58PM

Con

Rape should not be illegal in the United States.

Now nobody has gone over what " should" means in this debate so I'll be the first to do the honors and I thank you kindly for your hospitality.

Following that which is the cause or purpose connects the two.

For example, my inhaling these fatal toxic fumes , I should be dead. The effect following the cause logical follows and necessitates.

Rape should be legal in the United States. Now the United States has a government called the United States government or affectionately "Uncle Sam", ok.

This government has democracy to vote in elected officials to orchestrate the legality process. This government has democracy which in turn via those elected parties or directly through petition, vote in on laws.

There's a whole legislature, congress to pass or veto laws.

Whatever laws that are passed by the United States government should in fact be legal.

That's just simply what it would mean.

Something shouldn't be illegal and that thing is legally passed. It doesn't compute. These are opposite.

The laws put in effect via congressional, legislative, political arenas, that process ,the cause should be legally in effect as that what it means to put them in effect.

A vote, a pass on a rape law should be legalized because it would of meant the government has passed it.

Some honorable mentions for alternative arguments or points but are more splitting hairs are below.

Should the act of rape be legal?

Yes, in our dreams or for a more appropriate term " nightmares ".

Should not be illegal, rape that is where it doesn't exist.

I could make a case for what's called a "rape " scene in film and how real it has to look to still within the law .

The dream scenario, somebody can make a case about consciousness and experience being all there is necessary to constitute the act but be within the law.

But for the most basic simpler route, I'll stick with this main point.

Any law passed, rape, abortion, slavery, murder by the capital humanely and tenderly known as capital punishment should be legal because something happened called the "passing of that law", that's all folks.

Novice_II

09.16.2022 01:02AM

Pro

Rape should be illegal because it entails the use of force against individuals who did not consent, or voice their agreement to have force used against them. This is instrumental to building a functioning civil society, in which people observe fundamental human rights such as life, and liberty. There is no logical difference between the legalization of rape in which people do not consent, and the legalization of murder, in which no one gives consent to have their life robbed from them.

Something shouldn't be illegal and that thing is legally passed. It doesn't compute. These are opposite.

You can legally pass law/policy that makes an action illegal.

Any law passed, rape, abortion, slavery, murder by the capital humanely and tenderly known as capital punishment should be legal because something happened called the "passing of that law",

We are not debating whether or not the making of the law should be legal, we are debating whether or not the action of rape should be legal.
Con has made no argument against the resolution, so the decision is simple here.

RationalMadman

10.16.2022 02:40AM

-->

@Novice_II

Honestly it is lucky I was on, I am quite busy these days and frankly this is becoming less of a hobby of mine. This website's community isn't worse than DDO's at all, it's humans in general I'm growing tired of and here humans determine if we win or not.

That said, you never/barely gave me wins vs Mall with your vote and honestly I am not entirely sure you won here because Mall actually did kind of outplay you by redefining 'legal' as 'concerning the law' which you barely fought back on.

I won't pretend I didn't laugh at the situation but I believe strongly in Sun Tzu's teachings, at least in terms of how to navigate long-term warfare, he didn't understand tactics that well. Oromagi and you having beef is beneficial to me. This is a chain reaction from me being online when Supadudz tried to rob you of the win, after all. Had that been a win for Oro and thus had I not revoted, Oromagi's beef would solely be with me.

Thanks to those events, a lot will unfold now and people will see that I was right about Oromagi and that he is the bitter, sinister and corrupt one. Yet, I am so bored by it, it's also not my priority as I am focusing on real life issues like a career/later-in-life-studies and my health/body that are becoming more serious demands on me and are ultimately important. Being the best debater ever is a fun fantasy, now it's getting cringe even for me. I know I can debate incredibly well, this format here is more about arguing than persuading and that's the less important part of debating in real life anyway.

Novice_II

10.16.2022 01:53AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Well, thanks for telling me in advance at least. I just don't understand the vote here, and it seems almost certainly to be an emotional outburst in response to previous events.

RationalMadman

10.16.2022 01:52AM

-->

@Novice_II

If you think Barney is corrupt, David is going to give you nightmares.

Novice_II

10.16.2022 01:38AM

-->

@David

@Vader

@MisterChris

It appears that the current vote that established the conclusion of this debate simply constitutes a collection of nonsense. I am not sure what to do about it given that the debate has concluded, but I want an appreciation of this situation.

Novice_II

10.16.2022 01:19AM

What type of vote is this? I suppose this is some form of retaliation for a recent defeat (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi) but this is very irritating to say the least.

Public-Choice

09.14.2022 02:04PM

This is a great lesson in setting up the structure for the debate before going into it early.

RationalMadman

09.14.2022 10:05AM

-->

@ComputerNerd

Novice is the troll, not Mall.

ComputerNerd

09.14.2022 09:56AM

-->

@Mall

Are you serious?

oromagi

10.15.2022 11:20PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.

This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.

PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.

" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."

This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."

So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."

Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"

CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.

So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.