Instigator / Pro

Mall

1476

rating

336

debates

40.77%

won

Topic

#3761

You pick the topic.

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 09.17.2022 05:49PM
Last updated date: 10.21.2022 01:22AM
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 / Con

Novice_II

1890

rating

debates

93.37%

won

Description

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 .

***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THR SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***

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

Round 1

Mall

09.17.2022 05:54PM

Pro

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.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 .

***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THE SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***

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

Novice_II

09.19.2022 07:27AM

Con

Topic: "THBT the United States should make all forms of reading illegal."

Round 2

Mall

09.20.2022 03:19PM

Pro

Let's see, with all reading illegal that would mean the law can't even be read. I wonder would it get to the point where this would be a non sequitur situation.

Well a topic for another lifetime I suppose.

But this topic is challenging me to argue a case for something that should be.

By this time, we should understand, no pun intended, what should and shouldn't be universally by what came out of or with the universe.

It has given us this universal law called the law of causality. This is long before the U.S. government and the laws from it, certainly long before any man made law.

So because of this, the sun should shine bright because of its size and activity. On the side of the earth it shines brightly upon, should all areas of it be lit.

So should the earth that contains land and grass based on photosynthesis and all there in to produce vegetation from all the eco elements.

Then all the beings that live should live due to living off the land, vegetation so forth and so on.

These beings thrive to construct a civilization and bring organizations with systems of control which govern.

To govern the land and the people, everything is labeled and named including the land.

This land today is referred to as the United States with its own government and systems.

Still perpetuating the universal law ongoing so forth and ever on.

Going into laws for the land and those laws behave under universal law like everything else .

They systemically operate and go into effect by another political system.

So any act permitted or prohibited by law should be as a cause of the political system.

So reading or writing should be illegal as a cause of a political system not passing a law to make it legal.

Novice_II

09.21.2022 01:22AM

Con

Mall's whole round 1 argument is nonsense, and it does not even get to the point of the resolution, despite him holding the burden of proof.

So reading or writing should be illegal as a cause of a political system not passing a law to make it legal.

We are not debating whether making laws should be legal or not, we are debating whether reading should be made illegal. Unfortunately, I don't see any arguments from pro on this. Secondly, this is untrue. The bill of rights makes reading legal in the first amendment through the freedom of speech and press. Even if there were no explicit doctrine that stated reading should be legal this does not prove it should be illegal.
My argument is reading should be legal because it is necessary to peruse and acquire information as well as to communicate it, and it generally causes harm to no one while being essential to technology.

Barney

10.21.2022 01:21AM

Not enough time to review.

Novice_II

10.21.2022 01:12AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Okay, so let me see exactly what the claims here are.

C1 "You had to prove reading should not be made illegal"
This is wrong, Mall holds the burden of proof.

Do you agree with this correction (yes/no)?

RationalMadman

10.21.2022 01:11AM

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

Public choice is forcing votes for Novice, he says writing at the start of his rfd then changes to reading as he rushes the vote.

RationalMadman

10.21.2022 01:09AM

-->

@Novice_II

I have actually avoided voting certain debates like this that I think Mall defeated you in as you assume too hard that your one punch responses actually cut deep into his case.

Establishing BoP is not enough, defense alone won't even beat below average debaters, it only defeats the worst at their worst.

You had to prove reading should not be made illegal and your only justification was that freedom to write and speak was legally established.

There is an art to debating lazily, you are better when you try harder. If you put in 60% more effort into these debates, Mall would be cornered.

Novice_II

10.21.2022 01:05AM

-->

@RationalMadman

I don't understand why you are doing this, you know what you wrote here makes no sense.

Novice_II

10.20.2022 10:49PM

2 hours left. Please vote.

Novice_II

10.20.2022 12:35PM

I really need a vote for this debate. 12 hours left.

Public-Choice

10.21.2022 01:08AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

The debate isn't if writing should be illegal if it is not made legal. The debate is whether writing should be made illegal. These are two different topics entirely.

PRO argued that reading should be made illegal if it is not made legal. But this isn't the debate topic. The debate topic is on the second part that he did not argue for, the actual making of it illegal or not. Of course things cause other things to happen. But that isn't the debate topic.

CON, at least stayed on topic and argued for his side, that writing should not be made illegal. Therefore CON made the better arguments.

RationalMadman

10.21.2022 01:02AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Mall is correct. The first amendment solely permits writing, not the reading part. There is no law Con presented that showed reading being legalised.

Pro also noticed that you cannot truly uphold a law against reading if people are to read the paw, making the resolution cyclical. When reading is outlawed, the law is defunct, which then would essentially enable anarchy.

Neither side justified why their side is better off or morally correct.