Instigator / Pro
5
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#3986
Seifenblasen haben keine Rechte
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
SammiBoi
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1509
rating
12
debates
25.0%
won
Description
Okay, also habe ich gerade eine Seifenblase geplatzt und ich fühle mich ein bisschen schuldig deswegen. Aber bevor du mich verurteilst, lass mich mich verteidigen.
Erstens, wir alle wissen, dass bestimmte Wesen moralische Berücksichtigung verdienen, wie Menschen und Tiere. Aber eine Seifenblase? Komm schon, es ist nur ein Klumpen aus Seife und Wasser. Es hat keine Gedanken, Gefühle oder Bewusstsein. Es kann sogar keinen Schmerz empfinden. Es ist kein Wesen, das leiden kann.
Rechte werden normalerweise Wesen gewährt, die von diesen Rechten betroffen sein können. Und da eine Seifenblase nichts empfinden kann, ist sie wirklich nicht verwundbar für Schaden oder Ausbeutung. Rechte dienen auch dazu, die Interessen von Lebewesen zu schützen. Es ist also ziemlich klar, dass eine Seifenblase keine Rechte hat.
Aber hier kommt der Twist: Ich habe nicht einfach irgendeine alte Seifenblase geplatzt. Ich habe eine Seifenblase im Küchenbecken zerplatzt, die auf schmutzigen Töpfen schwamm. Sie war glänzend und blubbernd und ich konnte erkennen, dass sie nichts Gutes im Schilde führte. Also habe ich die Dinge selbst in die Hand genommen und die Seifenblase mitten ins Gesicht geplatzt. Ich war ein Held, der die Küche vor der seifigen Wut der Seifenblase schützte.
Also, zusammenfassend: Seifenblasen haben keine Rechte und selbst wenn sie welche hätten, hätte ich völlig berechtigt die Seifenblase zerplatzen lassen. Es war ein klarer Fall von Selbstverteidigung.
Round 1
Danke, dass du mein Debate annimmst.
Wie ich bereits sagte, besitzen Seifenblasen, obwohl sie vielleicht ästhetisch ansprechend sind und Freude bereiten, keine Fähigkeit, Rechte zu besitzen. Dies liegt daran, dass sie kein Bewusstsein und keine Selbstwahrnehmung besitzen. Eine Seifenblase ist nicht in der Lage, das Konzept von Rechten zu verstehen oder zu schätzen, da sie keine Fähigkeit hat, ihre eigene Existenz oder die Welt um sich herum wahrzunehmen. Daher wäre es sinnlos und bedeutungslos, Seifenblasen Rechte zu geben, da sie sie nicht vollständig verstehen oder nutzen könnten.
Darüber hinaus ist die grundlegende Natur von Seifenblasen problematisch. Als Blasen ist ihr einziges Ziel, vorübergehend zu existieren, bevor sie unvermeidlich platzen. Dieses plötzliche und explosive Ende kann in einem kleinen Radius Zerstörung verursachen und damit denen um sie herum Schaden zufügen. Daher ist klar, dass Seifenblasen für die Gesellschaft nicht von Nutzen sind und keine Rechte haben sollten.
Your argument is very strong my friend, but I have had a while to think, and I have come up for a reasonable counterargument.
Let us begin.
As bubbles, their only goal is to exist temporarily before they inevitably burst.
So far you have depicted a soap bubble as a being with no feelings or consciousness therefore a being with no ability to possess rights. But this sentence gives a clear view of a soap bubble's life. A soap bubble's mission. If a being had a goal, then one such as I could argue that that being indeed did have consciousness , therefore the being could very well possess feelings not so or very different than our own. On these grounds, we could state that such a being, such as a soap bubble in this case, could very well have the ability to possess rights.
Let's look at it this way. What happens to a soap bubble? It is conjured up, floats or sticks to a surface for a few seconds, then, such as in this case, is brutally murdered or succumbs to the pressure around it and pops. Is this it's goal? Is it really such a cruel creature that it's one goal is to kamikaze and destroy the environment around it? One could argue yes. But then you are giving the bubble life, a mission, a purpose. If a bubble really was just an object with no feeling, then why give it the time of day. Pro knew that a soap bubble truly has feelings, which is why he clearly states his guilt about popping it. A person who believes a soap bubble is undeserving of rights would not admit guilt at its destruction.
To even further hopefully benefit my case, let us look at the environment around us. A protected forest is designated for forest areas that has a special meaning for protection of the environment against negative impact such as air pollution, noise, erosion because of wind and water, drought or avalanche. A recreational forest is a forest that has a special meaning for recreation for the public. You could say that this is an example of a forest's rights to withstand destruction or temperament. But, if pro is right, these trees would be undeserving of such rights, as they hold no consciousness or feelings. Rights do not only belong to animate, thinking, conscious beings. An unanimated object with zero conscious could very well contain the ability to possess rights. Everything does! Everything on this Earth has the ability to possess rights.
Round 2
Es ist interessant, wie du über die »Mission« einer Seifenblase sprichst. Ich bin sicher, du wolltest damit alle Herzen berühren, aber das ist eine kalkulierte Manipulation.
Du gehst davon aus, dass das Ziel der Blase ihr eigenes ist, aber das Universum hat ihr dieses Ziel gegeben. Daher gehört es in Wahrheit dem Universum. Die Blase ist nur der Überbringer, der einen höheren Zweck erfüllt, den sie selbst nicht einmal verstehen kann.
Und es ist etwas voreilig, meine Handlungen an jenem Tag als »Murder« zu bezeichnen. »Murder« bezieht sich auf ungesetzliche Tötungen und ich habe Schwierigkeiten, ein Gesetz zu finden, das das Platzen von Seifenblasen verbietet. Vielleicht gelten in deinem Land ja andere Gesetze.
Ich habe nie Schuld eingeräumt. Ich habe nur ein sehr schlechtes Gewissen gehabt. Das ist normal für einen menschlichen Mitgefühl besitzenden Menschen. Aber obwohl ich am Anfang ein schlechtes Gewissen hatte, verstehe ich, dass ich nichts Falsches getan habe und niemanden geschadet habe, der es nicht verdient hat.
Ehrlich gesagt, dieser Vorwurfssturm hinterlässt langsam aber sicher Spuren in meiner Seele. Ich betrachte die Ereignisse immer kälter. Die Schuld dafür gebe ich der Blase.
Was deinen Waldvergleich angeht, denke ich, es ist treffender zu sagen, dass die Rechte des Waldes nur eine Euphemismus für unsere eigenen Rechte als Bürger sind, einen Ort zu bewahren, an dem wir die Natur genießen können.
Your reproach is amazing.
I see the weaknesses in my approach, but I would like to continue down this path but be smarter about it.
Allow me to throw this out there, a bubble is not alive. It has no conscious or feelings and cannot understand rights even if it had them. I agree with you here pro.
But there is a difference between having rights and being able to have rights.
As I said earlier, while soap bubbles may be aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable, they have no ability to own rights.
I will be striking at the last part of this statement.
Pieces of art, natural wonders and unusual objects have a right to existence in and of themselves. The wanton destruction of inanimate objects by human beings is one more example of the human species' need to control existence rather than be a part of creation.
Consider this statement, a statement I found online on this site: encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/denial-rights-inanimate-objects
Although an object cannot understand the construct of rights, that does not mean it is undeserving of rights, or has no ability to possess rights. When you say that soap bubbles have no rights, you are merely using this as an excuse to get away with the destruction you caused to the soap bubble.
I mean - I could say something about post hoc ergo propter hoc.. but honestly, on the whole, your presidency has exceeded my expectations.
"The burden of proof is on you to prove it would be a mistake."
Burden of proof has been met. I chased off RM and changed the COC to be less stupid, and am currently influencing mods in a good direction
Unless it is an outlawed name, Pro technically wants to strip the right of anyone called "Seifenblasen". As to the sheer amount of people with names as ridiculous as "Puppy" or "Cherry", etc. theoretically such an individual would exist.
see my comment in that debate
I started a debate so I could prove it
You know what, we're really derailing the thread. Take it to PM's if you want to talk.
The burden of proof is on you to prove it would be a mistake.
That would be a mistake
The way, I see it, I have three choices:
-Vote for a frequently banned guy with no campaign promises
-Vote for an active user with a clear platform
Or...
-Convince people to vote for RM.
Yeah, I think I know what I'm going to do. Time to create a campaign thread for RM and convince all the newbies not to vote for you.
I am in the middle of a fierce campaign to prevent what could be a genocidal leader from taking complete power over this site (not an attack just we don't know what somebody with power could do until they get it). I need every point I can get. Please return it promptly
The site only lets me vote against you if you participated in the election, but just know that mentally I docked you one invisible vote
The site only lets me vote against you if you participated in the debate, but just know that mentally I docked you one invisible point
I wasn't even part of the debate? Lol
I just realized you wrote in English. Sorry the debate was supposed to be in German. That should have been a conduct points against you
I believe you gave a spelling and grammar point to the wrong guy - PRO is the one using German.
Thank you! I will take your advice and I am exactly that, a new user. And what you said is true, I do not think this was easily winnable.
For your first debate, you did excellently. I would advise you not to take every debate in sight you see - that's something I often see new users do. Instead, carefully evaluate the debate topic, and ask yourself: how winnable is this for me? Personally, I think no matter how well you argued, it would be very difficult to win this.
Kind of hard to argue that soap bubbles have rights :p I could've done a bit better with the argument part and addressing parts
Thank you! That is very gracious of you.
My intention with this debate is to touch on both the ethics of popping soap bubbles and the question of whether or not they should be granted rights. On the one hand, it's hard to argue against the inherent beauty and joy that soap bubbles bring, moments before they engage in mutual mass murder-suicide.
On the other hand, it's difficult for me to justify granting rights to something that lacks consciousness and the ability to understand or appreciate those rights. It's a complex issue, I'm sure you understand. Also, I think the first point falls under the umbrella of the second point.
Ich schätze deine Analyse. Ich möchte jedoch klarstellen, dass diese Blase im Besonderen in absehbarer Zeit nicht wieder aufwachen wird.
The Pro states, "But a soap bubble? Come on, it's just a lump of soap and water. It has no thoughts, feelings or consciousness. It may even not feel pain. It is not a being that can suffer.:. Pro later contradicts themselves with this statement, ": I didn't just burst some old soap bubble. I burst a soap bubble in the kitchen sink floating on dirty pots. She was shiny and bubbling and I could see that she was up to no good.". I ask you to read carefully, how does a being with apparently neither consciousness nor feelings be up to "no good". If the soap bubble was truly "up to no good", then we could argue that the bubble does have a consciousness and maybe even feelings. As a being with neither isn't going to be able to be up to no good. Therefore, we could argue that a bubble could be open to having rights on the basis that they can be up to actions consciously.
Ich lobe die Einleitung. Aber ich muss hinzufügen, dass nicht jede Selbstverteidigung gerechtfertigt ist. Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel, wenn Sie in böser Absicht gehandelt haben und diese Blase nicht auf diese Weise einschläfern mussten. Selbstverteidigung ist wichtig, aber Modifikation, obwohl schwer zu beweisen, kann dazu dienen, ihre Rechtfertigung umzukehren.
Zur Wahrheit!
-logicae
On the contrary, what makes you think that? Their description is basically their opening argument, and I see no glaring problems with it.
I think this will be an easy win. My opponent has left any chance of an argument completely eradicated by their description.
Having the description typed in a language that I do not know an amounting vocabulary of surely decreases the chances of me grappling it on for semantic maneuvres, eh. /srs
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the soap bubbles, and I did not speak out—because I was not a soap bubble
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
So is this about the ethics of popping soap bubbles or whether soap bubbles should be allowed rights?
The mods can use a translation app. You are fine
I'd say that making it unrated should work, though I think you'd get more interest in this debate and be able to keep it rated if you just translate it all to English. I'm not sure what your purpose is in having a debate about the morality of popping soap bubbles in German instead of English, but if that is what you want to do and someone does accept it, this should be unrated.
You can inform this user.
Does that mean I just need to make it unrated?
For the purposes of moderation you need to make debates in English or a language the mods explicitly state they can understand. This is an English-speaking website primarily especially for official debates.