Kissing on the lips should be illegal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
same reason as fishchaser
There are two main reasons I support con in this one.
1: Banning kissing in general is not practicable, even if it was a good idea the most you can do is ban public kissing in practice and that alone makes all other points moot. It would be like making a debate that says "we should cure cancer right now". We CAN'T cure cancer right now, so any argument for why we "should" is moot.
2: Pro presupposes a legal framework where safety is virtually infinitely more valued than personal freedom. He doesn't quantify the actual probability for example of getting an STD from kissing, it may be very tiny. Pro should have established the risk level, the degree to which safety is more important than freedom and why it is more rational to value safety over freedom to that degree.
Pro makes several claims in R1, none of which are substantiated by more than his claims; he offers no academic sourced backing. He offers a quote, but does not bother citing the quote. Who is it? Pro's alter ego? The claims are summarized with 6 specific problems alleged by "kissing on the lips;" the Resolution's allegation, and thus, Pro's BOP.
#s 1 & 2 are really the same thing, and may survive as the only legitimate argument.
#3 amounts to a truism.
#4 limits the affect to only children by emphasis, which, while a reality, appears as a tug of sympathy because the effects are really universal to all ages. Pro repeats the child emphasis as his last argument of R1, but it's just more sympathy by personal Pro claim, and not substantiated fact by a credible source.
#5 is simple absurdity. kissing on the lips hurts? Never felt the pain, personally, so, as a voter, I cannot equate to the claim.
#6 wanders off course relative to the Resolution, which limits the discussion to lips-to-lips, only.
Con's R1 rebuttal offers four points:
1 Doesn't affect other people, society at large.
2 Doesn't infringe others' rights
3 Is not enforceable
4 Is not morally/ethically wrong/evil.
Con's summary appears to make an error claiming P)ro's BoP is that kissing on the lips improves health, but Pro is clearly making the opposite opposite claim. This error is minor considering the strength of the 4 other items, even though these, like Pro, are not substantiated by sourcing.
Pro's R2 rebuttals fail to turn Con's #1 and #2 rebuttals because pro ignores that other people and society at large are not affected by two people kissing on the lips.
Pro never addresses that wrinkle of Con's rebuttal.
Pro's rebuttal of Con's #3, enforcement, also fails because just reduction of incident of transferring disease is not completely eliminated by a ban, but merely reduced, so Con's argument is not defeated.
Pro's rebuttal against Con's #4 also fails because Pro claims the debate is not about what others think. But Pro has, again, ignored that others are not affected by the kissing by two people. It is a 1-on-1 association, not 1-on-all, and Con has successfully addressed that point because Pro ignores it. Pro is not able to capitalize on his one sure argument of potential transfer of disease by not emphasizing the point in either round, it remains a weak, and losing argument.
Con's R2 successfully defends his rebuttals of Pro's arguments, and thus wins the debate.
Both sides seemed to somehow agree on the 4 questions where at least 1 needs to be a yes to make the law count as valid.
Pro's Round 1 covered many harms from kissing:
The problem here is this:
1. It cannot be cured
2. It lasts for life
3. It is transmitted to others then
4. It literally affects billion of children
5. It hurts really a lot
6. It can be transmitted not just by kissing, but also from mouth to genitals much later in life, making sexual life uncomfortable.
Con challenged NONE of these at all.
This means Con lost the harm question alone. Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses.
Your vote has been removed.
It was as follows: "As I taken biology group in high class, I have some knowledge on diseases. Yes STD are cruel and they are life threatening. But Banning a human emotional activity is not possible, Even during pandemic government asked to wear mask, not banned to talk. So taking precautions, testing for std is required and we can limit ,kissing to only one people like wife. Banning a emotion is not possible. and during physical relations wearing condoms, taking pills are useful. If you felt any changes ,consult a doctor ,we can cure many diseases in early stage."
The very beginning of informs me that you're not meaning to cast a vote, but rather state your opinion on the topic separate from how the debaters argued it; which is what the comment section is for, not the vote section.
You may of course revote, but please ensure your vote reflects analysis of what the debaters discussed.
I know it's not curable, but it only attacks when immune is weak otherwise remain dormant. So keep up the health.
I got it as a kid long time ago. It hurts when it first appears, and makes it difficult to eat. After some time, the visible symptoms go away, and it stops hurting, but disease itself is not ever curable.
alhumd ll Allah, no herpes in our area. I am sorry for your pain, though. I think nowadays, herpes is not a big issue, right?
Kissing is how I got herpes.
Kissing it good for health, science says, spouses should kiss each other 11 times. Just like our gut microbiome, our mouth also has it which improve our immune system. I have seen a video about it recently from the YouTube channel the diary of CEO. It's beneficial for health. But I know it should be limited to children. Banning is impossible, as it's the way of showing affection. It's inevitable to commit. Spearing awareness when someone is sick or has oral sickness, should avoid kissing, otherwise it's good for health. Having sex causes a lot of STDs, but could we ban it? In fact, Islam provides the best solution to not commit this outside marital relation so having fix partner for whole life is the best solution. Having multiple partner out of blue not only confuses your immune system but also could cause some autoimmune diseases. The same goes for kissing. Going kissing in random is bad and should be avoided, and it's already banned in Islam. But having this kind of relation to your spouses and if you kiss your own children then effects would be beneficial not bad.
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con really sold on this one
Reason for Removal: The voter must explain why they believe one side in this debate had better arguments at minimum in order to award points. Saying that one side "really sold" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
Could I get some more voters in here?
It's very simple. I laid out the criteria for criminalizing something. Kissing failed to meet the criteria. I simply can't understand your vote from a logical standpoint
1.) You are not supposed to vote for people because of 'What they didn't get to clarify/say'
2.) I showed that everything he said in round one was obsolete in the face of the resolution.
You didnt address a huge amount of what your opponent said in Round 1 btw.
You mean Round 2 when your opponent had no way to reply. I read Round 1 and saw direct harms. Your opponent clearly meant that and didn't get a chance to clarify it. Also, your opponent didn't get to xlarify if indirect harms may be what he presumes you meant as well.
"Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses."
It sounds like you didn't fully read the debate... I said that kissing had to meet at least one of the criteria for it to even be considered a possible candidate for illegality. It did not meet 1 since it wasn't concerning direct harm such as assault. I clarified that in round four...
Please remove twenty one pilot's vote.
What would u do if I sold you fetanyl
Sure.
Can I ask you a question please :3
"No because I want to kiss you on lip"
Thats nice, but we just met.
Kissing on the lips should not be illegal BECAUSE it harms the person's right to privacy and right to body. Kissing on the lips is generally a romantic gesture and romance comes under right to privacy which means the court has nothing to do with the person's choice of kissing another person with consent in private.
No because I want to kiss you on lip
There. No description.
Alright.
Wanna debate this without the description being declared absolute? 😃