Instigator / Pro
7
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Topic
#5737
Most children are evil
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
AnonYmous_Icon
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
12
1507
rating
6
debates
58.33%
won
Description
Evil = causing or have caused harm to person
By accepting the debate, you agree to this definition of evil given in description and cannot use any other in this debate.
Round 1
Harm is pain, death, bullying, mental suffering, removing functions.
Most children by mere existence cause or have caused pain to themselves or others, since most children have felt pain in life or caused some pain to others.
Thus, most children are evil.
Why are you pretending that they are not evil?
Absolutely Not !
when u get sick , Doctor inject injection , u feel pain , its means , f* Doctor trying to harm u and Doctor is evil ........
if some one who is mentally sick shouted all the time without any reason,....and we get depression, anxiety .. , its means patient is evil , same like that if children crying and do that like things..... , we never say patient or child is evil , it all becoz patient and child not able to think (or mature) and they r innocent for everyone including u my Honorable opponent.
children r innocent not evil at all
Extra :
Any who r evil deserve punish.... , as possible
if u say children r evil then kindly tell me what punishment they deserve.........
out of course :
protect human children before special holy trans Youth
Opponent : why r u pretending that they are not evil?
A** : i'm not pretending that they are not evil i just trying to justify that they innocent but not evil as u say .
Round 2
Heh I bow to clearly superior logic.
I see that my Holy Opponent :
" do nothing but trying to make red herrings "
Prove what u say in rational words.... unclear statements r not quotes
Round 3
Heh I bow to clearly superior logic
Nice to hear that again by ur......grace
#7
Might one might argue the 'bicycle was evil, if it was a regularly occurring flaw in it's design,
Or the manufactures if it was a 'known frequent flaw,
Or the child if they knew of the flaw as commonplace and a highly potential roadway hazard. (Though of course you say undetected, so this one could not apply perhaps)
One might even argue children as 'an evil, even if not evil in themselves?
If they 'tended to certain behaviors.
I suppose if a race of aliens existed that enjoyed others pain, but lacked control or understanding of what pain to others was,
They would be an evil, but not evil in themselves,
Though I think many consider those who lack control to still be evil.
"Accidental harm is when someone gets hurt or something gets damaged by accident, without anyone meaning to do it on purpose. This is different from when someone intentionally hurts someone or something, which is called a tortious act" from https://www.lsd.law/define/accidental-harm#:~:text=Accidental%20harm%20is%20when%20someone,is%20called%20a%20tortious%20act.
If you use any definition other than the one rules demand you to, you forfeit the debate because you are breaking the rules of debate which you agreed to when you accepted the debate.
Thus, to put it simply, you already agreed with the established definition when you accepted the debate.
But if you want to forfeit, who am I to stop you? I dont really care much if I win instantly with no effort. It just means I move to next debate to get next win.
Arguing against a definition is covered in debateart ...rules...style..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."A better definition needs be argued in round one.
You are allowed to argue that the definition offered is too broad. Saying "Evil = causing or have caused harm to person" does not accept accidental harm.
my allied allies now i'm at frontline ,.... i need ur.... support to defend our children and ourselves , that we and our chil.... r not evil , even we r ... lets backed me with ur ful rational arguments...... to defeat central powers .....
God bless YAP
God defend (Y...) Allied powers and defeat Central
Is anyone going to accept the debate? If not, then I will delete it to make room for some other debates.
All YOU need do is stop responding to me.
"You are the one ranting"
No, I am not the one ranting. If you wont accept debate, go away. Stop ranting.
I will do no such thing! You are the one ranting.
Either accept debate or go away. I am not really interested in your comment ranting.
When YOU stop wasting EVERYONE'S time!
If child didnt exist, injury wouldnt happen in that case. Anyway, if you are not going to accept, stop wasting my time.
You claim.." It fits the definition of evil in this debate, as harm was caused by the child."
How did the child cause injury?
It fits the definition of evil in this debate, as harm was caused by the child.
A child is riding his brand new bicycle down the street. He is proceeding in a safe manner. Suddenly his bicycle tire blows out due to an undetected manufacturing defect. His bicycle flips over and lands on another child. That child is injured. How was the bicycle rider "evil"?
"Do you mean "Evil = intentionally causing harm to other person"?"
No. Just any harm to any person.
Your definition is too broad. You posit that "Evil = causing harm to other person" . Do you mean "Evil = intentionally causing harm to other person"?
Are kids evil?
Is this topic a truism?
Unless you want some other definition?
Oh okay. I will define it as causing harm to others.
May you please define evil? I'd be interested in debating this.