The judging period on this debate is overPrevious Judgments
2018-11-25 19:52:41
Judge: nzlockie TOP JUDGEWin awarded to: Abdullah Humoud
Reasoning: Essentially PRO wins this debate for one simple reason, he made an argument. It was not a particularly good argument, and didn’t make that many points, it was mostly just assertions; but those still trump CON who did not make any argument at all. I liked the fact that there was an attempt to clarify the resolution, although starting with a disclaimer is never good practice!
This one is easy, PRO must win by default.
Feedback: CON: say something. Anything. You can’t forfeit and expect to win.
PRO: You job here is to convince me. After defining the resolution, you really need to explain WHY the resolution is true. Simply asserting that it is true, is not an argument. Nor is explaining how YOU think the law should be written.
You did very well to use a Suicide ATTACK, such as a bombing, as an example of a scenario where the perpetrator should be prosecuted.
To strengthen this, you should have explained why we would need this ability to prosecute them, when we could just use the existing charges of murder and manslaughter, however it was a good start.
But you were really missing the WHY in your argument. Had CON said ANYTHING, you would likely have lost this debate. Read dpowell’s comment in the comment section. See how the reasoning supports the WHY? This is a much stronger argument to convince. You need to do this.
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2018-12-08 08:35:57
Judge: TrolligarchWin awarded to: Abdullah Humoud
Reasoning: I wouldn't really classify this as a debate by any sense of the word - it was literally one person saying what he thinks and the other accepting a debate and never bothering to respond to it.
Abdullah, you didn't make an argument. You told me what you wanted to do, but you need to convince me why you think we should change the law and make it a criminal offence. But hey, at least you tried.
Saying that though, PRO (Abdullah Humoud) wins by default because CON (Athena) didn't even bother saying anything.
Feedback: Abdullah Humoud (PRO): I would be very careful when clarifying the position of the motion. When you said you didn't believe that people should be arrested or fined when people attempt suicide, you walk a very fine line. A criminal offence usually requires a punishment, and in most societies that would either be: fine, jail or community service. The fact you said they needed "assistance" to "recover" meant CON could have argued that you have twisted the meaning of the motion so much that you're not arguing for PRO anymore and therefore your original proposition could have been ignored.
Athena (CON): Say something
0 comments on this judgement
2018-12-09 06:30:55
Judge: Ew2046Win awarded to: Abdullah Humoud
Reasoning: You win because CON didn't say anything.
Feedback for Pro:
However this wasn’t much of a debate. Con next time you (or anybody) wants to debate I suggest that you don't forfeit the debate before saying anything. This could've easily have been a win for you.
That being said I don't completely agree with you, entirely. You make a good point that suicide attempts that result in somebody dying or being injured (other than the person trying to die) should have repercussions. I'd say that I have to agree with nzlockie that you really needed to define more of the whys of your argument, had this been a real debate. I think that when you bring up labelling suicide as attempted murder that you are going to extreme (partially because your statement lacks reason). Also Oxford defines murder as “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” In which suicide is not murdering another person.
Nit picky thing on my side that I don't care that much about, you forgot a period at the end of your last sentence.
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
Judge: Itshouldbeknown_16
Judge: dpowell3543
Judge: piotr skrzyp
Judge: Johannes
Guys, this is a debate. (Albeit a terrible one!)
When you judge, you’re not supposed to be voting for the side you personally agree with, you need to judge the debaters.
Are we actually saying that PRO seriously did a worse job than CON, who didn’t even turn up?
Sure PRO made almost no case at all, but they DID make an argument.
Posted 2018-11-25 20:01:30
As someone who has attempted numerous times and has lost a very good friend to suicide, I can guarantee that this would make matters much worse for them. This is because they already feel alone, worthless and unwanted. By punishing them for doing something like this, you're just confirming their worthlessness in their eyes. The best way to help someone suffering to the point of considering suicide, is to be there for them and help them feel better. You need to help them feel wanted and accepted.
I'd also like to point out that part of your argument seems to be illogical. Attempted suicide cannot be considered or viewed as murder, since murder is one human killing another human with malicious intent (I say this so self defense will not be ruled as murder). One killing themselves is not killing another person. Also, manslaughter would require the suicide victim to be directly responsible for the death of another person, without killing them themselves. For instance, if Person A told Person B to go kill themselves and they do it, Person A would have committed manslaughter.
Posted 2018-11-24 14:31:31