Wierdman's Tourney: It wasn't Goldilocks' fault when she entered the home of the three bears.

I must apologize for my forfeit. I found little time for the round, but still, the timeframe slipped through my fingers. In this round, I will summarize the debate, while not bringing in new points, but refuting attacks against my case that Goldilocks was, IN FACT, at fault when she entered the home of the three bears. My opponent seems to be making a key mistake in this debate. He is mixing up punishment and responsibility, with fault. I am arguing that it was goldilock's fault that she entered the home of the three bears. Pro is arguing it is not. He is not arguing that she shouldn't be punished. What everyone must take into account is that this is a fantasy story. One cannot bring in the reasoning that would apply to a nonfictional tale, such as the government being responsible or her parents. What we, as the viewers, have to go off of are the facts, and they remain that Goldilocks was a well clothed, upbeat girl with a curiosity that was bigger than her. She entered the home of another, without permission, and decided to eat their food and sleep in their bed. IF you were to take the case that the door was unlocked to a cop or a court, it would fail instantly. Doors are not REQUIRED to be locked. Also, in regards to her age, we must look at the resolution. I am not saying that Goldilocks deserves to be punished for her actions, but she should be the one who is at fault, and she is. My opponent tries arguing that Goldilocks in a minor, but that does not excuse her from doing the action. Whether she is excused from punishment is a whole other debate, and one where age matters. Now, however, no matter the age, if a person does something, they did it. Murder, stealing, spilling juice, eating SOMEONE ELSES PORRIDGE (totally unjustified, by the way), they are at fault, for they did it. My opponent tries arguing that she is not responsible because she is a child. I am arguing that it is her fault, not that she should be held responsible. We both had mentioned responsibility and fault; I labeled my contention as such, and discussed a couple sentences revolving around responsibilities. This however, should not be what this debate is judged on. It should be judged on fault. There is a difference. The resolution states fault, not responsibility. The term fault is used when an action, usually resulting in a problem, occurs. The fault lies on the cause. If a person falls out of a second story window and kills another person, then it is that person's fault, intentional or not. That person is not necessarily responsible, for it was an accident. What I am arguing is that the two terms are different; fault is the one to be used in this debate. As regards to her home life, we can rule this off as irrelevant, for no matter what her situation, she was at fault for entering the house. It's not a fair assumption that her life was in danger, seeing as she tasted different porridges and decided which one was the best. If she was starving, and truly in danger of death, she would have devoured the first dead animal she came across, let alone taste different porridges. Even if she were to be insane, which isn't backed well, considering that she ate some porridge, broke a chair, and took a nap (does not qualify you as being insane), it still doesn't dismiss the FACT that she was the one to enter the house. If an insane person murders somebody, they blame the insane person. It's still their fault that it happened, for if they didn't exist, it would not have happened. MY CASE Now, my opponent attempts to refute my right from wrong contention with personal preference. It is illogical to say that she doesn't understand right from wrong. She completely understands it. Preference isn't relevant here, because no matter who likes what, they KNOW it to be either right for them, or wrong for them. Thus, she grasps the concept, making her understand right from wrong. She knows there is a right thing and a wrong thing, and she chose the wrong thing every time, realized it was wrong, and corrected herself. She knows how to take actions that benefit her, making her greedy and selfish. I have already explained the one is responsible for their actions contention. It should be named One is at fault for their actions . However, it wasn't. Still, the argument that it was her fault stands, as my opponent cannot disprove that simple point. CONCLUSION It must be reinforced that throughout this debate, the fault must have been proven, not the responsibility and the punishments following. My opponent AND I have both misinterpreted this, though my opponent to a much greater extent. I have proven that goldilocks understands what right and wrong is, and I have shown how it is her fault that she entered the home of the three bears. My opponent's points on parenthood, government, and so on are discarded due to the lack of evidence that ANY OF THAT is true. Thank you for reading and judging. Please vote Con, but give Pro conduct for the forfeit. !