Those who support bull fighting are backwards and ignorent, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all.

Synopsis:The Resolution is quite simple. “Those who support bullfighting are backwards and ignorant, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all. ” (fixed for grammar) Let’s break this down. Firstly, Pro does not detail a degree of support, nor does he specific a quantity of people, meaning all people who fit the description are included. Lastly, Pro states them to be either “backwards and ignorant”, or “selfish and cruel”. Or both. Proposition I: Definitions I shall go over a few definitions of importance here, since Pro has failed to list any. Backwards: (Of a movement) in the direction of one’s back {1} Ignorant: lacking knowledge or information {2} Selfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc. , regardless of others. {3} Cruel: used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it {4} Pro’s 5 Year Old: A presumed to exist child of a relative biological age of 5, with an an uncertain moral development, possibly ranging from nonexistent to that similar to an elderly hermit. Retarded: A petty insult which has cost Pro Conduct. Retarded (2): characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc. {5} Philosophical Perspective: A pseudo-intellectual statement which allows people to provide the appearance of depth to their beliefs, without actually adding substance. Proposition II: BoP and the Requirements to Win BoP is a complicated matter, however there are three standard ways to determine who has is. Whoever is Pro, Whoever instigated the debate, and whoever is demanding a change from the status quo. Now Pro fits all three, and therefore must provide the evidence to support his side. Pro must fully affirm the resolution, which means Pro must show that ALL people with even the slightest support whatsoever for bullfighting fit into either Category A (Backwards and Ignorant), or Category B (Selfish and Cruel). Not part of a category. The entirety of at least one category. If Pro fails to provide adequate support for this resolution, then he fails to affirm the resolution. I need only to show that not every person who supports bullfighting doesn't fit in one of those categories. Despite absolutely desiring to, I have determined to take this debate mostly serious. Mostly. Case I: Category A; Subject Group are Not All “Ignorant” Thesis:This is a rather simple matter. Pro says they may fit into Category A (Backwards/Ignorant). I will show that not all people who support Bullfighting are “ignorant”. Rationalization: Given the definition, we know that ignorant means lacking knowledge. Now it is for Pro to show that they are in fact lacking knowledge (and not by just saying they are dumb). In spite of that, I shall preempt it. Ernest Hemingway. He was one of the foremost literary forces in the 20th century, {7} Among his works are included; A Farewell to Arms,{8} For whom the Bell Tolls,{9} and The Old Man and the Sea. {10} He even had the honour of his books being included in the infamous Nazi Book Burnings. {11} If that doesn’t say “intellectual”, I don’t know what will. Now Ernest Hemingway was a lover of the Bullfights. {12} Are there anyone else? How about Alexander Fiske-Harrison {13} (A name which screams intellect). This man was a journalist and eventual book writer who adored the art. But if you want book smart, let’s try Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado (a Spanish name if I’ve ever heard one). {14} This man was a Yale University Professor of Physiology who is known for extensive work which has opened many doors into study of the brain. What does he support? Bull fighting. Top that. I shall make a jab at the “backwards” remark in a later Case. Conclusion: This shows that not all supporters of Bullfighting can be considered “Ignorant”. I have given an excellent example that there are in fact intelligent supporters of the art out there, and in doing so, I now leave Pro with the immense task of providing real proof that the vast majority of supporters are ignorant. And by vast, I mean so great that the Voters can actually conclude there to be a real and overwhelming correlation. I will reiterate that, unlike I, Pro can not prove his point through simply listing a few examples. Case II: Category B; Subject Group are Not All Selfish Thesis: This is also a simple thing. Pro makes the claim that Supporters of Bullfights fit into Category B. (Selfish/Cruel) I shall prove that many Bullfight supporters are in fact not selfish. Rationalization: We are all aware of what “Selfish” is. Technically we are all a little selfish. So I’ll work on the idea that Pro means substantially more so than normal. Say hello to the female Matador, Conchita Cintron. {13} She was considered by Orson Welles (another high intellect supporter) to be a great representative of women in Spain at the time. She was also known for spending many of her later years striving to save the Portuguese Water Dog. {14} Want to talk about selfishness? This woman has done more to help an endangered species than most could ever say they’ve done. I would hit harder here, but I have a character limit I intend not to hit. Conclusion: This has been a rather short Case, but as I said, I have a character limit. And again, Pro must prove the an overwhelming number of supporters are actually cruel and selfish (and not just somewhat so. We are all a little inside. Pro must prove these people carry these traits are unusually inherent in the entirety of the supporters life. ) Counter-Case I: The Opponent's “Argument” Summarization: Pro has made a confusing and messy first round. I shall work to point out the issues in his cases here. Counters: Pro starts with a massive “Association Fallacy”. {17} Essentially Pro says that by supporting something, we somehow carry all of that things traits. I support the US. Does that mean I support our “enhanced interrogations”? No. Does supporting our police mean I am racist? No. Pro states “They may not be cruel individually if they are ignorant to the cruelty they are supporting, but then they are ignorant. ” This is a simplification of the matter. Firstly, we can conclude that they are not cruel individually, thereby further removing Pro’s ability to affirm that supporters are in Category B. But now we get to the ignorant part. How many of these people are actually unknowing of what they support? They are quite aware, and yet they are not cruel individually. Pro tried to shut out the idea through a “False Dilemma” Fallacy. {18} “People who cannot recognize the injustice, are bereft of a sense of morality that my 5 year old already shows. “ Firstly it’s more an insult then something of real merit to his case. We don’t know how morally capable his son is? History has shown that “morality” is a joke. It changes from age to age, town to town, room to room. Pro is claiming some form of objectivity which is simply not found in history. He acts as though those who do not share his morality simply “cannot recognize the injustice”. Until Pro proves his morality objective, this is an empty point for him. “For me, this demonstrates an extreme lack of awareness, bordering retarded. ” Deny Pro Conduct. “I understand that human culture has a history of extreme ignorance, and its considered a cultural sport that dates back, but I think people in the modern world are not excused by such things. ” Again, claiming that his morality is superior to any other. This falls in line with “Presentism”. {19} Pro fails to substantiate why people of the “modern world” should be any different than those of the past. “This is because the knowledge is there that animals are creatures and that love is good. ” Pro fails to see that the knowledge about animals being creatures is not exactly new. Nor does it matter. Then Pro throws in an Appeal to Emotion, {20} by saying Love. I remind Pro that this is the real world. “Love” is simply a chemical in the brain. Not a magical force that makes everything right or wrong. “To be honest, I don't know what life lessons need to be lacking, to allow for acceptance of bullfighting. ” Well hopefully Pro eventually finds the answer. Until then, we continue on. “For 'love' is an ancient message” What is love, baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more! ! What is love though? Again, a chemical. And it being ancient means nothing. {21} Know what else we’ve had for a long time? Bullfighting. “'not to be cruel' is also pretty ancient. ” See Source {21} “One who thinks bullfighting is fair and should be continued, is if not cruel, pretty socially/mentally lacking from a philosophical perspective. ” This is what we call an opinion piece. Until Pro manages to substantiates this, it’s a null point. And “philosophical perspective” is a meaningless statement. This is simply an attempt to add justification to his morality. “also as a side-note: Its not a 'fight'. ” This means nothing. The end. Conclusion: As I’ve shown, Pro’s entire case is built around a messy display of fallacy and simple displays of hate, as well as through implied claims of Moral Superiority (which is a thing found more strongly in the past then the present). This in truth does more to place him into “Category A” then the people he hates. Closing Statement: Pros Turn I have shown that there are people who support Bullfighting who fit into neither category. It’s time now for Pro to prove beyond a doubt that those who support the art nearly entirely fit into one group or the other. Appeal to Emotion and opinions (especially on morality) will not work. Sources are needed. Pro must give up proof. Pro's turn. Source: . http://tny.cz... ==Unitomic==