The Instigator
SickInTheHeadz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
EasySmartBoosh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The polite lick

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/7/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 121201
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SickInTheHeadz

Con

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Seeking her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.
EasySmartBoosh

Pro

Hello,

Since the motion/topic that Con put is "The polite lick" which is not really a statement that can be debatable so I gave a more proper motion which is "Denying a lick from children and licking children without consent should remain legal" base on what I read on the Con's round 1 argument.

Con's first point if a child wants to be licked by a grown-up, To deny her of that would be a crime. And the reason for that is it's only polite for the man to lick her back, And furthermore, Con mentioned Children who aren't licked are worth anything.
It seems like the only support argument Con said is how children aren't licked is worth nothing. That argument is straight off nonsense because of children does not need to be licked to worth something and I don't where Con got that idea from because they didn't tell me WHY it decreases the value of children when they are not licked.

The second point that the Con made said if the grown-up denies her it should be a crime and they supported that by bringing up how it is only polite for the man to lick her back.
First, Let's look up the word "polite" from a Cambridge dictionary
POLITE
"adj/ behaving in a way that is socially correct"
Denying a lick from children that you never met before DOES NOT mean you are not behaving in a way that is socially correct because the person has the right to deny the lick and I think our society would understand that. Therefore your second point does not stand.

Now I would like to refute Con's final point in his round 1 argument.
"If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. "
From that quote, It shows me that the Con wanted to legalize sexual harassment SPECIFICALLY on the young children. Giving young children an unwanted lick is sexual harassment and SHOULD NOT be legalized because of some very obvious reason. Because we care about the children's body, If they don't want the lick then we should respect them and don't give them the unwanted lick.

Now I would like to present my argument for this case,

Since Con forgot to model their motion which they are supposed to, Therefore, It causes way too many flaws, I will list the most important issues.

1) Forcing the grown-ups to lick their children and risks the children to be transmitted with the disease.
When a 4-year-old girl is forcing someone with a saliva disease to lick her, The man can't do anything except licking her or otherwise, It would be a crime, Then what's next? The disease from the grown man transmitted to the young innocent child. The disease can include CMV, EBV, Bacterium Streptococcus, Etc that can be transmitted just by laying your tongue on the surface of the cheek.
Therefore grown-ups shouldn't' be forced to lick a child just because the child asked for it because it may cause them serious harm.

2)Grown-ups are not free to lick children 24/7
There are too many examples/scenario for that, I'll just list a few common ones
Sleeping
Giving a speech
Just physically cannot lick (e. X. A person without tongue)
Therefore grown-ups shouldn't be forced to lick a child just because they asked for it because it sometimes meant interrupting an important moment of their life.

3)Children have rights, Too.
If the children don't want it, They don't want it.

thank you,
Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.