EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1039

Cones should be left on statues' heads.

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
KingDebaterKingDebater (PRO)
"Mummy! Mum!" screeches the boy who doesn't live in a place that's near the statue with the cone on its head. "Mummy, look at this funny statue with the cone on its head! Can we go to England or wherever it is and see it?" he asked. His mum sighed before saying "Yes, but it's coming out of your £5". So mum and boy purchase tickets for a 12-hour flight, arrive in England or wherever the statue with the cone on its head is, see the statue and go home again. "What a nice day out," says the boy "and I learnt a lot of information when researching this place's culture!".

But if we remove poor old Mr Cone, then boy and mum never learn anything and tourism doesn't slightly increase.

"Hey hey hey!" says your typical cool teenager out on a walk through the town with his friend "Come on Derek and Darnel, let's see who the loser is who's only gone and got a cone on 'is 'ead!". So typical cool teenager, Derek, and most importantly Darnel walk up to the statue, read the name and remember it, and then learn about that significant historical figure through books they borrowed from the library and will bring back before they're due in .

However, take Old Con out of the equation and your tale goes more like this:

"Hey hey hey!" said your typical cool teenager, before him and his two friends walked past a statue.

So, it's clear that the cone has educational, financial (to aeroplane people), and touristic value.

Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-18 08:08:05
| Speak Round
CitrakayahCitrakayah (CON)
Firstly, I must object to the idea of mothers paying for a twelve hour flight to see a statue with a cone on its head. My mother only would pay for an hour-long flight to see such a statue! Besides, does not England have far more worthy tourist attractions?

In any event, my primary argument is this: Placing the cone on the head of a statue is a valuable right of passage for young adolescent males who enjoy performing naughty pranks. Leaving the cone on the statue's head would deprive new young adolescent males of the chance to prove their worth by sneaking in the middle of the night up to the statue and carefully placing a snatched traffic cone on its head. Such people would have to resort to other tricks and pranks, which could be far more destructive--for instance, removing the head of the statue and attaching it to the statue's arm if the statue is on a horse.

The cones must be removed so that other people can put them back on. It's not right to limit such fun to only a few people. And the cones would, for the most part, stay on. Someone would get around to removing them a week later, which would keep the novelty--if the cones were always on the statues, it wouldn't be worth nothing, so no one would care after a while. If, on the other hand, the cones were regularly removed and replaced, perhaps with spray-paint decorating the traffic cones, that would be another matter entirely. People would flock from all over to see the unique patterns on the traffic cones of Britain.

Clearly, Pro wants to stifle creativity. Therefore we should disregard his arguments.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-19 18:51:39
| Speak Round
KingDebaterKingDebater (PRO)
Citrakayah clearly isn't aware of English Tourist sites. These include an old lady with a pretty crown, her house, and some rocks. Statues with cones on their heads would fit right in as an English tourist attraction. So if people are going to fly to see those heaps of junk, they are certainly going to pay money to see a cone on a statue's head

As for it being removed anyway, this won't happen for lots of reasons:

a) Nobody would do such a stupid thing.
b) We'll just sellotape the cones onto the statues.
c) Removing a cone from a statue is way to expensive.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/12/glasgow-council-withdraws-plan-traffic-cones-wellington-statue

Yes, removing a cone from a statue is very expensive, and according to the guardian according to the council it costs £100 to remove each cone, and it's easy to see where that money goes.

RECEIPT -- REMOVING A CONE
Labour to remove the cone - £0.23
Lunch break - £15.00
Extra money to the council - £84.77
Ladder Tax - FREE (because the council are just so nice)

So you see, we really don't want to unnecessarily waste money, especially when it's going to the council.

Also, another reason why the spray paint idea is bad is because it's cone cruelty. When you spray paint a cone, cone rights activists and anyone with a heart will object to this with unbelievable amounts of passion. Citrayakah may even be accused of conism, discrimination and/or cruelty to cones.

Another reason is it just won't look right. People will say "What the BEEPing BEEP happened to that poor cone?" and it will be removed by anyone who knows what looks good and what doesn't (pretty much everyone) will remove it, and money then won't even be an object because everyone just cares about it that much.

Thank you.



Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-20 17:07:15
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
KingDebaterKingDebater
I don't see how anyone could resist joining this debate.
Posted 2013-11-15 16:32:54
KingDebaterKingDebater
I don't see how anyone could resist joining this debate.
Posted 2013-11-15 16:30:54
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • No HTML formatting
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This debate relates to the recent news story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-24925296).