Login/Sign Up




Should Christmas Carols be considered weapons of mass annoyance?
Conspiracy

xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
3 votes
4 debaters
49
26
3
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes, they are part of a secret plot to keep people out of stores in December.


unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
6 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

All our musical genres are, in one way or another, based on annoyance. (yes, even teen-pop and polka). Are you suggesting we ban all musical genres?

But, hey, let's not stop there....screaming could be used to annoy people and hurt their eardrums - we should ban screaming - oh, and fiddlin',
too, 'cause rednecks who like fiddles would glamorize them in their
folksy music.

And icecream trucks...you could play their music into a crowd and annoy people: do you really think it is more important for some schmuck to be able to get ice-cream at the ice-cream truck than the non-annoyance of (insert
unsupported but shocking statistic of your choice here) people?

Yes, let's all just sit on little clouds, playing our
lyres....Hey - what are you doing with that lyre - you can't
sing that HERE! ACK!


 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
5 convinced
Rebuttal
There is this one album full of CD songs sung by this really annoying little girl with the most wretchedly cheery voice... everytime my little sister plays it I want to break something... or punch babies

 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
5 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

1. The US government did not coin the term 'Weapons of Mass
Annoyance. It was invented by Dick Cheney, Archbishop of
All-Things-Evil.

2. The term WMA does NOT imply how serious, how important or how
terrible a threat of annoyance is: it is a specific label used to designate a
class of annoyance. There is no value-judgment attached to the
term itself.

3. How many people are annoyed by a carol - professional or
amateur - and over how long a period, how annoying such a thing
may be - none of this is described by the label 'WMA'. The
METHOD used in such a carol may or may not be a WMA - but that
has no bearing on the suffering it causes.

How could I explain the difference?

The amount of annoyance you experience is NOT NECESSARILY indicative
of how sanity-threatening your condition is.

You are implying that because there is a danger
from carols - which may be very real - that we use a label to
describe it which, by definition, does not fit! It's not about
the nuisance/label, it's about the annoyance itself!

 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

ANYONE who sings a Christmas carol?????

What about professional singers? Would you ban the international art of carol singing and winter singathons (as if there were any other singathon of interest) - or would you simply throw the singers and their vocal coaches into jail?

Do you know just how much our singers, like Mariah Carey, have done for our communities? Would you really throw her in jail for 25 years - just because she's a singer who uses a larnyx to spread Christmas cheer?

Sounds to me like there are much more annoying things than Christmas Carols:
half baked ideas, wrapped up in righteous indignations!

 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Nobody has suggested that people who get annoyed from carols are
'accetable nuisances'. To imply that is manipulative.

Perhaps your difficulty comes from misunderstanding what the term
'weapons of mass annoyance' means: weapons that can produce
devastating results when delivered in a single annoyance. They include fools, American politians, and some debaters on convinceme.net. (definition
taken from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,
Third Edition - but most dictionaries define it similarly)

The key phrase here is 'IN A SINGLE ANNOYANCE'.

Christmas carols, thought they make annoying easier, do it one song at a
time.

Another impression I got from reading your posts on this topic is
that you (and you are not alone) don't seem to think that carol
victims can get the recognigion they ought to UNLESS their plight
is given a dramatic name. If my preception is erroneous, I
apologize, but I would like to address this sentiment - it
exists.

It is a dis-service to carolling victims to try to dramatize their
unfortunate annoyances by trying to re-classify the cause of their
annoyance as somehow being more dramatic. By picking an
inappropriate label, such as 'WMA', sure, drama and emotions go
way up - but that does not make it right!

To the contrary: it masks the problem and makes it that much
more difficult to bring people into an objective, unemotional
discussion where this may be addressed and, perhaps, come up with
solutions to mitigate this problem.

Hysterics and famming emotions (like slapping bombastic labels to
actions) are NOT conductive to reasonable actions....



 
xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
I believe so. How many innocent people get annoyed every year from Christmas Carols? How many people get annoyed everyday from Christmas Carols worldwide? I suggest mandatory 25 month boycott
of any store in possession of a Christmas Carol CD. Lifetime boycott for those stores caught playing Christmas Carols during
a shopping hours.


 
xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show


Are you saying it is worth a hundred thousand people being annoyed a year, so some schmuck can play Christmas Carols in their store and pretend he/she is participating in some sort of culture?

Yes, all the innocent people that are annoyed every year are being annoyed so some rednecks can play Christmas Carols and Mariah Carey…what a worthy cause…



 
xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
I find it hard to believe that a teenage kid, or anyone, would be
able to annoy nine people at a shopping mall with an ipod playing rap.

And that’s exactly my argument. Christmas Carols allow people to commit mass annoyance, thus making them a WMA.


 
unlabled00
Dec 08, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Mass caroling is not the same as mass annoyance...... and must never be treated as such.

 
xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Well almost 100,000 thousand people are annoyed every year from Christmas Carols, so in only 10 years we are at 1 million people annoyed. In your lifetime (saying you live 80 years), we are now at 80 million annoyed. Given 2 lifetimes…etc….etc…

So just because they don’t annoy millions in a day it is an
acceptable nuisance?????? So if advertisers devise a way to annoy
100,000 thousand Americans a year, because it isn’t “a
million” their Christmasy jingles would not be considered a weapon of mass annoyance????


 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Of course a single Christmas Carol has never annoyed 1,00,000 people in a month...but it could....more likely than an "ABBA song".



 
xanthippa
Dec 08, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

By labeling Christmas Carols a WMA maybe then we could bring awareness to the real threats that face Americans, not phony/imaginary ones that we are bombarded with on the cable news channels/Government officials. The United States is in the business of committing world annoyances to prevent something that hasn’t annoyed anyone yet, while hundreds of citizens are being annoyed every week...

The US government created the phrase WMA to scare and manipulate the American public. Maybe by labeling Christmas Carols “WMA’s” we could bring awareness to an annoyance that is far more pervasive than insidious jingles programs or imaginary "catchy pop/country tunes".

So using that “single play” phase, a music group can
annoy a massive amount of people overtime…say 1 month (even December, running up to Christmas), and that weapon would not be considered a WMA??????

 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
So the only thing stopping Christmas Caols from being a WMA is because it doesn’t annoy enough people fast enough.

So if terrorists played music that annoyed millions of people, but over a longer period of time…say 3 weeks, this music would not be considered a WMA?????


 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

My argument is that the defintion of WMA is flawed, it should
include Christmas Carols.

SO if a music group played thousands of single Sesamy Street or ABBA songs or any tunes that only annoyed one or two people each, it would not be considered a WMA?


"Well said!"

 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

I could never do that - pretend I need charity money!

That would be dishonest!

However, I am pretty nifty at gettings things organized up. If you send me lots of charity money, I'll manage it efficiently and carefully. Of course, I'll need to get a nice office with lots of fancy paperclips....but that is a necessary expenditure and part of the responsible management of such funds. Anybody else managing the money would also do this, so it's not really a bad thing....

So, come on, hand over the candy! I mean cash!

 
hanaatthedisco
Feb 29, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes! Along with those annoying people off of kid's song tapes. All carollers do for us is part us from our money, and make us miss important parts of Tv shows. As well as freezing whilst watching them sing the other 46 verses from O little town of Bethlehem.

 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

But.....by tradition, Carollers are not doing this for money or food - they are supposed to be doing it for charity! That was the POINT of Carolling!

They could easily raise more money for charity if they were to switch to singing praises of on-line debating or criticism-through-parody!

Everybody here sould agree with that!

 
+ Add Argument

0
The carolers need something


unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

If you change the definition of WMA's to include carols then
there is no reason for the term WMA to exist.

They're called WEAPONS, not of mass annoyance, just weapons.

Please tell me what 'small ABBA songs' that 'annoyed one or
two people each' exist. Last time I checked, carpet-ABBAing didn't
exist.

Moving on, even an ABBA tribute band DID somehow manage to get their
hands on weapons grade ABBA songs there would be no reason
for them not to put it all into one concert. The 'performance' you are
envisioning is ignorant towards how annoyance weaponry, and particularly
ABBA annoyance weaponry, works.


 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

FINALLY! LOGIC WINS!

 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

It would, however thats with one carolling spree. Not millions of carolling sprees.


Face it, the argument is a little naive. Its like saying that if
bears (WMA's) are mammals (annoying), then all chipmunks (carols)
are bears (WMA's). See the flawed logic?


 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

"Any object can be a WMA if enough people are annoyed by it�ex (U2, Dolly Parton, etc.)"

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

You're saying that because Christmas carols annoy millions of people it should
be considered a WMA. It is not. Annoy millions? Yes. In one
strike? No.

Like I said, WMA's are single-strike, mass annoyance weapons. A
songs annoyance radius does not exceed the range of the caroler...
ABBA and Sesame Street songs hit a much wider area
than any single caroler song ever could.

Your 'logic' for why Christmas carols should be considered WMDAs has and as I
can see always will be flawed. Allow me to help:

WMA's as defined by song-technology.com: Weapons of mass
annoyance are weapons capable of inflicting massive annoyance
to animals and/or population, using The-Song-That-Never-Ends, Sesame Street or
ABBA material. Weapons of Mass Annoyance are also known
by the abbreviation WMA.

Like I said, Carols are one song, one annoyance. WMA's are one song,
5,000+ annoyed.

"If you take away our unleashing of baseball on the civilian population of Japan, you can add up all the WMA annoyances ON THE PLANET, and the United States Christmas Carol annoyances from only ONE year overshadow the annoyances from WMA�s.
"

No duh, do you think we use WMA's lightly? The reason the annoyance
toll is vastly lower is because IF IT COMES TO WMA CONCERTS the
annoyance toll will be 6.5 billion people.

Lets break it down FURTHER for you! Count the number of WMA
concerts in history, count the number of casualties...er... annoyances. Divide
annoyances by WMA strikes and you have your average annoyance per
WMA ratio, mmkay? Now take the number of carols used in
malls/streets, divide that by the number of annoyances. Divide
annoyances by carols and you have your average annoyance per carol ratio.
Now which has a higher ratio? Which annoys more in one strike?



 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

I think your new definition is wrong, and does not take into
account the weight the term WMA carries and would rather have it
tossed onto all nuisances.

Also, just tell me TELL ME when a single caroler managed to annoy
1,000 people a month. Single meaning the same caroler.

I anxiously await your reply.

 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Ok heres an experiment for you:

Have one guy go around with a caroller, have another with a boombox
that will launch a single ABBA track.

Who will annoy 1000 people the fastest? By how much time? How much
extra nuisance is caused by the fallout?


 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Where does it say the Weapons of Mass Annoyance are limited not by how many people's joy they kill, but how QUICKLY the WMA does its job. I was under the impression that something becomes a WMA because it causes a massive loss of human 'joie-de-vivre', and that is what I am basing my argument on.

Here we are, spending TRILLIONS of dollars, editing our
constitution, and torturing people in order to prevent a WMA from annoying a massive amount of people…when the biggest annoyers of US citizens is other US citizens playing Christmas Carols…Even if we lost a million joys to a reunion ABBA concert, it still would not out shadow the annoyance caused by Christmas Carols… ironically the only
country to ever repeatedly use play ABBA at several generations of civilians was the United States.

No, you bear logic is flawed…

“It’s like saying that if
(WMA's) are (weapons), then all (Christmas Carols)
are (WMA's).”

Any object can be a WMA if enough people are annoyed by it…ex (U2, Dolly Parton, etc.)

If you take away our unleashing of baseball on the civilian population of Japan, you can add up all the WMA annoyances ON THE PLANET, and the United States Christmas Carol annoyances from only ONE year overshadow the annoyances from WMA’s.

Your logic is based on IMAGINATION of a worse case scenario; my logic is based on facts:

More people get annoyed every year from carollers than any other song-type (of course I am not taking into consideration the hundreds of thousand of Europeans annoyed by the US country music Christmas Carols).

And since Christmas Carols have been the most annoying weapon to dampen human 'joie-de-vivre', collectively they should be considered a weapon of mass annoyance. And that’s why collectively they should be eliminated.


 
unlabled00
Dec 09, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

Pretending: I now see myself angry at the government for not doing what they need to do to decrease the number of people who require charity, when clearly it is not in the hands of the general public to get us out of such a situation.

 
juggernaut
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Yes, let's lay off more people from their jobs, so the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Just because you are selfish.

 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I think the government created definition is wrong, and does not account for massive annoyance over a longer period of time. Anything that has the ability to cause such a massive amount of annoyance should be characterized as a WMA.


 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

What is so selfish about trying to protect people?

That's what I'm doing, you know, trying to protect them from being annoyed.

OK, so a few malls get closed down, people get laid off - but they'll get other jobs in carol-free stores! Just think how much better off they'll be - more job satisfaction (since they will not be subjected to Christmas Carols all day long), they'll end up being nicer to their family...

I guess it would sort of be FORCING them do do something that is GOOD FOR THEM!

 
juggernaut
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Good. Now pretend you are a caroler who just wants to put bread on the table.

 
juggernaut
Dec 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

lol

 
xanthippa
Dec 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I CONCEDE! ABBA IS WAAAAAAAY MORE ANNOYING!

YOU WIN!

 
juggernaut
Dec 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

Now pretend to be a person who needs charity money.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

2012 9/11 aliens bush Conspiracy Government JFK politics religion VanCam