The Instigator
lovelife
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
I-am-a-panda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,476 times Debate No: 12764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

lovelife

Con

This debate is for fun no arguments should be taken too seriously to show my actual stance. I just thought it would be fun.

Animal testing is a necessary evil, or is it? We need medications to be tested, animals are not the same as humans, but how can we find any other way to test? Science hasn't gotten to a point where we can use computer software yet, and we need to find cures. Someone has to die choose monkeys or humans?

But how about we save the monkeys, and help with the standard of living for humans. Is that possible? Sure is all we need to do is use homeless people, (if the young wish they can be sent to foster care) those that already have AIDS, cancer, heart disease, whatever needs tested, those that are starving to death, rapists, murders, terrorists, people that indoctrinate their or other children to religious or other beliefs.

We spend thousands of dollars funding cruel animal testing because there is no better way.
We spend thousands, even millions more trying to save these humans.
Reduce spending, reduce the need for taxes to be as high. Get to the chance and fix all the problems at once.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank Lovelife for this debate. Without further adieu *cracks knuckles* let's get started :P.

My opponent as stated drugs ought not to be tested on animals, but on the scummy underbelly of society (the homeless, prisoners, rapists, etc.). However, does my opponent really think this is a good idea? Should Hugo Boss really get the common tramp at the side of the street to test out their new line of suits and colognes? The poor are poor for a reason, the last thing we need is for them to be prancing around our nation wearing the latest fashion trends and smelling like a summer breeze, defeating their purpose of looking pitiful and making the middle class feel superior.

By doing so ware also removing a huge comical aspect from society. No more will be the pictures of monkey butlers. not only would companies such as Hugo Boss get reliable feedback of the suit in terms of handling banana stains, tree branches and the limit of the excrement it can contain, will also give them the opportunity to get hilarious pictures of these animals wearing these outfits. I challenge the audience and my opponent to not smirk when they view this photo: http://cheekspopov.com...

As for medical testing, many tests, especially vaccines where the disease is injected into the the person, can be deadly. If prisoners are given the experimental BUMFUN Anti-AIDS vaccine, and get AIDS, the company will be hammered with lawsuits. Should a rabbit be given AIDS through this vaccine, it would be enjoyable to see the rabbit comforted by it's family rejected by its lover, go through depression, become a drug addict and eventually commit suicide,seeign as everything a rabbit does is about 10x cuter.

While I'm not necessarily against testing some products on humans where necessary, such as dildos and high heels, testing the same products on animals is not only funnier, testing it on humans could have nasty side effects. Not only the above mentioned ones, but various other ones. Imagine if a prison queen was given the AIDS vaccine and it worked!? Where would be the justice in that be, a man locked up for life in a paradise of hunky men with no repercussions. This would be giving him a free pass to a brothel for life. And then what, you propose we try dresses and cosmetics on this person, so he can live his homoerotic fantasies of being a disney princess in a castle? That would be deplorable, and would result in the government paying for these prisons so gay men can be chained up by the big bad policemen, sent off to big bad prison and live the gay life at the expense of the taxpayer! Of course, if this happened in a group of antelopes being tested, it would be an instant Youtube hit, with antelopes prancing around like Queers and mindlessly f*cking one another.

Prisoners are better suited for hard labour, or military work. This ensures any gays will quickly be killed due to overwork to their frail bodies or being shot while doing their nails on patrol. Any real men would quickly survive, and of course, do their nation a favour by being slaves to the system.

Now, I will elaborate on why it is preferable to use products on animals. Animals are very easily subdued, much more so than humans, and thus easier to test things on. For example, let's just say Billy Mays (Rest his soul) was demonstrating why you should buy a SuperScrubber, a product made of steel wool to clean your home. It would be hard to keep a human still while scrubbing them intensely with this product, let alone stop any screaming and crying. However, getting a Platypus and scrubbing it intensely would show the real results of the SuperScrubber on the Platypus' now non-existent skin.

Animals are also a lot cheaper. Paying for a prisoner can cost you $22,000 a year [1]. And, you will have to add health costs to that if dangerous products are being tested on them, as Physicians quire a salary of between $121,023 - $170,065 [2], while veterinaries are significantly cheaper at between $58,726 - $88,170 [3]. A doctor can potentially cost twice as much as a veterinary! Also, humans can be picky, with them being lactose intolerant, have nut allergies and whatnot. Many of the dirty Islamic terrorists my opponent wants products tested on will not even touch pig meat! Animals rarely suffer from such food problems, and thus a wider range of products can be tested on them. While my opponent may argue the cost of a prisoner is why we should perform tests on them to start with and not spend money on keeping animals for the same purpose, a huge amount of prisoners are due to silly anti-drug laws [4], so in reality, the cost of prisoners shouldn't be so expensive, and they shouldn't be so bountiful.

Overall, it's pretty clear too me. Testing products on humans is a difficult and expensive process and creates negative effects , while testing them on animals is cheap and creates hilarious results. Back to my opponent.

[1] = http://www.heartsandminds.org...
[2] = http://www.payscale.com...
[3] = http://www.payscale.com...
[4] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lovelife

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for is response.

"My opponent as stated drugs ought not to be tested on animals, but on the scummy underbelly of society (the homeless, prisoners, rapists, etc.). However, does my opponent really think this is a good idea?"

Yes, she does.

"Should Hugo Boss really get the common tramp at the side of the street to test out their new line of suits and colognes?"

Why not?

"The poor are poor for a reason, the last thing we need is for them to be prancing around our nation wearing the latest fashion trends and smelling like a summer breeze, defeating their purpose of looking pitiful and making the middle class feel superior."

Ah see you misunderstand the reason of the poor being poor. Let me explain. Once one is rich their purpose is to help pay for others, once one is poor their purpose is to help us find out what's safe, and what's not.
I do not argue that the poor are poor for a reason, they are poor to make the middle class feel better, by testing out products they want to buy. The homeless use their propaganda to make normal middle class citizens to give them everything, while they don't even work, and if they do nothing productive. ( http://www.google.com... )

Who needs a car wash anyway? Testing on the homeless gives you just the right shade, while at the same time helping you conscience.

"By doing so ware also removing a huge comical aspect from society. No more will be the pictures of monkey butlers. not only would companies such as Hugo Boss get reliable feedback of the suit in terms of handling banana stains, tree branches and the limit of the excrement it can contain, will also give them the opportunity to get hilarious pictures of these animals wearing these outfits. I challenge the audience and my opponent to not smirk when they view this photo: http://cheekspopov.com...;

My opponent believes that by taking animals out of the testing no one will dress up monkeys or use photoshop ever again? I believe people would still keep the comedic effect without endangering poor animals to what the homeless should undergo. In fact seeing homeless people test out your products may even ad to the comedic industry.

"As for medical testing, many tests, especially vaccines where the disease is injected into the the person, can be deadly."

Reason for using prisoners, mostly ones sentenced to death or life. Plus who gives a flying f*ck about murderers? You think the mother of the victim would be upset that the criminal died testing possible cures for AIDS which her youngest son got because a doctor screwed up? The criminal should die a death that saves them of their sins. Not against any God, if he's a murderer with religion he's most likely Christian and will most likely be saved anyway, but his sins to society.

"If prisoners are given the experimental BUMFUN Anti-AIDS vaccine, and get AIDS, the company will be hammered with lawsuits."

Prisoners would lose all rights under this system and instead we will poor bleach into their eyes. The ones that do not die from testing would then be placed to boil so that we can compare their body to that of a normal person that was not tested on that was also put to boil their skin off.
They'd have no right to life either way.

"Should a rabbit be given AIDS through this vaccine, it would be enjoyable to see the rabbit comforted by it's family rejected by its lover, go through depression, become a drug addict and eventually commit suicide,seeing as everything a rabbit does is about 10x cuter."

That may seem amusing at first but imagine the horrors of a hobo bunny, it would be 10x worse than bugs bunny! This outrageous stop, AIDS leads to hoboism which is dangerous for anyone to see because it activates the part of your brain that shouldn't exist. Hobos are taking over our minds, they are to blame for tragedies all over the world such as global warming, poverty, depression, Justin Beiber, worthlessness, and 9/11. We must prevent the spread of hoboism to our cute bunny societies because then the hobo bunnies would produce 7 hobo bunnies at a time! The hobos would multiply in them so we must instead use criminals so that this deadly disease in society can be cured.

It would be hilarious to watch a prison KING instead wear the make up and be humiliated. As far as the queens go perhaps we should use them in AIDS testing too anyway.

Oh sure they should work hard, they should have to test products run as fast as they can work as hard as they can, all in the name of testing products effectiveness. What if you had more productive hom/bo prisoners? They would be even greater then the slave now a days.

Medical costs are irrelevant seeing as how the prisoners under my system of being tested, would lose all legal rights to a doctor unless they can pay out of pocket.

My opponent argues that people fight more than humans, which is easier bribing a guy with some money or capturing and attacking a cat? Just this morning I said hi to one of my feline friends I picked her up we had a nice conversation but the kids scared her. I went after her and could not catch her. I know many have that problem so I think using hypnosis or bribing with counterfeit money would be more effective and provide more accurate results. Saving the world by cleaning up the country, best way to go!
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response.

"Ah see you misunderstand the reason of the poor being poor. Let me explain. Once one is rich their purpose is to help pay for others, once one is poor their purpose is to help us find out what's safe, and what's not.
I do not argue that the poor are poor for a reason, they are poor to make the middle class feel better, by testing out products they want to buy. The homeless use their propaganda to make normal middle class citizens to give them everything, while they don't even work, and if they do nothing productive."

--> The purpose of the poor is not to be the scratching post of the companies aimed at the hopelessly consumerist middle class. They are designed to make people feel better about themselves, which is clear. I may feel inadequate, but seeign a poor person will make me feel better about myself. However, seeing these people dressed in the latest trends destroys the illusion created by the powers that be through the minimum wage, and thus societys order will collapse unto itself, resulting in mass anarchy. My opponent ought to reconsider this position, of saving a few animals in exchange for anarchy in society.

"Who needs a car wash anyway? Testing on the homeless gives you just the right shade, while at the same time helping you conscience."

--> How would it help my conscience, knowing homeless people, who are humans, are being pampered for free while mindless animals are being unharmed? I want to, along with the rest of society, to see poor beggars suffering from malnutrition and hundreds of diseases while animals have toxic products tested on them.

"My opponent believes that by taking animals out of the testing no one will dress up monkeys or use photoshop ever again? I believe people would still keep the comedic effect without endangering poor animals to what the homeless should undergo. In fact seeing homeless people test out your products may even ad to the comedic industry."

--> A homeless guy in a suit is in no way funnier than a monkey in a suit. I mean, how is this funny? http://www.alivenotdead.com...

While the pictures of funny animals won't stop, it will be reduced to trickle of poor photoshops by basement dwellers such as myself.

"Reason for using prisoners, mostly ones sentenced to death or life. Plus who gives a flying f*ck about murderers? You think the mother of the victim would be upset that the criminal died testing possible cures for AIDS which her youngest son got because a doctor screwed up? The criminal should die a death that saves them of their sins. Not against any God, if he's a murderer with religion he's most likely Christian and will most likely be saved anyway, but his sins to society."

--> And I'm pretty sure the loving, caring mother of the person on death row doesn't want their son subjected to an inhumane death through a thousands and one dangerous vaccines. She would be more able to stomach the idea of these being tested on halfwit squirrel, who unlike murders, are in abundance. Science requires tests to be repeated with very few if any external factors. Murderers, benign human, are often very different. Squirrels, while different, are in greater numbers so finding identical squirrels is less of an issue. Furthermore, what does my opponent propose when her death row deterrent results in a near rime-free utopia with only the odd murderer every so often? Then what do we do? Animals can be kept in captivity and breeded. Prisoners, not so much, but while humans can, you can't breed a murderer.

"Prisoners would lose all rights under this system and instead we will poor bleach into their eyes. The ones that do not die from testing would then be placed to boil so that we can compare their body to that of a normal person that was not tested on that was also put to boil their skin off.
They'd have no right to life either way."

--> How is that in anyway productive to testing products on them? Why will companies need to know the effect of bleach in a persons eyes, let alone hundreds of murderers yes? Has my opponent also considered people who are sentenced to death by mistake? Also, if prisoners were to go through such painful experiments, may would commit suicide ratehr than die a slow, painful death.

"
That may seem amusing at first but imagine the horrors of a hobo bunny, it would be 10x worse than bugs bunny! This outrageous stop, AIDS leads to hoboism which is dangerous for anyone to see because it activates the part of your brain that shouldn't exist. Hobos are taking over our minds, they are to blame for tragedies all over the world such as global warming, poverty, depression, Justin Beiber, worthlessness, and 9/11. We must prevent the spread of hoboism to our cute bunny societies because then the hobo bunnies would produce 7 hobo bunnies at a time! The hobos would multiply in them so we must instead use criminals so that this deadly disease in society can be cured."

--> Hobos aren't the cause of that silly, the Illuminati and Liberal Media are. Also, hobo bunnies and criminals are not only sub-human, they're the hobos and criminals of the rabbit world my opponent wants to test products on in the human world, so my opponent must concur they would be prime specimens to test products on, no?

"It would be hilarious to watch a prison KING instead wear the make up and be humiliated. As far as the queens go perhaps we should use them in AIDS testing too anyway."

--> A prisoner king wearing such products would be dethroned, and be relegated to someone's b*tch, making them a queen. And the fact my opponent wants to create the scenario of AIDS free paradise-prison for these gays shocks me. We must also consider that if my opponent wants to test AIDS vaccines on these prisoners, and they DON'T work, then we'll have an AIDS epidemic, thus killing off all prisoners, creating a crime free utopia, and leading us to the need for animal testing. Again, my opponents logic invalidates her case :).

"Oh sure they should work hard, they should have to test products run as fast as they can work as hard as they can, all in the name of testing products effectiveness. What if you had more productive hom/bo prisoners? They would be even greater then the slave now a days."

--> That severely limits the range of products on prisoners then if they are working. Testing a pair of Prada high heels on working prisoners will reduce their work rate severely. There's only so many products, such as military boots and nike tracksuits that can be tested in this scenario without hampering the valuable work of prisoners.

"Medical costs are irrelevant seeing as how the prisoners under my system of being tested, would lose all legal rights to a doctor unless they can pay out of pocket."

--> You do realise a sick prisoner is one which cannot be tested on, or if they are tested one will give back unreliable results? The feedback on the taste of food products won't matter if they have the runs. And given that we're giving them products which are being tested and therefore unreliable, medical care is essential to make sure that they can be continually tested on. And that's where cost comes into play. Withotu medical care, a lot of prisoners will die, so it's more economical to test on animals. And given that aniamls are in greater abundance, medical care won't be completely essential. We can even make live streams of animals suffering and make lots of money of these live streams and video compilations of horses crapping out their own intestines.

And in resposne to my opponents fianl argument, if their rights are forfeit why would they accept money that will probably be stolen by guards to start with? Humans are more likely to fight back than say, a chihuahua which is easily subdued with some food and a noose.

Back to mah opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
lovelife

Con

My opponent starts off by showing a fear of anarchy that would result from the homeless wearing the latest fashion trends.
First I would like to say that anarchy would not be that bad, and second as I have said before, no one would see the homeless they would just be locked up in cages.
Lol anarchy and saving animals all together, seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Both things would happen to the homeless people while the animals go out and infect more people with disease.

How is a monkey in a suit funnier? Imagine a hobo wearing make up that burned off part of his face while wearing a suit.

My opponent goes on to argue about the murderers family, but I would say they have little say considering that he raped and tortured an 11 year old girl to death. His right to humane treatment is over.
He then goes on to argue about "what if all the criminals die...?" As long as there are laws there are criminals. We start off by eliminating the worst criminals the murderers and rapists and like terrorists, then move on to less serious crime until all crime is gone. Since all crime will not be gone we will keep testing on criminals.
Plus I would like to say we could test out human cloning then use clones for test subjects so in a way we would be "breeding" murderers.

Ihave no clue why the bleach would be needed but they put bleach in rabbits eyes so I guess its somehow needed.
Sure but there are unlucky people everywhere. They would not be able to commit suicide because they would be strapped down and patrolled at all non testing times. They will be placed in handcuffs and other precautions will be taken to keep them alive until results occur, then they are boiled alive.

No they would not if you made them as such. You are saying we should test on them make them into hobo bunnies and thats an excuse to test on them. Does not work.

That is part of the reason they would not be allowed unstrapped. However for the sake of this argument I will also say that AIDS does not kill people quickly so while they have it, they can still be tested on. New test subjects will continue to come.

I don't see why shoes would be tested, but I would say forcing them to wear heels may in the short run reduce the productivity of that worker, but in the long term if he can handle working like that and the heels are replaced with something else the productivity would increase.

He goes on to say "a sick prisoner...." is ideal for testing on that sickness. Plus I'm sure giving them cancer and trying to cure it will help with the results.
I'm sure many would pay to see the cruelty applied to those that broke the law too, perhaps even more.

Humans are stupid, that is my responce to my opponents question. Other bribes could happen too like promising they wont die painfully, which would be a lie, promising more food, may be true but who says what the food is, it could be a dead rat.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank mah opponent for this debate.

"First I would like to say that anarchy would not be that bad, and second as I have said before, no one would see the homeless they would just be locked up in cages."

--> Firstly, in anarchy, government doesn't exist, so that's all government employees without jobs. In the resulting chaos form lack of order, lots of businesses go bankrupt, which results in further unemployment. So, eventually, people don't have money to pay for these products which have been extensively tested on prisoners. Furthermore, without a government these prisoners wouldn't exist due to lack of laws.

Secondly, keeping the homeless in cages will mean they starve when the anarchy occurs. While I don't necessarily disagree with that happening, it means your precious test subjects are all dead.

"Lol anarchy and saving animals all together, seems like a pretty good deal to me."

--> Seems like a pretty bad deal to me, seeing as humans die and not animals. Furthermore, without police these PETA whackos can go around killing whoever they want to release a few ants from "imprisonment" in an ant farm or blow up factories which have nuts which might have used land in their cultivation which cattle might have liked to graze on.

"My opponent goes on to argue about the murderers family, but I would say they have little say considering that he raped and tortured an 11 year old girl to death. His right to humane treatment is over."

--> When did he do that? And I'm guessing that 11 year old was asking for it in her provocative sun dress, upstanding citizens don't rape and torture for absolutely no reason. Regardless, cases of such activities is extremely rare. And what do you propose be done? Send another underdressed 11 year old into his cell to rape and torture him? I think he'd quite enjoy that.

Furthermore I would question where my opponent gets off on this. What sick fetish does my opponent have for putting bleach in peoples eyes and boiling them? My opponent clearly has a sexual motive to access subdued humans, for the purpose of torturing them to get a bit of pleasure. And I'm guessing she proposes to use their boiled skin to make herself luxurious rugs and jackets out of their skin that she can wear while getting off to this sadomasochistic display?

"He then goes on to argue about "what if all the criminals die...?" As long as there are laws there are criminals. We start off by eliminating the worst criminals the murderers and rapists and like terrorists, then move on to less serious crime until all crime is gone. Since all crime will not be gone we will keep testing on criminals."

--> My opponent feels we should let someone who lighted a spliff or got laid a day before they were legally allowed do so should be at the mercy of corporate testing. However, my opponents argument is self-defeating, and she admits as much, seeing as she admits it will reduce crime, and thus there will be no criminals to test on. We can of course save ourselves the hassle and straight up test things on animals.

"Plus I would like to say we could test out human cloning then use clones for test subjects so in a way we would be "breeding" murderers."

--> You cannot breed a murderer, a clone of a murderer isn't automatically a murderer, unless they commit a murder. Kind of basic logic and English right there.

"Ihave no clue why the bleach would be needed but they put bleach in rabbits eyes so I guess its somehow needed."

--> It's obviously needed in rabbits eyes, seeing as they're made of a hard, black rock, probably obsidian, as viewable here: http://foolery.typepad.com...

Thus, rabbit eyes can test the properties of bleach quite effectively.

"Sure but there are unlucky people everywhere. They would not be able to commit suicide because they would be strapped down and patrolled at all non testing times. They will be placed in handcuffs and other precautions will be taken to keep them alive until results occur, then they are boiled alive."

--> That's all fine and dandy, but one that will incur extra cost for security, and two, they can hold their breath, thus killing themselves rather slowly but effectively, unless you intend to take away their breathing capabilities, which would mean very expensive cyborg throats, which makes humans uneconomical.

"No they would not if you made them as such. You are saying we should test on them make them into hobo bunnies and thats an excuse to test on them. Does not work."

--> My opponent does not deny this would create hobo bunnies, which are indeed a prime specimen. So, not only do we get to test on bunnies, but it creates an almost super-breed of specimens. My opponent clearly wants to deny us the chance of creating a super-race of specimens through a simple AIDS injection.

"That is part of the reason they would not be allowed unstrapped. However for the sake of this argument I will also say that AIDS does not kill people quickly so while they have it, they can still be tested on. New test subjects will continue to come."

--> AIDS kills people regardless, and eventually every prisoner will have AIDS, and anyone of the general public will realise prison guarantees you AIDS big-time (Which it does regardless of this scenario). Eventually this will kill of all prisoners and lose us our specimens, at which point we need animals. Ergo, it is more efficient to just start with animals and leave our prison population, which makes for great documentaries, moving settings and generally humans with rights, alone

"I don't see why shoes would be tested, but I would say forcing them to wear heels may in the short run reduce the productivity of that worker, but in the long term if he can handle working like that and the heels are replaced with something else the productivity would increase."

--> If a workers adapts to work in high heels, they're adapting to work in high heels, not any form of shoe. It would be an impediment to the person to spend months with bad productivity wearing high heels and then have to re-adapt to regular shoes.

"He goes on to say "a sick prisoner...." is ideal for testing on that sickness. Plus I'm sure giving them cancer and trying to cure it will help with the results."

-- My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I never said that. Furthermore, giving someone cancer and attempting to cure it when it currently incurable will mean people will die, and fast.

"Humans are stupid, that is my responce to my opponents question. Other bribes could happen too like promising they wont die painfully, which would be a lie, promising more food, may be true but who says what the food is, it could be a dead rat."

--> If humans are stupid, then animals are blithering idiots made of flesh and bone. As viewable here [1], all animals bare an elephant, blue whale and a dolphin, which aren't ideal testing subjects anyway, are smarter than man, with rather stupid animals such as moles, goldfish, hummingbirds, and bats being good specimens to test on. Ergo, if my opponent believes it is easy to fool a human, it is even easier to fool other animals.

Overall, I have proved it is more economical to test on animals rather than humans, and that the idea of testing products on prisoners is overall self-defeating, whereas it isn't in animals.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I would be all for testing on "twice" convicted child molesters. Who gives a rats a## or even a monkeys a## if they suffer. We as a society put no value on innocent unborn human life so why should we care about what happens to a twice convicted child molester
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Glad you think so. I think I should do more debates like this
Posted by Mac 6 years ago
Mac
Haha, this was quite entertaining to read :D
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
"Furthermore I would question where my opponent gets off on this. What sick fetish does my opponent have for putting bleach in peoples eyes and boiling them? My opponent clearly has a sexual motive to access subdued humans, for the purpose of torturing them to get a bit of pleasure. And I'm guessing she proposes to use their boiled skin to make herself luxurious rugs and jackets out of their skin that she can wear while getting off to this sadomasochistic display?"

lmfao
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Forgotz mah source in round 3.

[1] = http://www.archure.net...
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Okay that could work just pretty much whatever as long as it is not serious.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I intend for my arguments to be a gigantic joke, Egglseton style. No facts.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Yeah its to be funny and kinda stick with the truth a little.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I'll take this if the goal is to be funny, not factual.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
An Egglestonian debate?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mac 6 years ago
Mac
lovelifeI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
lovelifeI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by rekcut94 6 years ago
rekcut94
lovelifeI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
lovelifeI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
lovelifeI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02