The Instigator
MWonderWolf
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Are wolves cool/okay?

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 2 votes the winner is...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 92396
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (2)

 

MWonderWolf

Pro

The first round is just for acceptance. I put it under 'Education' because this will test how much education you have had on wolves, and real wolves, not the big bad wolf, which isn't real.
fire_wings

Con

Because my opponent did not provide definitons, I win provide them for him. Pro doesn't say what wolf, so I will be arguing about sheep-wolves. It is down below.

A wolf:



How did this happen?

Long ago, wolves and sheeps were friends.

However, the wolves got to greedy, and they like the sheep to much, so they couldn't control themseleves, and they killed all the sheep. The wolves were very sad that they killed their friends, so they were in that picture above.

However, when the wolves saw the other sheep, they though about the meat, and gobbled them up.

Some wolves were transformed into that shape, and they live in Nambia, so we can't hear about them. They are the most vicious species, and kills many things on sight, they aren't cool.
Debate Round No. 1
MWonderWolf

Pro

I specifically said that the first round was just for acceptance, so that argument is invalid. That story is also not true, and I also specifically said that this debate was about REAL wolves. REAL wolves do not kill on sight, and, if hunting is successful in that area, they will not even hunt every day. If hunting is poor, however, they will go every day, as hunting success is NEVER assured.
fire_wings

Con

It's okay, as I will waive in the last round. My opponent says that the wolf is not real, but obviously it is real, as it is in the internet, and it is not the big bad wolf, only a sheep wolf. I extend my arguments. My opponent makes no arguments, only that wolves do not hunt everything at sight, which was a rebuttal, but wolves like to eat sheep, as I explained, so they eat sheep. My opponent provdies no arguments, when BoP is mostly on Pro, even though I provide offense. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
MWonderWolf

Pro

I never said that wolves were not real; I said that the big bad wolf wasn't real. Yes, wolves are real. But sheep wolves are NOT real, however. You say that they are on the Internet. I typed into the search engine 'what are sheep wolves?', but nothing came up except video games. Also, I'm not saying that you are blatantly wrong, but, if you were a wolf, would you like to eat sheep? I mean, seriously. Getting through all that wool would be tedious. They PREFER elk and deer, but they'll eat sheep if they must. How would you be offended? Can you point it out so I can change? And why should people vote for you? They have equal reasons to vote for either. And, people are not smiled upon if they ask for votes. Why are real wolves bad?
fire_wings

Con

My opponent says that sheep wolves are not real. However they exist in the internet. However, I will say why real wolves are bad also. Real wolves kill many deer, sheep, and howls, making it scary for people who live in igloos, and they can also kill farm animals. My opponent says, "They have equal reasons to vote for either. " That is truly wrong, as I was the only one who provdided arguments, and BoP is mostly on Pro, when he didn't provide any offense. And my reason stands clear that wolves kill farm animals, which is bad for farmers, etc. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
MWonderWolf

Pro

Man, you're CRAZY fast. As I said, they do NOT exist on the Internet. Anybody who wants to can look it up. It's just videogames and a nightmare that someone had. And the Internet isn't always reliable. They kill howls? And who lives in an igloo anymore? And why should ey be scared? After all, wolves have only killed one or two people since 2004. Are you kidding!? I provided arguments too! Yes, when times are hard they do eat livestock, but not much. Wolves typically avoid anything that has to do with humans at all costs.
fire_wings

Con

My opponent says the do not exist on the internet, and they don't exist. They do come out in the internet, and they might exist, who knows? I said they live in the far parts of Nambia, and they are shown only a few times. I never said they kill howls, not eats howls. My opponent says that they have only killed one or two people since 2004. This is false. 120 asians died in wolf attacks from 2002 [1]. Also, my opponent provided no arguments, and I can read a pargaraph. My opponent concedes that they eat livestock when they really have to. This is false also. Wolves like eat sheep, that's a fact. Pro says that wolves avoid humans, which is false

[1] Linell 2002

Vote Con, as my opponent fails to make any arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
MWonderWolf

Pro

I meant healthy wolves, my bad. The only part that is in English says that they were rabid, and even then it said nothing about a particular attack in which the insane number of 120 Asians died. In addition, no HEALTHY wolf in the wild in NAhas ever killed a human. To make your sentence longer, it would be: 'real wolves kill many deer, kill many sheep, and kill many howls, and all of that makes it scary for people who live in igloos'. The verb applies to everything listed, and who ever heard of sheep living in the arctic? Igloos are on open plains, and, even though wolf howls can be heard for miles, wolves can't really survive on open plains with no trees or game. Wolves are skittish creatures. Look it up.
fire_wings

Con

I'll waive, but Pro makes arguments in the last round, and I can't rebut it. I ask voters to not care about what he wrote in the last round, as it is unfair for me. My opponent says that it is healhty wolves. What are health wolves anyway? I said, howls, not kills howls, as a howl is a sound; you can't kill it. My opponent makes no offense, so only for that, voter's ought to vote for Con.

VOTE CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I EXTEND ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
What the heck!? This guy doesn't even know what he's talking about!
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
@Wylted, I provided evidence, I clearly stated that I looked it up and couldn't find anything. So, he shows a pic and you believe him!? Man, you're gullible. That morph is not genetically possible. Think about it logically.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Wylted// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con Provided arguments why wolves are bad, they kill people and animals. Pro stated that sheep wolves were not real, and provided no evidence for this assertion. Con showed a picture so I believe him. Pro made no arguments he just offered rebuttals, and with split BOp, that is not enough

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explains their decision on the debate with arguments given by each debater and analysis of what affected the outcome. Disliking that analysis is not reason enough to remove a vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
Okay. I'm just saying that it's crazy.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
It got reported. That's all you need to know.
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
Who would report that? There's nothing wrong with that vote.
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
Report?
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
Because otherwise the person who issued the report doesn't know that we've assessed the vote. They keep re-issuing the report, and we keep checking.
Posted by MWonderWolf 8 months ago
MWonderWolf
Why do you have to say when you don't remove a vote? Why can't you just leave it alone if there's nothing wrong with it? Not wanting to criticize, I just wanted to know if it was part of the rules or something.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I have no clue what Con is talking about. He posts some random picture of a fictional wolf, and says "it's real since it's on the Internet," without actually providing a reason for that wolf *not* being "cool." I vote Pro because Con randomly and deliberately trolls Pro for no reason, because established definitions are assumed for debate, and random trolls aren't permissible like that. Con was probably trying to mimic Imabench's debate called "poop has DNA" (hence the reference to Namibia), but the resolution was inherently abusive in that debate since it was a truism - lacking any abuse here, I'm not going to accept any trolling of what was intended to be a proper debate. That's a violation of basic ethics and conventions, so conduct goes to Pro. Edit: argument points removed, because neither side has proper arguments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains the decision and given point allocation.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
MWonderWolffire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Provided arguments why wolves are bad, they kill people and animals. Pro stated that sheep wolves were not real, and provided no evidence for this assertion. Con showed a picture so I believe him. Pro made no arguments he just offered rebuttals, and with split BOp, that is not enough
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
MWonderWolffire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I have no clue what Con is talking about. He posts some random picture of a fictional wolf, and says "it's real since it's on the Internet," without actually providing a reason for that wolf *not* being "cool." I vote Pro because Con randomly and deliberately trolls Pro for no reason, because established definitions are assumed for debate, and random trolls aren't permissible like that. Con was probably trying to mimic Imabench's debate called "poop has DNA" (hence the reference to Namibia), but the resolution was inherently abusive in that debate since it was a truism - lacking any abuse here, I'm not going to accept any trolling of what was intended to be a proper debate. That's a violation of basic ethics and conventions, so conduct goes to Pro. Edit: argument points removed, because neither side has proper arguments.