The Instigator
Astal3
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Could a woodchuck chuck a lot of wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 855 times Debate No: 58856
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Astal3

Pro

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well I mean the name says it all.A wood chuck is a wood chuckin mother chucker. There ain't nothing else to say about it.
Fanath

Con

I accept. BOP's on pro for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Astal3

Pro

Lets do this

The woodchuck (AKA Ground Hog,some even consider beavers woodchucks) is a feared animal within the farming community. They dig up crops and eat them without even leaving a thank you note. Outside of humans using them for their shadows to make a weather forecast and possibly something furry to shoot at in a field woodchucks are not of much use to humans.They are practically considered rodents. This general lack of respect has the potential to create some pent up anger in our furry little friends.

http://www.humanesociety.org...

I will now go into detail the possible effects of said pent up anger. I find it a convenient coincidence that Geico, which is an insurance company, would make a commercial about wood chucks chucking wood. The scene starts off on a farm and sure enough there are two woodchucks chucking split wood into the water. Out of all the wood they could have chucked, they specifically went after the split firewood which who knows how long it took the farmer to split. With each piece of wood they chucked they giggled with idiotic laughter. This suggests that the woodchucks have been driven mad by the fact that they aren't taken seriously and they are taking their psychotic anger out by chucking the farmers hard earned wood into the water. What further indicates this is an act of revenge is when the farmer pulls up on his power buggy and says " Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chuckin my wood" the irritation displayed by the farmer indicates that this isn't the first time he has encountered said chuckers of wood. It really is quite simple. Farmer finds woodchucks eating his crops, farmers drives woodchucks out, woodchucks then target the farmers hard earned wood and enact revenge by chucking it into the river. I believe detectives would call that motive, motive to chuck the farmers wood the woodchucks had.

Now I will explain their physical capability for chucking wood. Woodchucks often live near well, wood(Forests, etc.)."One of the most obvious characteristics of woodchucks is the two front teeth that stick out of the mouth. These teeth are for gnawing and they will continuously grow throughout the woodchuck"s life because they are constantly being worn down." Why are a woodchucks teeth constantly being worn down? For all the wood they chew through to chuck later is my guess." Woodchucks are good climbers and sometimes are seen in lower tree branches." Woodchucks have the climbing skills required to get to those juicy lower branches on a tree if wood on the ground is unavailable. "Woodchucks maintain sanitary den sites and burrow systems, replacing nest materials frequently. A burrow and den system is often used for several seasons. The tunnel system is irregular and may be extensive in size. Burrows may be as deep as 5 feet (1.5 m) and range from 8 to 66 feet (2.4 to 19.8 m) in total length (Fig. 3). Old burrows not in use by woodchucks provide cover for rabbits, weasels, and other wildlife. When startled, a woodchuck may emit a shrill whistle or alarm, preceded by a low, abrupt "phew." This is followed by a low, rapid warble that sounds like "tchuck, tchuck."" Woodchucks are capable of digging in and providing themselves a base camp to support their wood chucking operations. The shelter left behind by their operations is used by other forest life so it is fair to say that the forest creature got their back, making it that much harder to find and neutralize their wood chucking command centers. If you manage to catch a woodchuck off guard; well it basically screams at you which warns everyone else to drop the wood and bug out. This behavior indicates multiple woodchucks are capable of working as a unit therefore exponentially increasing their wood-chucking capabilities. How a wood chuck would chuck wood exactly is unknown given that the Geico commercial was a staged incident, or was it? But the logistics are clearly there for a woochuck(s) to successfully chuck wood.

http://lewand.tripod.com...

Finally comes the issue of how much wood could a woodchuck actually chuck? Lets satisfy your logical and critical mind and quote this study "They don't ACTUALLY eat or throw wood. Instead, they eat grasses and insects and pretty much everything else at ground level they can get their hands on. But they can, apparently, CHEW wood, and that's where the idea for this study came in.

The authors decided to use the word "chuck" to mean "chew" (I suppose because upchucking is the opposite?), and wanted to see how much wood a woodchuck could chuck. They obtained 12 woodchucks (by "various means" that are not described, I picture some middle aged guy in a suit trying to stalk one), and food deprived them to ensure they would eat the wood. Then, they fed each woodchuck a 2x4 (yes) and watched how fast they ate it.

All the woodchucks ate the wood, none actively attempted to toss it, and none upchucked. They could, apparently digest the wood pretty well, and consumed it at a rate of 361.9237001 cubic centimeters per animals per day (no error bars, and the food deprivation was nuts, 12 days, leading me to think they didn't REALLY...). They note that, while none of the woodchucks attempted to throw the wood, they probably would have, had they been capable." So technically if you adjust the parameters of the meaning chuck technically they can actually chuck wood. We are allowed to due this because the original statement plainly says chuck without providing a clear definition to what exactly chuck means; But lets throw that aside and note the end of the excerpt "while none of the woodchucks attempted to throw the wood, they probably would have, had they been capable." Since the original statement takes away the technical uncertainty those woodchucks more than likely would have chucked the grain right out of that wood.

http://scientopia.org...

Lets some up the evidence provided. There is sufficient motive for a woodchuck to chuck wood, especially if it's your wood. Woodchucks have the required logistics to carry out long and continuous wood-chucking operations. The woodchucks have been observed actually chucking wood and even the possibility of a more drastic form of chucking was present. I thank my opponent for accepting my debate and I wish him luck on his evidence to debunk my evidence. Also keep in mind that this question is hypothetical therefore it can not technically be proven nor dis proven, but given the hypothetical ability was true I have provided sufficient evidence that a woodchuck could indeed chuck a lot of wood. Therefore I argue vote for this motion.

PS. If ever tempted to insult a woodchuck remember this debate, any item or appendage that can relate to the word wood might be in danger of getting chucked.
Fanath

Con

Thanks for making the debate Pro. Now onto the rebuttals:

My opponent quotes a article (Copy pastes the whole article) that describes how an experiment hints that woodchucks could easily digest wood. However, note that the author begins with saying that he himself doubted that the study actually occured, hence indicating that this study was probably made up and is not sufficient evidence.

"The paper is in the Annals of Improbable Research, and was improbably peer reviewed. It also has highly improbable animal care protocols. So from what I can tell the actual possibility of this study having been done is...improbable"

(Opening statement from the author of the article)

Also note that study, even if it were true, would contradict with the Geico video he's shown in his opening contentions. If "Chuck" is eating, the Gieco video is in-valid, while if "Chuck" is throwing the study is un usuable for this debate. Fortunatly, we can use a dictionary and simply define the word "Chuck" as throw. [1]

While chuck is defined as throw, the evidence of a study that probably didn't happen and showed that woodchucks could digest a little bit of wood (Again, un related to the debate because it's eating not throwing) doesn't prove anything.

Now, considering the above the only argument my opponent has actually given for woodchucks chucking a lot of wood is this:

"If you manage to catch a woodchuck off guard; well it basically screams at you which warns everyone else to drop the wood and bug out. This behavior indicates multiple woodchucks are capable of working as a unit therefore exponentially increasing their wood-chucking capabilities"

Note that this is actually mis representing the article. The original statement tells us that:

"When a woodchuck hears or sees a predator, they will make a shrill whistle to warn others of the pending danger."

Is a human a predator to woodchucks? Can anyone honestly say that they would or have gone out to the woods and hunt for the wood chucks, bring them back to their home, and have a babaque with them being the main course? Secondly, just because woodchucks may be capable of digging holes doesn't mean that they would use it for secret operations. They don't even have the intelligence to do so, nor is there any evidence indicating that it's possible. My opponent would have to prove that it's probable, so this contention fails to.

In closing, my opponents arguments are literally pasted words from articles on woodchucks. Some of his evidence was even meant to be satirical, making it very poor evidence to use in a debate. I've shown how his arguments are either un related to the debate itself or simply fail to prove anything. The BOP in this debate was on Pro, and he clearly did not meet it at all. I only had to disprove his contentions, I didn't have to prove that they would chuck little wood etc. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence" - Hitchens.

Vote Con.

[1] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Astal3FanathTied
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: pro makes bad assertions that are easily rebutted.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
Astal3FanathTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Astal3FanathTied
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: It's just not proven to any extent here. Pro makes this assertion and really doesn't support it well enough. The study isn't much of one, as Con points out, and might not even have happened. Even if it did, the association to chucking wood is weak. The best Pro manages to do is show that there's a possible definition of chucking that involves eating, but he really doesn't support that being the most reasonable definition. Without that, his points mainly stand as assertions, and since it's his BoP, the lack of evidence loses him the debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
Astal3FanathTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I have nothing...no points awarded, as both debaters made good points and strong arguments, but great job by both.