The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,841 times Debate No: 14953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Definitions:

Woodchuck: a stocky North American burrowing rodent. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Wood: the hard, fibrous substance composing most of the stem and branches of a tree or shrub, and lying beneath the bark; the xylem.

Chuck: Throw http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

==Contentions==
1. Woodchucks cannot chuck wood

To be able to throw wood means that you must be able to grip it. Woodchucks cannot throw wood, contrary to this Geico commercial (see above clip).

Woodchucks do not have opposable thumbs, meaning they cannot grip wood.

Please view this artist's portrayal of you. http://images.sodahead.com...

Vote Pro
FREEDO

Con

Alas, an enigma which has plagued the conscience and twisted the tongue of many a mind for over a century and two days.

Perhaps, this day, we shall put it to rest.

ARGUMENTS:

So, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck is a woodchuck could chuck wood? Well, I think before this question can be confronted we must first ask whether a woodchuck would even want to chuck wood. So let us ask, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood? Obviously, a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as it wanted to chuck if it could chuck wood. But just how much wood would a woodchuck want to chuck? Well, woodchucks are very ambitious creatures so I would say a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood. Which brings us back to your original question. And it is indeed an interesting question. How much wood COULD a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Besides the obvious implication of my fore-explained assertion that it would as much as it could, which would be that it could as much as it would, there should be a set number on this--should there not? Is it zero as my opponent exclaims? Let us examine this conundrum.

My opponent asserts that a woodchuck could not chuck wood because the act of chucking wood requires opposable thumbs for gripping the wood.

Definition of throw, as provided by Pro's own source:
"To discharge into the air by any means". [1]

One method of "any means" is vomiting. Indeed, vomiting is often referred to as "up-chucking". [2]

Since horses and rats are the only animals which can't vomit, this means woodchucks are fully capable of chucking wood. [3]

But would a woodchuck eat wood, so as to be chucking it? Yes, indeed they would. Woodchucks are herbivores and their average diets incorporates grasses and crops, things which may be partially wood or mixed in with wood material. [4]

Pro's arguments are refuted.

SOURCES:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://lmgtfy.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

Refutations:

One method of "any means" is vomiting. Indeed, vomiting is often referred to as "up-chucking"

This is a good point, though vomiting requires the desire to partially digest (and chew up) wood. Woodchucks would never want to intentionally up chuck wood, nor does it have strong enough teeth to be able to chew up wood. Woodchucks only have the motivation to eat and have affairs with women (See first video).

"Woodchucks are herbivores and their average diets incorporates grasses and crops, things which may be partially wood or mixed in with wood material."

Woodchucks eat grasses, crops, cake (see second video) and maybe a small insect here and there. As stated before woodchucks would have no desire or chewing power to eat wood.


(Woodchucks are not to be confused with groundhogs (see third video)).

Con's arguments are refuted.

Sources:

1. http://www.bugclinic.com...
FREEDO

Con

RESPONSES:

//Woodchucks would never want to intentionally up chuck wood//

Lol, don't know what that has to do with anything. I also didn't know you had an intimate knowledge of the intentions of woodchucks. That's kind of creepy.

// Woodchucks would never want to intentionally up chuck wood, nor does it have strong enough teeth to be able to chew up wood.//

Lets re-examine your definition of wood:

"the hard, fibrous substance composing most of the stem and branches of a tree or shrub, and lying beneath the bark; the xylem."

Definition of hard:
"Resistant to pressure; not readily penetrated."[1]

Definition of fibrous:
"Having, consisting of, or resembling fibers."[2]

Definition of fiber:
A slender, elongated, threadlike object or structure.[3]

Definition of substance:
"That which has mass and occupies space; matter." [4]

So a more elaborate and precise definition of wood would be:
"Something which is not readily penetrated, is made of slender threadlike structures and takes up space inside a tree or shrub, beneath it's bark."

Let us now examine some things which match this description:

Exhibit A: An insect.

It is a fact that many insects have exoskeletons, which are described as hard. [5]

It is a fact that many insect have veins, which are fibrous. [6]

It is a fact that insects occupy space and are made of matter. [7]

Exhibit B: Atoms.

It is a fact that atoms are not readily penetrated. [8]

A leading theory in physics, advanced by physicists like Stephen Hawking[9], is string-theory. [10]

"String theory mainly posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings"). The earliest string model, the bosonic string, incorporated only bosons, although this view developed to the superstring theory, which posits that a connection (a "supersymmetry") exists between bosons and fermions. String theories also require the existence of several extra, unobservable, dimensions to the universe, in addition to the usual four spacetime dimensions."

Thus make atoms constructed with fibers.

It is a fact that atoms occupy space. [11]

According to the confirmed definition, both insects and atoms are wood.

How much insects could an insectchuck...inspect...if a insectchuck could inspect insects???!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!??!

//Woodchucks only have the motivation to eat and have affairs with women.//

You mean to say that through your tedious, possibly zoophilias, observations you have discovered that all woodchuck activities take place in association with either women or food? I can get what you are saying. Statistically, you can imagine that with a drop in the food supply there would have to be a rise in women related activities. This can only mean one thing: Whenever you see woman, a starving woodchuck cannot be far behind. After all, woman is defined as: "An adult female human"[12].

//Woodchucks are not to be confused with groundhogs//

They are, in-fact, one and the same. [13]

How much ground could a groundhog hog if a groundhog could hog ground?!?!??!!11!!!?!?!?!?111??!!1one?!?!eleven?!

//Con's arguments are refuted.//

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com...

SOURCES:
1. http://education.yahoo.com...
2. http://education.yahoo.com...
3. http://education.yahoo.com...
4. http://education.yahoo.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.rajputbrotherhood.com...
7. duh
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
11. http://en.wikipedia.org...(mind_game)
12. http://education.yahoo.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Refutations:

"Lol, don't know what that has to do with anything. I also didn't know you had an intimate knowledge of the intentions of woodchucks. That's kind of creepy."

I've spent 10 years of my life living among the woodchucks. They accept me as one of their own. So yes I'm pretty well educated in the field of woodchuck behavior.

" Lets re-examine your definition of wood:

the hard, fibrous substance composing most of the stem and branches of a tree or shrub, and lying beneath the bark; the xylem."

Key words here "stem and branches of a tree or shrub"


" Exhibit A: An insect."
"Exhibit B: Atoms."

By the definition, even your more elaborate and precise definition, insects and atoms do not take up space inside a tree or shrub.

" You mean to say that through your tedious, possibly zoophilias, observations you have discovered that all woodchuck activities take place in association with either women or food? I can get what you are saying. Statistically, you can imagine that with a drop in the food supply there would have to be a rise in women related activities. This can only mean one thing: Whenever you see woman, a starving woodchuck cannot be far behind. After all, woman is defined as: "An adult female human""

It is no suprise that in today's society, woodchucks are suddenly becoming more and more common in the nooks and crannies of civilization. As food possiblilities decline, woodchucks are becoming more prevalent in built up areas. Woodchucks can even be living under your home [1], watching and observing, they may even rape you in your sleep. I have accompanied woodchucks on these "expeditions" as they call them. They occur in three stages.

STAGE ONE:
Leaving the den. Woodchucks leave their homes in search of easy relations. If they cannot find food, they find women. If they cannot find women, they find children. If they cannot find children they starve to death within two days.

STAGE TWO:

Carrying out plans. If they found food. They eat it. If they find women, they have affairs. Why do you think there are so many divorces in today's society. Woodchucks are undermining marriages left and right. That is why you should purchase woodchuck repellent, to keep your marriage steady. [1].

STAGE THREE:
Return. After doing whatever they do, (I know). they clean up whatever mess they made, whether it be food crumbs or divorced women and head home. They are greeted by their friends and family, whom they will share their stories with, in vivid detail. As I was in the den with my friend "Kook Tow" he explained his last expedition, "Sweek sweek snark snark honk honk honk ak ak ak" or translated "LOLOLOLOLOL I ATE HER FOOD AND DID HER".


Beat that con. >:D



Sources
1.
http://www.critter-repellent.com...

FREEDO

Con

//I've spent 10 years of my life living among the woodchucks. They accept me as one of their own. So yes I'm pretty well educated in the field of woodchuck behavior.//

Are you sure there's something you're not telling us?

//By the definition, even your more elaborate and precise definition, insects and atoms do not take up space inside a tree or shrub.//

Lol, you made this assertion and then never explained why you made it. It would have been brilliant.

//It is no suprise that in today's society, woodchucks are suddenly becoming more and more common in the nooks and crannies of civilization. As food possiblilities decline, woodchucks are becoming more prevalent in built up areas. Woodchucks can even be living under your home [1], watching and observing, they may even rape you in your sleep. I have accompanied woodchucks on these "expeditions" as they call them. They occur in three stages.//

http://wackyiraqi.com...

//Carrying out plans. If they found food. They eat it. If they find women, they have affairs. Why do you think there are so many divorces in today's society. Woodchucks are undermining marriages left and right. That is why you should purchase woodchuck repellent, to keep your marriage steady. [1].//

So the truth comes out....

You advise us to use repellent against those who supposedly "except you as their own"? Even when you admit that when they are unable to acquire these things which you repel them from, they die. I see what's going on here and it makes me sick. The purpose of this whole debate is an elaborate smear campaign aimed at revenge. Revenge against the woodchucks.

I've traced your history and found some startling discoveries. Rocky's parents were accidentally killed in one of the woodchucks' desperate raids. He was only 4 years old when it happened but while growing up, even being raised by the woodchucks, he learned of his old family and how they were killed, developing a twisted hatred.

See the video of me speaking with my opponent's woodchuck mother(she has become very thin).


The loss of your parents was a tragedy but it was an accident, Rocky. It's time to put it behind you. The woodchucks are not bad creatures.

Here's the story Pro doesn't want you to hear(and doesn't want to face, himself). The humans have been terrorizing the woodchucks since the beginning. We have been rapidly encroaching on their habitat, denying them of their food. They are not the terrorists, we are. They have only been fighting back against what has been done to them; taking back what is theres. Has there been collateral damage on their part? Sure. But are we any different? It's something we need to fix on both our parts but there's no getting around that turning things the other way needs to start with the humans on this one.

What does starting this debate have to do with a plot against the woodchucks? It is obvious. When the pesky notion of woodchucks chucking wood is gone we will be filled with fear since we no longer perceive this plentiful thing as being something they need and knowing what else they need will be driven to protect those things which we are so used to having, being taken from the woodchucks. It would start an all out war...and the winner is obvious. The woodchucks simply don't have the might, they have had to resort to guerrilla warfare, seen here:
http://i681.photobucket.com... They don't have armies, only small bands of rebels.

Pro's mind has been twisted by trauma, he fights against a poor group of furry, starving, over-grown pimp-hamsters who took care of him in his darkest moment, in defense of the people who put them in the position which led to his parents death.

VOTE CON. SAVE THE WOODCHUCKS.


Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
No, you cant vote on your own debates
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
The mods are upset at the way you vote; your privileges have been revoked. Next to go: speech.
Posted by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
Why am I not able to vote?
Posted by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
THAT is racist
Posted by batman1200 3 years ago
batman1200
THAT is funny
Posted by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
If you knew me you would know I had a woodchuckian accent.
Posted by batman1200 3 years ago
batman1200
pro, you are 14 and you spent 10 years with the woodchucks? i am guessing that you are either lying (most likely) or you have really mean parents.
Posted by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
I <3 this debate.
Posted by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
Full quote from woodchuck buddy "Snort snort snort snarks snark snark snark akakakakaaka wah wah wah wah wah memememememeeeeee memememeeeee snort snort snort snarks snark snark snark akakakakaaka wah wah wah wah wah memememememeeeeee memememeeeee snort snort snort snarks snark snark snark akakakakaaka wah wah wah wah wah memememememeeeeee memememeeeee snort snort snort snarks snark snark snark akakakakaaka wah wah wah wah wah memememememeeeeee memememeeeee"

Or translated: "Dude duuuudedududed. I see this white chick arguing with her husband and I'm like, hey guys, lets settle this. So I bite the guy's leg and apparently he had hemophilia so he died in seconds. I ate the rest of him then had sex with his wife and ate their whole pantry. Then I set their house on fire and drove a truck into the Woodchuck repellent store, putting them out of business for 6 months."
Posted by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
Sounds sexy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
RockylightningFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con and Pro both made excellent cases but Con is the clear winner as far as arguments go. Also had more sources.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
RockylightningFREEDOTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro told me in their first speech that no wood would be chucked, Con only questioned the deeper ethical and philosophical motivation behind the woodchuck being able to chuck, and the pointed out they could chuck wood. It still gave me nothing onee how much wood would be chucked.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
RockylightningFREEDOTied
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: Excellent opening by Con, Pro followed suit but could not match Con in absurdity.