The Instigator
homieq
Pro (for)
Losing
46 Points
The Contender
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,433 times Debate No: 10237
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (22)
Votes (17)

 

homieq

Pro

I am AFF. Okay? So, I am here to affirm this: If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists. (this will be an OI debate).
Contention 1: Aardvarks have a mean streak. See the video in the side: In this you can see an aardvark being evil. If all of the lemons ere gone? God only knows what they'd do.
Contention 2: Lemons are the source of all happiness. http://1.bp.blogspot.com... If all of the lemons in the world were to die out, people would be super sad, like this baby, who believes that lemons are gone: http://www.ed2010.com... Could you say no to that adorable little face? If you can, you are a NAZI. Which leads to my third contention.
Contention 3: Nazis hate lemons and aardvarks.
If lemons were gone, the Nazis would be happy, and if aardvarks were terrorists, then the Nazis would be able to brag about how they knew all along. Blah blah blah.
Contention 4: Textbooks do not provide valid information for nuclear physicists. Bob the traveling Nuclear Physicist once said, "I am Bob, the traveling Nuclear Physicist, and textbooks do not provide valid information." This means that if nuclear physicists want to study up for the impending nuclear war caused by you, and only YOU, they would not receive the data required and the world will blow up.
Vote for Aff, or you are a COMMUNIST!
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate.

"If all of the lemons in the world died out, aardvarks would become terrorists."
This is the resolution; I argue in contradiction to this. I contend that there is no necessary connection between the extinction of lemons and the rise of aardvark extremism.

Just btw, I rather like that phrase; "Aardvark extremism"... It has a bewildering resonance to it; perfect for use in casual conversation. :)

"Contention 1: Aardvarks have a mean streak. See the video in the side."

I did, and turned it off in disgust. Your point is made; we see an aardvark being evil. But I call my audience's attention to the crucial fact that it is an animated aardvark, not a real one. Some human animated that short, and I suspect that another human edited it to increase the violence shown. The true evil is in the actions of the humans, not in the actions of any aardvark.

Here, you may see five videos showing the true nature of aardvarks (Orycteropus afer), a peaceful and timid species that does not condone evil of any kind: http://www.arkive.org...

"Contention 2: Lemons are the source of all happiness."

His source here seems pretty convincing. It's hard to deny the happiness radiating from that lemon; but I have solid evidence that lemons are not the sole source of happiness.

Here are pictures of several other excellent sources of happiness, should lemons become extinct:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com...

Here's an example of community aiding happiness:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com...

And here are some sources of happiness that are also excellent sources of water:
http://www.preservationnation.org...
http://home.fuse.net...

"Could you say no to that adorable little face?"

I say NO to that ugly little mug.

"If you can, you are a NAZI."

So? You got something against Nazis, pal?

"Contention 3: Nazis hate lemons and aardvarks."

Of course. It's in our nature. This has nothing to do with rogue members of the Orycteropus family going over the edge and strapping bombs to themselves.

"Contention 4: Textbooks do not provide valid information for nuclear physicists."

If we have a nuclear war, it's all your fault. We Nazis have never sought conflict; it's you obstinate folk that refuse to accept our benevolent leadership that cause all the problems...

This point too, although uncontested, is irrelevant.

--------

Conclusion:
None of my opponent's points have any bearing on the possibility of aardvark terrorists.

Besides which, my opponent hates Nazis and aardvarks.

A vote for Con is a vote against irrational hatred.
Debate Round No. 1
homieq

Pro

Hohoho! Nice arguments palio! However, your points are very RED-iculous. Communist. For example, you seem quite uneducated, because it is common knowledge that the hit TV show, Arthur, was animated by none other than William Shakespeare, who was openly Aardvarkian. Clearly showing that he is evil.
Also, my opponent states that lemons are not the SOLE source of happiness. To this I say shut up. You are wrong. Have you never read a book, you Nazi.
Speak of the devil, my opponent claims that there is nothing wrong with Nazis. However I have intel that is not anywhere on the Internet that Darth Vader was a product of Nazis. If you look closely at his helmet, you can see that it clearly resemble a Nazi helmet. Darth Vader was inexplicably evil, slaughtering a room full of children. So, if you are fine with Nazis, you are a child killing fool.
Your argument that Nazis never sought conflict is also wrong. If you watch the movie "A Bug's Life", the Nazis, represented by grasshoppers, attack the innocent bugs, Which is asking for violence.
My opponent claims that none of my arguments relate to aardvarks becoming terrorists due to the loss of lemons. However, if he were to see this picture, he would realize otherwise. http://store.perspicuity.com... Thus, proving my argument. Foo'. My opponent is a Nazi, and Aff should win this debate.
Chrysippus

Con

My opponent claims I am a "Communist."

Yet, in the next breath, he claims I am a Nazi.

My opponent has set up a contradiction here. I cannot be both a Nazi AND a communist, as it is common knowledge that the two parties were arch-enemies.

Therefore, either he can stand by his first statement (that I am a Communist), or he can abide with his second statement (that I am a Nazi).

His refutation of my argument against the inherent evil of aardvarks rests solely on the (supposed) fact that I am a Communist. Yet his refutations for my specific arguments (about lemons, Nazis, etc.) are based on the (supposed) fact that I am a Nazi.

We can therefore infer the following:
1. If I am a Nazi, my opponent loses this debate by being unable to prove that aardvarks are evil.
2. If I am a Communist, my opponent loses this debate by being unable to prove that lemons are the sole source of happiness.

So far, my opponent loses no matter what; but wait, there's a third option!
3. If I am neither a Nazi nor a Communist, my opponent's arguments have no basis in fact whatsoever.

I never thought I would be driven to do this, but I must. It is time the real truth was told.

I shall now reveal my dreadful secret.

I am not, nor have ever been, a Nazi nor a Communist.

{shocked gasps of horror from the audience}

Yes, anything in the previous round that might have led my opponent to assume that I was a Nazi was merely playful banter. I am amused that he ever believed that I could adhere to such a political philosophy; but I am sure that my audience was not taken in for a minute.

I am actually a Neo-Kantian Synergistic Polymonarchist. My opponent is wrong when he claims any other political affiliation for me.

*****
I think I have sufficiently taken care of my opponent's arguments; but in his final statements there was one that I thought sufficiently interesting to warrant an answer.

"My opponent claims that none of my arguments relate to aardvarks becoming terrorists due to the loss of lemons. However, if he were to see this picture, he would realize otherwise. http://store.perspicuity.com...;

I viewed said picture, hoping for a miracle. Unfortunately, nothing happened. The image has no essential mind-changing virtue; I remain as thoroughly unconvinced of the extremist tendencies of aardvarks as I was before.

I congratulate (?) my opponent in finding this unique and perhaps life-altering image, but if I may respectfully suggest that he get more rest? He seems to have taken this debate far too seriously. I recommend he meditate on a watertower; perhaps this one: http://home.fuse.net...

******

Again, I thank my opponent for this trip- I mean, debate. It's been fun.

Voters, unless you are perfectly comfortable accepting a triple contradiction as reality, the only logical course of action for you at this point is to vote Con.

Remember, a vote for Con is a vote to save the helpless little aardvarks!
Debate Round No. 2
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@FREEDO: LMAO... good sh*t lol
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
We prefer the term ant-eater.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
This was so awesome. I loved it
Posted by boxxybabee 7 years ago
boxxybabee
The smiling fruit made me ROFL.

Literally.
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
You could probably make an argument similar to this. If your premise is completely false, wild, and impossible you could draw some pretty wild conclusions from it, logically, I think. I dunno exactly.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
I honestly can't pick my favourite "argument" in this debate. Amongst them:

- If all of the lemons in the world were to die out, people would be super sad, like this baby, who believes that lemons are gone: http://www.ed2010.com......

- We Nazis have never sought conflict; it's you obstinate folk that refuse to accept our benevolent leadership that cause all the problems...

- it is common knowledge that the hit TV show, Arthur, was animated by none other than William Shakespeare, who was openly Aardvarkian.

- If you watch the movie "A Bug's Life", the Nazis, represented by grasshoppers, attack the innocent bugs

Good stuff guys.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
I loved it! Brilliant! Totally mental, of course, but brilliant nonetheless. How lucky was Pro to get an opponent like Con though?

If I was American (and therefore eligible to cast my vote) I would create a false account just so I could give both parties 7 points each!
Posted by erinelizabeth 7 years ago
erinelizabeth
That was quite a debate :) It actually proved to be quite humorous in the end, however; I voted Con. I thank you, homieq, for starting the debate and making my day a little brighter. The video was actually pretty funny. Chrysippus, fabulous argument. A job well done.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Homieq, it was fun. How on earth did you come up with such an insane topic for debate? :D

If you have another topic and want to go again just let me know; I have time this week since they told us not to come back to work until Monday.
Posted by homieq 7 years ago
homieq
Nice job. You took my insanely intellectual arguments and destroyed them. I forgot to answer many arguments you made, so I feel silly now. ope to debate you in the future!
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by debatek3 6 years ago
debatek3
homieqChrysippusTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 6 years ago
VoodooChild
homieqChrysippusTied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
homieqChrysippusTied
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 Steelerman6794 7 years ago
Steelerman6794
homieqChrysippusTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by devinni01841 7 years ago
devinni01841
homieqChrysippusTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
homieqChrysippusTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Debate-Machine 7 years ago
Debate-Machine
homieqChrysippusTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Pote 7 years ago
Pote
homieqChrysippusTied
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 Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
homieqChrysippusTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
homieqChrysippusTied
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