The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 81083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




They are too good for it?


Hello, this is my 2nd debate on I was wondering if there was by any chance, hidden meaning behind your misspelling of the word "intellectuals", but I am guessing probably not right? For this debate, we should consider what means to be an intellectual and who are the intellectuals. As taken from, One definition of Intellectuals is said to be "possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree" I believe this is the correct definition of the word,intellectuals, that you had intended right?

If so, then there are a multitude of comedians who I can point out on comedy central who can be deemed intellectual and can handle as well as give many jokes on sex, race, porn, gender, and other categories that would be considered "dirty humor". It seems that you do not have to go to a prestigious college to be considered an intellectual.

What qualifies a person as an intellectual is if they meet the definition said earlier in the eyes of an individual. The reason I say that is because some people might use the word intellectual in terms of their own ideas of what an intellectual is. Some might believe that they cannot handle dirty humor as your topic says, others might disagree like I do, and that is because the term intellectual is a very broad word in terms of a set designation of categorizing a certain group of people. The main point I am trying to state is that intellectual is too abstract of a word, because people use it respectively for who they think are intellectuals.

I look forward to this debate. Thank you for posting this issue.

Sources utilized:
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, welcome to, and thanks for accepting. This was intended to be a joke debate. I wasn't originally going to state this, but I thought you should know, because don't want you to have a bad impression of this website. There are some trolls here, but they are in the minority (I, myself have done a fair bit of trolling, but I've never went as far as to accept debates people create just to mess with them. I have made some joke debates myself, though some of them have been removed by customer support. Damn them!). Well, this rant has gone on for far too long, so with out further ado, here are my arguments.
In this world, there are many evils. Poverty, illness, murder, suicide, and many more. These things, while horrible, cannot compare with the atrocities these people have committed.

Yes, I am speaking of intellectuals. They bore us with their stories of science, history, arithmetic, and science. They all use fancy words, and then complain when we can't understand them. (Wtf is a "misanthropic" anyways?). They all wear monocles, and drink champagne.

The worst part about them, however, is that they CAN NOT APPRECIATE DIRTY JOKES! Whenever you walk up to an intellectual, and tell them that you had sex with their dad, they will tell you you're being "immature", and that you are "a lowly peasant", and "not worthy of their presence". Then they will laugh at you, while sticking their noses up, with all their intellectual friends.

Well, the last time this happened to me, I had enough. I started screaming at them, telling them that they were jealous of my skillz, and they were going to get quickscoped if they ever faced me in Call of Duty.

That showed them. No intellectual has dared to approach me since I finally stood up to those intellectuals. In fact, they all cower at the mere sight of me.


Its cool, at first glance of this question, I just felt like having a debate with a topic that sounded interesting and like nonsense. I did consider if you were a troll or not since you misspelled intellectual, but was just wondering if that was done on purpose to emphasize the person asking this question as having stupidity/ ignorance in the face of intellectuals.
Anyway, I'll play along with your little farce of a controversial/questionable statement *Laughing out loud*.
Intellectuals do have a sense of dirty humor in how they joke about the average birth rate of prodigy-level intellectuals compared to the average birth rate of "peasants" who have children like dogs and cats because they cannot control their "id" (Part of Sigmund Freud 's model of psyche) or uncoordinated instinctual trends of the common people.

The reason why they "bore" you with their speeches is because if they didn't do that, then they wouldn't be able to show just how much more productive their brains are compared to the hollowness in the heads of the common folk.

One big fat piece of evidence for my case that intellectuals have a dirty sense of humor, is "The Big Bang Theory". I mean really, if your going to suggest or imply that intellectuals and dirty jokes don't mix then your very likely in the ignorant category of the "peasants".

"Interesting, sex works even better than chocolate to modify behavior. I wonder if anyone else has stumbled onto this?" -Sheldon

I am not going to explain this joke because then it would not be as funny, it is said as evidence for dirty humor.

Sure, some snooty snoot pretend-to-be intellectuals might laugh at you for telling sex jokes about their dads that they believe will cause your IQ to drop, but the actual intellectuals will ask you to give them the details so they can further conduct research on the possibility if by any chance that their father is a transsexual who will become pregnant and give birth to their new baby siblings.

Let this be a lesson to you peasant.

Sources utilized:
Debate Round No. 2



Argument 1-
Well, you may find this joke amusing, as may other intellectuals, but you have no proof that the average intellectual would find the joke amusing. Also, I don't think that joking about high birthrates should be classified as "dirty" humor.

Argument 2-
Yes, but they still can't snipe n00bs on Call of Duty like I can, and this is one of the most useful life skills known to mankind.

Argument 3-
The Big Bang Theory DOES, in fact, feature some dirty humor. However, the show is very mainstream, and is not exclusively viewed by intellectuals. This isn't to say intellectuals don't watch the show, but it is a show that many common folk watch. This joke was most likely viewed as extremely offensive by most intellectuals.

Argument 4- Con has no proof that this would be the average reaction of an intellectual. However, I have anecdotal evidence that my reaction WOULD occur.

"Well, the last time this happened to me, I had enough. I started screaming at them, telling them that they were jealous of my skillz, and they were going to get quickscoped if they ever faced me in Call of Duty."

Now, while this evidence is in no way reliable, it still technically is evidence.

Vote Pro.


Are you actually trying to be serious in the last round of this kind of debate that you made? Of which you had even disclosed as a joke? Well then, in any case, I will simply refer back to my 1st argument in relation to my 2nd.
I will refer back to my preliminary arguments. To determine who and who is not an intellectual is an abstract range of possibilities and impossibilities. For instance, one person might determine a child with down syndrome who paints art as beautifully as Van Gogh as an intellectual.

I will now provide a counter to all of your rebuttals relative to my previous arguments.

1. Do I have no proof that the average intellectual would find this joke amusing?
If I consider myself an intellectual, and I find the joke arguably amusing, then I do in fact have proof. "Dirty" humor is open for debate, it is irrelevant whether you consider it as such or not. My argument earlier was that they perceive the "id" as sexual motivations similar to a perverted dog.

2. "...they still can't snipe n00bs on Call of Duty like I can", well that leaves an open debate of whether or not you are good at sniping at all depending on how many kills you receive. I have not seen you snipe, so I have no idea of how you do so, but I can still refute it. Again, if I refer back to my definition of an intellectual, and say that a certain COD player, who snipes "like"(as in they receive a similar kdr average while using this method) how you snipe is an intellectual, then there actually are intellectuals who can, contrary to your notion.

3. It is irrelevant to consider if most "intellectuals" deemed the joke offensive or not as you cannot discern whether that is actually true or false.

4. Even if you rely on anecdotes that can be deemed as evidence, I tend to rely on hypothetical evidence, of which is arguably more accurate since I am using logic to refute your claims rather than relying on experiences that may be true or false because "we", as in the online community, does not know if those claims are actually true.

Voters, I will not tell you who to vote for because it is up to you to decide who is the most "convincing" among other criteria on the voting panel. Really though, I would deem most of his arguments as buffoonery.
I had wished that you would have continued to amuse me in terms of how you were arguing, but this debate had easily become boring with the direction you took in round 3.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Yeah, sorry. I had run out of good trolling material.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Haha, I know. Was fun while it lasted though. Good luck in the voting period!
Posted by Meropenem777 2 years ago
PS: Just kidding about debating with you again. No seriously, just kidding. I seriously seriously dont want to debate you again with this kind of topic, God no.
Posted by Meropenem777 2 years ago
Is this basically a voting contest now for trolling? Hey, I tried to approach it "intellectually" as possible, and I might receive no votes for it? How is that fair =( ? If i lose, we will question the fairness of my loss as our next debate for sure XD.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Why thank you:)
Posted by Sciguy 2 years ago
DATXDUDE You, if anything, are the king of trolls from what I can tell within this sites domain. I applaud you.
Posted by Meropenem777 2 years ago
I don't think anyone is going to vote for either of us -_-
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters had good conduct. S&G - Tie. Both debaters had acceptable spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. The burden of proof here was on Pro to show that intellectuals cannot handle dirty humor. Obviously this was meant as a troll debate, but as a judge I must take Cons arguments with serious-intent into account. A specific part of the debate really impacted me as a judge: In R3 Pro rebuts Con's example of the Big Bang Theory by saying that the show isn't watched exclusively by intellectuals. This is essentially calling Cons burden of proof into question by saying his proof is inadequate. However, as I previously stated - Pro had the BOP here and himself never presented adequate evidence supporting his position that intellectuals cannot handle dirty humor, which Con also points out in his final round. For this reason, Con, by default, wins. Sources - Tie. Both sides relied on sources that fell short of their respective burdens.