The Instigator
ReganFan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is this Funny?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/20/2009 Category: Arts
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,442 times Debate No: 9272
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

ReganFan

Con

I don't think this is funny but all my friends do.
It is up to my opponent to prove that is in fact very funny.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.

=== DEFINITIONS ===

Humour: A comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Funny: Providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Subjective: Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

=== ARGUMENT ===

As PRO, I must prove that this is indeed funny. However, humour, and to that extent the state of being "Funny", is subjective based on the person. I may find it funny to watch someone be burned alive but my opponent may not. My opponent gave a prime example by saying whilst he doesn't find it funny, his friends do.

So, keeping that in mind, I contend based on the opinion of the majority, in that video got a 3/5 star rating, which means 60% of people who viewed it agree that it is indeed funny.

I now hand the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
ReganFan

Con

The rating of the video is irrelevant seeing as someone may have came across the video and found it humorous but disagreed strongly with the statements being made in the video so responded by giving it a one star rating. Another reason it is not valid to use the video rating in argument is because it is not posted as a humorous video, but instead under the News and Politics category.
===========================================================================
Although the argument made about humor being subjective may be true it is possible to analyze it and state whether it is funny because of the use of things such as irony or satire.
For example:
"Barack Obama is nothing but a speech giver, he has no substance, by the way Governor Palin great speech"
Now this statement could be viewed as humorous because of the irony of the statement, they criticize Pres. Obama for his ability to deliver a speech but at the same time praise Sarah Palin's.

Seeing as the poster of this video strongly believes in what he is saying it cannot be satirical.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

=== REBUTTAL ===

"The rating of the video is irrelevant seeing as someone may have came across the video and found it humorous but disagreed strongly with the statements being made in the video so responded by giving it a one star rating."

>> Again, humour is subjective. Your stand alone view is needed to make a view of the majority, but alone it's only correct to you.

"Another reason it is not valid to use the video rating in argument is because it is not posted as a humorous video, but instead under the News and Politics category."

>> The video may not be directed as being humorous, but may have turned out that way. A category has no weight in the humour of something. I could watch a documentary on torture and find it hilarious, even though it's not humour or entertainment. For example (See first video):

"Seeing as the poster of this video strongly believes in what he is saying it cannot be satirical."

>> Again, humour an arise from many things and situations. It doesn't have to be made as a humorous video to become humorous. I could find a new report about an Earthquake funny. You may think it a devastating loss of life, but I wouldn't. For something to therefore be seen as funny, a group of people must give there opinion on it. If the majority see it as funny, it is. The video currently has 3.5/5 stars from 3 people, meaning the result is unanimous.

Back to my opponent
Debate Round No. 2
ReganFan

Con

i would like to make a point that my opponent hasn't given a reason my it could be interrupted as funny, please point out the satirical or ironic aspects of the video because i fail to see it in the video. I know humor is subjective but there is always SOMETHING that makes it humorous.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.

=== HUMOROUS ASPECTS ===

1) Stereotype:

The stereotype portrayed in the video is the drunken stereotype discrediting the Democrats through means of God and promoting the Republicans through God. It is comparable to video #1 (About the woman calling him an arab)

Of course, the idea that god will smite any who is gay and that they love sin is funny to Agnostics/Atheists. It also has ridiculous ideas often portrayed as Christian Conservatives idea such as "teaching all our strict, Jesus loving children how to have gay sex" and that "Satan will bring them into his van with candy". Which is ridiculous to the point of hilarity.

2) Misinformation:

The misinformation in the video is huge. For example, he believes kids are learning how to have gay sex. He also pre-assumes that Gay parents can only raise gay children, which is also extremely misinformed.

3) Inconsistency:

He says "All our children will be gay before we know it". However, heterosexuals will always be a greater majority than homosexuals. Furthermore, he says "Think about the children before you sin, gay people". Which is inconsistent in that not all gay people go on gay parades, and adopt children, which are the main way they could influence children greatly in modern times.

This is why I and others perceive this clip as humorous.

Back to reganfan
Debate Round No. 3
ReganFan

Con

But what my opponent has pointed out are reason's why it is not misinformation is a testament to failing news media and uneducated individuals hardly what i deem to be funny.

And seeing as we both keep posting videos that it would be cool to have people comment who posted the funnies videos, not for any points of course.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.

"But what my opponent has pointed out are reason's why it is not misinformation is a testament to failing news media and uneducated individuals hardly what i deem to be funny."

>> You may look deep into it's meaning, but again, it's a subjective view.

I feel I ave adequately argued my point on many bases. I urge a PRO vote. And now, humorous videos:
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
I just lost 3 minutes of my life & I want them back!!!!!!!
Posted by ReganFan 7 years ago
ReganFan
Con needs to provide reasons why it maybe be considered funny, did you find it funny?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Humour is subjective. If a sizable majority agree something is funny, then it can generally be agreed it's funny.
Posted by Miles_Finch 7 years ago
Miles_Finch
You can't debate what makes something funny. There are some people who think toliet humnor is funny, people have different ideas about something that is funny. What is funny or in this case is this funny is subjective.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
4 rounds is a bit superfluous.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ReganFanI-am-a-pandaTied
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 lillunchboxbandit 7 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
ReganFanI-am-a-pandaTied
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