The Instigator
Paramountdesktop
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Mufasa (the EEPster) should shave his head.

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  
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: 9/25/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,214 times Debate No: 5531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (148)
Votes (9)

 

Paramountdesktop

Pro

Why should Mufasa shave his head?

1. His huge hair is a breeding ground for bacteria. It is impossible for him to thoroughly wash his hair because he has never learned strategy from teaching figures. A strategy does not start out perfect. Parents generally do not shower with their children, so strategies were invented and never corrected.

And think about it...how can such a huge mass be washed? Generally, boys don't care that much about their hygiene. They neglect to do certain things that consume too much time. It would take forever to wash that kind of hair.

It is very likely that Mufasa started by haphazardly washing his hair, and this strategy was never superceded, he most likely continues with this.

You may think that this applies to afros as well, however, this is inequitably false! Mufasa's hair extends horizontally and is more apt to come in contact with innocent bystanders. An afro, although extends horizontally for a certain extent, extends more vertically.

2. Mufasa's hair is a distraction. His hypnotic hair is captivating and takes control of one's attention. Let me exemplify.

Three people you encounter in a normal environment.

One with facial disfigurements...
One physically, very attractive...
Mufasa...

You wouldn't focus on the one with facial disfigurements because focusing on one's unchangeable disadvantages is considered cruel and unacceptable in our society.

You might exchange glances with the attractive person, but wouldn't want to hone in on that person, otherwise you would be appear stalker-like. This is not an attractive quality, and generally, you want look attractive for a person that is pulchritudinous.

In addition, it is rude to stare.

Now, Mufasa, has no peripheral vision and cannot view objects behind him, he would not be aware of most of those staring at him.

His hair is extremely unusual and therefore warrants the gazes of curious viewers.

Also, there is almost no if any moral, hormonal, or instinctual incentive not to stare at him.

General bystanders stare and lose focus, for they can not break eye contact. Why? It is unsual...

When distracted, people are not aware of surrounding objects. If an object were to appear unexpectedly or unnoticeably, then an innocent bystander would run into it.

This can be detrimental to one's health, as evident.

A you can see! I can provide logical reasons supporting the proposition! Therefore, the topic is not completely ridiculous.

For those with no background info about Mufasa, here is a description.

His hair uncannily extends for at least one foot horizontally and flows down past his shoulders to his waist. It is curly and unruly. Apply this subject to the evidence given.

Ok, so listen. You can't say, with a degree of certitude greater than 50%, that his hair is thoroughly washed, unless you shower with him. Because, without any existence of evidence it either is thoroughly washed or isn't. I, however, have support that boosts the probability that he is not thoroughly washing his hair.

It is a distraction, just because it is unusual, you can ignore the other examples that ossify my argument. When distracted, people run into things.

This is going to be a fun debate!

-Paramountdesktop
TheSkeptic

Con

I confirm that I am against the proposition that "Mufasa (the EEPster) should shave his head."

-Counterarguments-

1. The burden of proof is on you to show that he doesn't thoroughly wash his hair and that he was never taught "proper hygiene" by his parents or guardians. From my standpoint, it seems quite clear that he washes his hair on a daily basis. It always looks the same, you can smell the shampoo when you are close to him, and it is never oily or flaky; things you would expect if he didn't wash his hair.

Similarly so, if Mufasa should shave his head because it is rarely washed, then following this same line of reasoning, so should people with dreadlocks. They will wash their head from every 4 days to 2 weeks, many times longer than that.

Afros also do apply because you are talking about hygiene and personal grooming, not whether or not it blocks the vision of others. Washing and grooming an afro is just as hard for Mufasa to wash and groom his hair.

2. An unwarranted claim, it is your burden to prove that his hair actually hypnotizes people, and causes them to run into objects. Having been around Mufasa many times, I have never once seen a person run into something because they were distracted by his hair. But personal anecdotes aside, there have been plenty of other people with unusual hair, whether it be the style or the color.

People wouldn't stare at something and continually walk for two reasons:
(a) Most people aren't captivated enough by hair to constantly stare and walk at the same time. If they were to constantly stare, this would most likely happen when they are standing or sitting.
(b) People will be embarrassed to be caught staring at someone, whether it be their hair or boobs; so they won't stare excessively.

-Contentions-

1. It's unusual, and defines Mufasa as a person. Everyone knows him by his hair, and this is one thing that distinguishes him from society. Who want's to be a normal duckling?

2. It doesn't impede on Mufasa's ability to perform well in academics, and he isn't personally interested in sports anyway.
Debate Round No. 1
Paramountdesktop

Pro

"1. The burden of proof is on you to show that he doesn't thoroughly wash his hair and that he was never taught "proper hygiene" by his parents or guardians. From my standpoint, it seems quite clear that he washes his hair on a daily basis. It always looks the same, you can smell the shampoo when you are close to him, and it is never oily or flaky; things you would expect if he didn't wash his hair."

I did state reasons why Mufasa doesn't thoroughly wash his hair. Since you did not refute any of them, my arguments stand.
You are using personal experience to back your points. This is unacceptable because it could easily be fictitious.

My evidence is based on broader perspective.

However, I will respond by saying Michael's hair is so thick and dense that he is not able to reach certain areas and his scalp. It's way too difficult to get every area. Young males typically do not care that much about their hygienes tend not to invest that much time into maintaing it. It takes way too much time to thoroughly wash every part.

It is logical to say that if this were a habit of his, it would not be corrected because parents USUALLY do not shower with their children. Do yours?

Also, have you ever dug through his hair look for flakes or oily parts? There is no way for you to prove that without encroaching on his personal space.

Harmful bacteria are microscopic and, thus, go unnoticed. Does that mean they do not exist? No...and they are easily transferred.

I want to mention something, again...

You can't say, with a degree of certitude greater than 50%, that his hair is thoroughly washed, unless you shower with him. Because, without any existence of evidence it either is thoroughly washed or isn't. I, however, have support that boosts the probability that he is not thoroughly washing his hair.

"Similarly so, if Mufasa should shave his head because it is rarely washed, then following this same line of reasoning, so should people with dreadlocks. They will wash their head from every 4 days to 2 weeks, many times longer than that."

Dreadlocks are less apt to come in contact with people, unlike Mufasa's hair which uncannily extends for at least one foot horizontally and flows down past his shoulders to his waist. It is curly and unruly.

Dreadlocks are tighly bound and only extend vertically downward.

"Washing and grooming an afro is just as hard for Mufasa to wash and groom his hair."

Like I already mentioned, afros are less apt to come in contact with people.

"2. An unwarranted claim, it is your burden to prove that his hair actually hypnotizes people, and causes them to run into objects. Having been around Mufasa many times, I have never once seen a person run into something because they were distracted by his hair. But personal anecdotes aside, there have been plenty of other people with unusual hair, whether it be the style or the color."

I never ruled out the possibiltity of other hair styles having the same effect, did I? ...Mufasa's hair is especially dangerous because of the health hazards.

Listen, many people can relate with me when I say...when distracted, you run into things. If you don't believe me, check this out.

---- http://www.engadget.com... ----

Obviously, by the way I have described it (which went unchallenged, by the way), his hair is extremely out of the norm and can captivate people's attention. When you see something unusual or out of the ordinary, doesn't it grip your attention?

Also, I did not use a personal anecdote, I just used an example to illustrate that Mufasa's hair is much more distracting that certain common distractions encountered.

"People wouldn't stare at something and continually walk for two reasons:
(a) Most people aren't captivated enough by hair to constantly stare and walk at the same time. If they were to constantly stare, this would most likely happen when they are standing or sitting.
(b) People will be embarrassed to be caught staring at someone, whether it be their hair or boobs; so they won't stare excessively."

People will stare excessively when it is impossible for the subject to meet there glances. That's why people get embarrassed, people stare and their glances are met, meaning THEY ARE BUSTED. Many people can relate to this information.

"-Contentions-

1. It's unusual, and defines Mufasa as a person. Everyone knows him by his hair, and this is one thing that distinguishes him from society. Who want's to be a normal duckling?"

Clearly, by the fact that so many people focus only on his hair, it is hypnotic and a distraction.
Mufasa can be unique in a way that does not jeopardize others.

"2. It doesn't impede on Mufasa's ability to perform well in academics, and he isn't personally interested in sports anyway."

It impedes on other's abilities to perform well in academics because it's a distraction.

Obviously he isn't interested in other's well-beings, otherwise he would shave his head.

I mean, he should shave his head to a certain degree...just so it is not harmful to others.
TheSkeptic

Con

*This is such a useless debate for others to read, since the majority of it is personal anecdotes. But to settle this matter between you and me, I'll continue.*

-Counterarguments-

1. You did not state any reason of why Mufasa doesn't thoroughly was his hair, but mere speculation. You've only stated that his parents might or might not have taught him "proper hygiene" and that it seems too hard for him to wash it. However, it seems you haven't even read my argument at all.

First of all, the nature of this debate IS personal anecdotes, which is why I find such a debate ridiculous. But since it's a thing between you and me, you should be able to relate to many of these points since we both are in the same class with him.

As I have said, the nature of his hair everyday shows that it IS washed. You can smell the shampoo, it's always looking the same, and thus is never oily or flaky. You can SEE if someone hasn't washed their hair for more than a few days. It turns stickier than usual, and looks greasy; come on this is common sense. Even if were to be hard for him to wash his hair, he evidently succeeds at washing his hair.

"However, I will respond by saying Michael's hair is so thick and dense that he is not able to reach certain areas and his scalp. It's way too difficult to get every area. Young males typically do not care that much about their hygienes tend not to invest that much time into maintaing it. It takes way too much time to thoroughly wash every part."

-Apparently you've never washed long/big hair. Water soaks down you hair, and you can run your finger through it. It is not at all hard to reach your scalp; he's not physically impaired by his hair.

His parents would help him shower when he was young. He has a brother with long hair also, albeit not the same hair type and thus not as poofy. A family with two kids with long hair should very well know how to take care of such hair. Besides, this isn't a point anyway. I've already shown his hair to be clean, and thus your argument crumbles in this respect.

"You can't say, with a degree of certitude greater than 50%, that his hair is thoroughly washed, unless you shower with him. Because, without any existence of evidence it either is thoroughly washed or isn't. I, however, have support that boosts the probability that he is not thoroughly washing his hair."

-So what it possible for you to say with a degree of certitude greater than 50% that his hair ISN'T thoroughly washed? Observations and common sense is what you use, and as is the same for me. So don't say such useless statements.

So from reading your round 2, you argue that his hair garners tons of bacteria, AND because it transfers to other people, it's hazardous. This argument can be broken in two ways. First, you will have to tackle my points about his hair being ALREADY clean.

Secondly, the lack of washing one's hair leads to your scalp skin releasing toxins and thus become a breeding ground for infection. So even if Mufasa didn't wash his hair, people would have to come in contact with his scalp skin, not the tips of his hair. Shampoo serves to reduce builup in hair, with things such as dandruff and dirt. Even if someone came into skin contact with these dead cells, it is in no way hazardous to someone's health. We all have immunity systems, and something as simple as someone else's dandruff falling on our forearm won't kill us or even get us sick.

Similarly so, the nature of Mufasa's hair, being very volumized and very curly, prevents it from flowing in the air as easy as you want to think. The pure weight of it keeps it down, and thus of not hitting other people.

You have missed my point about afros. I stated that washing Mufasa's hair is like washing an afro. But I highly doubt you have the jewels to say that everyone with afros don't wash their hair...do you? As you can see, such a statement is ridiculous, as is saying Mufasa can't wash his hair.

2. Your example is moot, it's about cell phones and texting. People won't stare at someones looks and continually walk, they will usually do it when they are standing or sitting down.

"Obviously, by the way I have described it (which went unchallenged, by the way), his hair is extremely out of the norm and can captivate people's attention. When you see something unusual or out of the ordinary, doesn't it grip your attention?"

- Yeah sometimes I see scary goth kids, but I don't keep staring at them and walking.

"People will stare excessively when it is impossible for the subject to meet there glances. That's why people get embarrassed, people stare and their glances are met, meaning THEY ARE BUSTED. Many people can relate to this information."

-This would happen if they were to walk behind Mufasa. In that case, it rules out a lot of possibility of running into things, because people have something called PERIPHERAL VISION. And they aren't entirely stupid, if they see Mufasa opening a door, they know theres a door in front of them to open. Not like they are literally hypnotized and unable to see the environment around them.

3. As i have shown, Mufasa's hair doesn't jeopardize others. It's his personal hair style, so he should be able to keep it.

4. Your points are just plain empty.

*This entire debate is ridiculous, as are your arguments. He likes his hair, I like his hair, and that is all matters. Bacteria from unwashed hair does nothing to bystanders who happen to have dandruff fall on their forearm (how common is that?!). His hair doesn't impair other's ability to perceive other things in their environment, this very notion is comical. I urge a vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Paramountdesktop

Pro

"1. You did not state any reason of why Mufasa doesn't thoroughly was his hair, but mere speculation. You've only stated that his parents might or might not have taught him "proper hygiene" and that it seems too hard for him to wash it. However, it seems you haven't even read my argument at all."
In science, research is assimilated in order to increase the probability of something being true, it's not immune to revision. That is what I have done, I have increased the probability of my arguments being true with assimilated evidence.

"First of all, the nature of this debate IS personal anecdotes, which is why I find such a debate ridiculous. But since it's a thing between you and me, you should be able to relate to many of these points since we both are in the same class with him."
I have provided common knowledge that people can relate to, while you have provided anecdotes which could be completely fictitious and do not hold. The only thing I have pulled out of personal experience is the character that we have both agreed upon. After all, the debate audience needs to know what the heck Mufasa (the EEPster) is.

"As I have said, the nature of his hair everyday shows that it IS washed. You can smell the shampoo, it's always looking the same, and thus is never oily or flaky. You can SEE if someone hasn't washed their hair for more than a few days. It turns stickier than usual, and looks greasy; come on this is common sense. Even if were to be hard for him to wash his hair, he evidently succeeds at washing his hair."
Personal experience is unacceptable in a debate because there is so way for people to verify it. I will prove that it should be considered unacceptable with some counterarguments.
--The nature of his hair everyday shows that it IS NOT washed. You may be able to smell a hint of shampoo, but that does not prove that he washes his hair thoroughly. Usually, the olfactory repulsiveness of his hair horrifies me. It smells strongly of BO, and with close examination, you can see that it's full of flakes. Also, when his hair comes in contact with me, I am left greasy and uncomfortable until I can take a shower.--
As you can see, it is impossible to verify anecdotal arguments if you've no connection with the debaters of this debate. So whose anecdotal arguments are you going to accept? You should not accept any of them! They should simply be disregarded.

"Apparently you've never washed long/big hair. Water soaks down you hair, and you can run your finger through it. It is not at all hard to reach your scalp; he's not physically impaired by his hair."
Another anecdotal argument. The debater is indicating that he has washed long hair and it is easy to wash. Ok, so whose long hair have you washed? Do you consider your own hair long? It is not even comparable to Mufasa's.
Washing long, dense hair is a long an arduous process. For the most part, boys hate spending so much time on hygiene. I infer that he does not spend all the time it takes to wash his hair thoroughly. (This is aside from personal anecdotes which are not valid in this debate)
The onus on you is to prove that
1. He is extremely concerned with his hygiene.
2. He is not physically impaired by his hair.
I'm sorry to say, though, that any new points introduced in the third round of a debate must be ignored.

"His parents would help him shower when he was young. He has a brother with long hair also, albeit not the same hair type and thus not as poofy. A family with two kids with long hair should very well know how to take care of such hair. Besides, this isn't a point anyway. I've already shown his hair to be clean, and thus your argument crumbles in this respect."
Ok, did your parents give you step by step instructions on how to wash your hair? I doubt his parent gave him lessons on how to do it. Even if his parents gave him help when he was young, when they decided to stop, they left him to fend for himself with that huge mass of hair. That is, assuming that he always had that hair.
Here's another possibility, he DID NOT always have that hair! His parents neglected it and let it become the way it is, a sure sign that they are not concerned with his appearance and his hygiene.

"-So what it possible for you to say with a degree of certitude greater than 50% that his hair ISN'T thoroughly washed? Observations and common sense is what you use, and as is the same for me. So don't say such useless statements."
Like I've already stated, your evidence is based on UNRELIABLE anecdotes that prove nothing, especially since anecdotes aren't valid in a debate (unless of course used for exemplifying or providing a possibility). I, however boost the probability of my correctness with information people can relate to...

"Secondly, the lack of washing one's hair leads to your scalp skin releasing toxins and thus become a breeding ground for infection. So even if Mufasa didn't wash his hair, people would have to come in contact with his scalp skin, not the tips of his hair. Shampoo serves to reduce builup in hair, with things such as dandruff and dirt. Even if someone came into skin contact with these dead cells, it is in no way hazardous to someone's health. We all have immunity systems, and something as simple as someone else's dandruff falling on our forearm won't kill us or even get us sick."
Possible bacteria on or in his hair are E. coli O157 and other E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Yersinia. If not sanitized, these bacterias, transferred to other people by contact with his hair, can enter the body, engendering symptoms, such as diarrhea, bloody diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, fever, bloating, and gas.
The onus is on you to prove that he has none of these bacteria on or in his hair.

"...the nature of Mufasa's hair, being very volumized and very curly, prevents it from flowing in the air as easy as you want to think. The pure weight of it keeps it down, and thus of not hitting other people."
Again, the agreed upon description of the hair is that it is huge and extends in all directions for a foot. It doesn't have to flow in the wind (although it does), if one is forced, under any circumstances, to stand within a foot from him, they will come in contact. So, guess what? Whenever he excuses himself, trying to slip by...or if you're in a tight group of people or in close quarters with him...you're gonna have to touch his hair. When sitting in a desk behind him in class...his hair is gonna get all over whatever assignment you're working on. You come in contact with that assignment. Thus, his hair does come in contact with people either directly or indirectly.

"2. Your example is moot, it's about cell phones and texting. People won't stare at someones looks and continually walk, they will usually do it when they are standing or sitting down."
My example is not moot. A cell phone serves as a distraction. Hair can serve as a distraction. Distractions cause people to run into things. Do YOU have the "jewels" to say that NO ONE runs into anything when distracted? ...or that no one runs into anything because of hair? If so, you are overgeneralizing. One contradiction, and...DARN...you're busted!
"Yeah sometimes I see scary goth kids, but I don't keep staring at them and walking."
If I see another anecdote and have to regurgitate the same response, I will slam my head into something.
"-This would happen if they were to walk behind Mufasa. In that case, it rules out a lot of possibility of running into things, because people have something called PERIPHERAL VISION. And they aren't entirely stupid, if they see Mufasa opening a door, they know theres a door in front of them to open. Not like they are literally hypnotized and unable to see the environment around them."
People blank out and don't pay attention to their sensory signals, when distracted. Can't you relate?
TheSkeptic

Con

*sigh*. This is quite the most ridiculous debate I've ever been; I regret accepting the challenge.

So I see that my opponent has thrown out any mention of personal anecdotes, and solely on facts. This is viable, if he hadn't start a debate that depended 95% on personal anecdotes -_-.

1. Okay sure , play the "no personal anecdote card" Chris. However, this activates my trap card! Kicking your sorry bottom!

-Sure, throw out my personal anecdote point. Your reasoning fails on a major part though, I can argue that Mufasa's hair is in fact a buzz cut. You have supplied no image of him, and gave unverifiable characteristics of his hair, so couldn't I simply say the opposite? So by playing your same game, I can throw out this entire debate.

-Apparently, my opponent knows nothing about hair care, or maybe he's just playing dumb. I argue for a mixture of the two. There are clear steps for washing long hair, and it isn't complicated. [1]

-Just because not all boys pay attention to their hygiene, it doesn't mean that Mufasa doesn't. You garner this from complete probability, but of course, you argue that science is about how "increasing the probability of something being true". Sure it is, but your empty points couldn't very well pass in any scientific scrutiny.

-You need to prove his hair physically impairs him, without going to personal anecdotes mister. And again, your own reason that Mufasa doesn't clean his hair is from pure probability, that most boys don't pay attention to their hygiene. This is your only valid point as of now, and it is substantially weak.

-I can't believe you pass these points along as proof. He may have always had that hair when he was young, or he may not have. You haven't shown any evidence for either side, so no one can really know can they? All your points are empty and ridiculous.

-You have no valid points either. As of far, the only concrete things you have established is that most boys don't care about their hygiene. I can still say that Mufasa has a buzz cut, and you have no way of refuting this without posting up his image, which you have not.

-The burden is on YOU to prove he has these bacteria! Do you not understand the simple concept of burden of proof?! But to quell any uproar, I'll go through each of these diseases. And keep in mind as your read them all...where does hair have to do with it!?

*Escherichia coli O157:H7 (a strain of E. coli) = Transmission is from undercooked ground beef and waterborne contamination. [2]
*Salmonella = Human consumption of contaminated animal food products. [3]
*Campylobacter = Raw meat, sexual contact, and contaminated food or water. [4]
*Giardia = Consumption of contaminated water. [5]
*Cryptosporidium = Consumption of contaminated water, found in HIV-positive patients. [6]
*Yersinia = Fleas [7]

- I can argue that Mufasa's hairstyle is a buzzcut. It doesn't matter if it comes in contact anyway, you have to prove it's not cleaned and that if it wasn't such bacteria as those you have listed can possibly be transmitted by this.

2. You have to directly engage yourself in texting, involving your eye focus and your fingers.

- If I see another ridiculous point, I will slam my head into something.

3. "People blank out and don't pay attention to their sensory signals, when distracted. Can't you relate?"

-Prove it. Can I relate? No. Do I blank out? No. These are personal anecdotes huh? Don't bite, you have no feasible points to begin with.

*Conclusion*

My opponent has brought up UTTERLY ridiculous points. Challenging me to a debate begging for anecdotal evidence, and in the same breath disallowing such evidence is quite humorous. My point still stands that he shows no valid image of Mufasa, therefore what his hair is really like can't be confirmed. For the sake of argument, even so his description is accurate, his arguments about contamination have been debunked. His argument about "hypnotizing" others is an empty claim with no merit. His argument about the toughness of washing long hair was easily refuted with a little background information into hair care. His points about parents are utterly empty with no evidence.

In fact, his ONLY concrete point is that most boys don't care about their personal hygiene. This unsubstantial statistic does not mean Mufasa doesn't care about his personal hygiene. Even if he didn't, following this same line of reasoning, this would mean that almost every boy should shave their hair from this single point unless my opponent had more evidence, but all of his other points have failed, and this is why I urge a strong vote for CON.

---Reference---
1. http://www.ehow.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.vet.uga.edu...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://diarrhea.emedtv.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
148 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sheebah 8 years ago
sheebah
this is ridiculous
Posted by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
of course he wont
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
Now, the question is...will Mufasa shave his hair?
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
...And with the bit about distractions, I wasn't reaching out to you, I was reaching out to the debate audience.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
that's why the bit about buzz cuts does not hold.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
like I said, the only thing pulled out of personal experience was the agreed upon character, which was never challenged until the last round.

The rules of debate state that points introduced in the last round of a debate must be ignored.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
Plus, it is impossible to verify anecdotes.
Posted by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
Actually, they don't have the same hair.
The mom's hair type is more similar to Mufasa's, thick, dense, and curly.

We have no evidence of him having that hair from early childhood.

Yes, I did throw all the anecdotes for the debate because they serve no substantiating purpose. They do not hold because they could easily be fictitious fabrications!
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"The REALLY bizarre thing is that Mufasa's mom and little brother have the same hair. Do you think maybe his mom WANTS him to grow his hair long, and since he's been doing that from childhood, he doesn't really CHOOSE to have that hair[un]cut? Just an idea of mine."

Paramountdesktop throws out all personal anecdotes.
Posted by TheoreticalReality 8 years ago
TheoreticalReality
The REALLY bizarre thing is that Mufasa's mom and little brother have the same hair. Do you think maybe his mom WANTS him to grow his hair long, and since he's been doing that from childhood, he doesn't really CHOOSE to have that hair[un]cut? Just an idea of mine.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by studs-r-us 7 years ago
studs-r-us
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 miditime 8 years ago
miditime
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 moonshine311111 8 years ago
moonshine311111
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Canadianbaldeagle 8 years ago
Canadianbaldeagle
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 CattyCake 8 years ago
CattyCake
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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