The Instigator
bminer
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Peeing is Better than Pooping

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,302 times Debate No: 16221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

bminer

Pro

I argue that urination (peeing) is better than defecation (pooping) for humans.

1. Urination happens more frequently. So, it must be more important.
2. Urination happens regardless of what you eat. If you eat soup, you're probably not going to poop much.
3. Urine is not as gross as poop. Pee typically smells relatively better than poop. Pee is also fairly sterile when it exits the body. Poop... not so much.
4. Urination feels better. Guys... how awesome is it to pee out in the woods? Yeah... pooping is not cool. And, if you decide to eat those hot wings or hot peppers, pooping doesn't feel so good.
5. Peeing is socially acceptable. Pooping is discouraged.
6. Pooping takes longer. Peeing is easy, quick, and maybe even fun.

This argument is supposed to be entertaining. Comedy is welcomed and encouraged. :)
Itsallovernow

Con

Thanks for the debate.

To be defined: Better "Something superior in quality or condition or effect."

CONTENTION(S):

My opponent can not say that one is better than the other. Both are needed for survival. So, in order to survive, we must do both. In this, my opponents support of the resolution is flawed and I should win my case solely based on this.

REBUTTALS:

1. This is a fallicious claim. Just because something happens more often doesn't mean it's better. This is invalid.
2. I fail to see how this supports the resolution. "Urination happens reguardless of what you eat." So...what's your point? Without a point, this is invalid.
3. This is an opinion and invalid.
4. This is also an opinion and invalid.
5. Peeing is not socially acceptable. To do so could bring criminal charges of misconduct or public indecency. This is invalid.
6. Pooping takes longer. Just because pooping takes longer, it is not as good as peeing? That is a point that has no reasoning behind it, and therefore, invalid.

My opponent has failed to present a single valid argument. Until then:

-=VOTE CON=-
Debate Round No. 1
bminer

Pro

I can certainly argue that pooping is better than peeing because one is better than another. While they are both needed for survival, one might argue that they would rather do one instead of the other if he or she was given the choice. The same is true for eating and sleeping. While both sleeping and eating are required for survival, one might rather do one instead of another.

Also, this is only a minor point, but some people don't defecate anymore in the traditional sense. Instead, they excrete their waste into a plastic bag or whatever. I think there are also some people that technically do not urinate.

1. I'll concede to this point. Frequency is mostly irrelevant. My point is that you can't go without peeing, but you can go without pooping for a longer period of time. This is a small advantage that peeing has over pooping.
2. My point here is that peeing is somewhat enjoyable and pooping is typically not (see below). By changing your diet, you can sometimes avoid pooping for a long period of time, which can nice.
3. OK, both pee and poop are gross, right? Maybe it is an opinion -- but it is an opinion held by most people. The voters of this argument will show this to be true. I can't be certain on the opinions of the world's population, but I can assure you that a survey would show statistical significance supporting these opinions. Namely, poop smells worse than pee (why do we have bathroom vents?) and poop is not as appealing as pee. Again, I will say that urine is sterile when it exits the body. Poop is not. That is a fact, not an opinion. This also supports the fact that pee contains fewer germs, bacteria, dirt, etc.
4. This is an opinion. Again, I'd like to see the stats on this. They would support my claim. Also, for males, peeing does not require any toilet paper. It's easier to do. Finally... if you eat something really spicy, you will not have a pleasurable pooping experience. That is a fact.
5. My point here was this... if you go into the restroom and someone has blown it up with some rank, smelly feces, you're going to be a little upset. Very few people can "blow up" a restroom with smelly pee.
6. Sometimes a long poop can be inconvenient. That was my point here. Again, if someone blows up a restroom, it is important to evacuate the restroom as quickly as possible. If you have to poop, you must endure the stench. If you have to pee, not so much... you might even be able to hold your breath the whole time.

It is clear that peeing is better than pooping in many ways. My opponent has not offered any evidence against the contrary. Until then

--- VOTE FOR PEE! ---
Itsallovernow

Con

My main point is that if both are needed for survival, they are both equally as good. Personal preference varies from person to person, and opinion can not be a viable argument in a debate.

1. My opponent conceded to this point.
2. What is enjoyable is subject to opinion, and opinion can not be used as an argument. Seeing from point 3. you can't even give a statistical fact affirming your case, so therefore you can not "assure" anyone of anything without proof.
3. Again, opinions can not be used as evidence in a debate.
4. See no. 3
5. My opponent made his point in his original argument with this by stating peeing is socially acceptable. I have proven it is not.
6. A long poop may be inconvenient for some things, just as a long pee, but I'm sure dying from poop build-up or an infection is even more inconvenient. You have to put your body's needs first.

My opponents case is based largely on opinion and most of his arguments are therefore invalid. He does not even show statistical proof to support his claims. Thusly I urge you to

=VOTE FOR CON=
Debate Round No. 2
bminer

Pro

My opponent clearly misses the point here. This is a pee vs. poop debate. I argue that peeing is better than pooping. While my opponent has, to a certain extent, shot down most of my argument, he has not said anything about how poop is better than pee. Honestly, there really isn't much that either of us have done to support either claim. Is poop better than pee? Well, certainly not! That's why my opponent hasn't argued this.

My opponent is so hell-bent on the rules of a perfectly sound argument that he has blinded himself from the truth. And the truth is...

Well... you know the truth. Peeing is definitely better than pooping. There is no doubt about it. It is self-evident.

Again, no one will find any survey anywhere that addresses the world's opinion on peeing vs. pooping... except for on Debate.org, of course. So, go ahead and VOTE!

VOTE for peeing because you know how awesome a good pee can be.
VOTE for peeing because poop is gross and smelly.
VOTE for peeing because it never hurts when you eat spicy food.

And, finally, VOTE for peeing because your heart tells you to. Listen to your heart...

... and not your anus.
Itsallovernow

Con

Thanks for the debate!

My opponent acknowledges that I have "shot down" most of his argument.

My opponent also stated that I "Have not said anything about how poop is better than pee." The resolution doesn't call for me to support that poop is better than pee. The resolution: "Peeing is better than pooping" requires you to state in affirmation. I only have to negate, and my case is thus:

Neither peeing nor pooping is better than the other, because both are needed for survival.

Comfortability and convienence is a luxury, but the case of mine, which is survival, far outweighs your case of luxury.

And my oppenent states that there is no proven statistic that validates his case. For this reason and the ones above, I urge you to

=VOTE CON=
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
*I meant kidney stones, not gall stones
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
@rockylightning:

Debate is always serious. If you're not it's a forum. Read my debate "Why do we debate?"
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
No mention of gall stones? Or diarrhea?
Posted by FreeThinker35 6 years ago
FreeThinker35
Agree with Black Void
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
better is a very broad word and therefore should not be put as a topic in a debate
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Wow... This is actually not that bad of a debate.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Although he's winning, con is taking this way too seriously.
Posted by wizkid345 6 years ago
wizkid345
One could say that peeing constantly is worse. (for example in the middle of the night)
Posted by wizkid345 6 years ago
wizkid345
One could say that peeing constantly is worse. (for example in the middle of the night)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
bminerItsallovernowTied
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: con unfairly puts the BoP on pro when in reality BoP is shared; and con never made much position on his side
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
bminerItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a substantial amount of reasonable arguments that I did not expect. Con, even if he's right, did not provide good arguments as to why Pro's arguments were invalid. He only pointed out that they were. Conduct goes to Pro for actually doing real debating in a humor-debate. I would like to see more debates like this.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
bminerItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: con took it way too seriously, but in doing so had better arguments