The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Pineapples are a kind of apples

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 74250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Clearly pineapples are actually apples because they have many characteristics similar to apples.

First Round for acceptance


I accept.

Let me quickly define some terms.

Apple- the fruit of the apple tree, Malus domesticus.

Pineapple, the fruit of Ananas comosus.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok lets define the definition from dictionary.

1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category:
ETC: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things:
ETC: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

from these 2 definitions both definitions seem to fit the definition

Pineapples and Apples both belong to the plantae kingdom and are flowering plants
Other physical characteristics in common
1. have stems
2. similar taste
3. yellow on the inside

According to the bible, the apple was one of the first fruits mentioned, so everything that comes after it must be a genetic variant of it meaning pineapple evolved from apples from the theory of evolution. Thus pineapples are a kind of apples.


I will now refute my opponents arguments.

1. Pinapples are taxanomically related

Pro attempts to show that Pinapples are a kind of apples, because they are both in the angiosperms and plants. This is an incorrect criterea, for a few reasons. The resolution states that pinapples are a kind of apples, implying that pinapples are included as part of an overarching group known as apples. Stating that apples and pinapples are in the same group (such as plantae or angiospermae) implies that they are on the same footing and does neccessarily support the resolution, which implies that "apples" are inclusive of "pinapples", and therefor not on equal footing.

Additionally, just because they are taxanomically related at the kingdom level deffinitly does not imply sameness. Humans and flatworms are both in the kingdom animalia, but humans are obviously not flatworms, and flatworms are obviously not humans.

2. Physical characteristics

1. stems- having stems also doesn't imply sameness. Stems are also shared by duckweed and, say, cherries. Are cherries duckweed?
2. taste is strongly subjective. I would argue that they don't have the same case. Could you prove me wrong?
3. Sea Cucumbers (which, for the non-zoologically inclined reader, I will describe as aquatic slugs) are also yellow on the inside. Are they apples?

3. The bible

The Bible's a fairy tale full of ruminant ordure and barbirusa-bath, (known as bullsh*t and hogwash to the plebians), and can't be used as evidence for anything.

I will now quickly make an argument of my own.

1. Pinapples, unlike apples, increases the gustatory pleasure of seminal fluid
Debate Round No. 2


C1. Kind and Categorization in nature is different from physical things.

CONs attempts to argue that something being a kind of another must mean it something is a category of another object. However in nature this is different. In biological nature everything is related to each other based on the history of origin. If white crows and normal crows may be both in the category Birds, even though white pigeons may not be taxonomically categorized as a sub-species of pigeons, but they are in fact a kind of normal pigeon. On the same situation, a pineapple may not be categorized as a sub-species of apples but pineapples are indeed a kind of apples because of striking similar physical characteristics

C2. Physical Characteristics

1. Stems are a very rare occurrence in nature, do humans have stems? do flatworms have stems? huh? Because of the rarity of this occurrence, this contributes to the striking similarity between the 2
2. Taste - Pineapples and Apples both have sugar thus they taste very similar, pineapples do not taste like seminal fluid because seminal fluid contains no sugar.
3. With all these striking similar characteristics combined together, would you not argue that they are almost identical in nature, with over 90% correlation in DNA. The reason why humans are a kind of apes is because of the 99% similarity in DNA.

C3. The Bible - The bible is older than your science textbook making your science textbook a kind of bible. If the bible is a fairy tale than your science textbook is too.


C1. To extend the Pigeon analogy, (and by the way, white pigeons are a breed, not a subspecies of pigeon), the fact that Pigeons and Ostriches are birds, doesn't prove that Ostriches are a type of Pigeon, or the other way around. Furthermore, the Pinapple and the apple actually have many physcial differences. The pinapple plant is a five foot tall bromeliad with thick, waxy leaves, while the apple tree is a tree with many thin small leaves, leading botanists (who have a lot more experience than Pro) to classify it as a completely different type of plant.


1. Actually, Angiosperms all have stems, and Angiosperms make up 80% of all plants. This means that if something is a plant, it is extremely likely to have a stem, showing that the common possession of a stem amoung plants does not constitute a "striking similarity"

2. Semen actually has plenty sugar; it has 2-5 grams of fructose per mL, showing that Con is completely wrong. Additionally, my original argument never claimed that pinapple tasted like semen, just that pinapples make semen taste better, unlike apples.

3. Pro doesn't give us any sources for the 90% DNA claim. Additionally, humans share 88% of our DNA with mice, and 85% with Dogs. Dogs and mice are definitly not a type of human, just as pinapples are not apples.

Cons logic doesn't make any sense at all. My sceince textbook is definitly not a bible, as it doesn't talk about God or Jesus or stoning. Additionally, the bible can't be taken as a sceintific document, as it has numerous scientific errors. Leviticus 11:13-19 states that bats are birds, which is definitly not true. Further scientific errors can be found in Matthew 13-32 and Leviticus 11:20.

Appologies if my reply seems a little short, I had to edit down to the bones to ft n da lmit
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Elord 1 year ago
This debate... smh
Posted by Himans45 1 year ago
You can't use the bible as an actual source of information.....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Espera 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro made me laugh - they are factually incorrect and their logic does not hold up to examination. That said Con is kind of a jerk so I had to give conduct to Pro and was unable to give a couple of points to Con due to repellent behavior.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were not well supported and were well refuted by Con. Con made the most use of sources.