The Instigator
PlanetTutTutTurtle
Pro (for)
Losing
78 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
100 Points

Poop has DNA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+32
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 33 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,574 times Debate No: 21549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (128)
Votes (33)

 

PlanetTutTutTurtle

Pro

I'll argue that poop has DNA, Con obviously debates it does not. First round acceptance only.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing why poop does not have DNA

Pro did not define DNA, but we all know he is obviously talking about Demonized Nambian Antelopes......

I await the Pro's argument about why he thinks that there are demonized northern antelopes in everybody's poop...
Debate Round No. 1
PlanetTutTutTurtle

Pro

DNA=Deoxyribonucleic Acid
According to: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov..., it is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms.
Hereditary=Passing down by [traits] by inheritance.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Scientists study animals through their poop-why would they do this unless they had DNA? What person wants to study animal poop for the fun of it?
Poop=Waste product from digestive system
http://www.thetech.org...

All living things eat other living things, whether it be plants, animals, or humans. All of these had cells and DNA at one time, so even if the DNA is dead, the poo is still composed of DNA.

There is bacteria and DNA in your intestines. If you were to have to have a rough bowel movement, then those would come loose and into the poo, another way your poo has DNA.
Like Yep said, it's common knowlege that "feces have DNA." I declare this round over. My side anyway, oh nevermind. Imabench, your turn.
imabench

Con

The Pro is arguing that DNA is in peoples poop by using the definition of Deoxyribonucleic Acid as DNA
I am arguing that DNA is not in peoples poop by using Demonized Nambian Antelopes as my previously defined definition of DNA

I will argue that DNA is not in poop, the Pro must argue why Demonized Nambian Antelopes are in Poop

The burden of proof is shared

Demonized Nambian Antelopes and their origins are very well known, but for those of you who do not know what they are allow me to enlighten you. Long ago, before humans were even around, antelopes and a mix of other creatures roamed the Earth, one of these species were the antelopes. They were apex predators in that they were expert negotiators, they held peaceful alliances with just about all species of animals, including their biggest rivals, the cheetas.





The bond between the cheetahs and the antelopes grew to the point where both were regularly raised together as families



However, the antelopes grew too greedy over the females of their race, and soon civil war broke out. Scientists believe this was one of the earliest battles in the great Antelope Civil War



However, as greed grew so did the Civil War among the antelopes with more and more forming alliances to fight against each other, here is an artists rendition of what the great battle of the Antelope Civil War looked like
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



After the Civil War, antelopes evolved into two different species, the ones we more commonly know about, and a race of super demonic antelopes that were part transformer and part antelope with a ravenous appetite for met and female antelopes, here is an artists depiction of what the Demonized Nambian Antelope looks like
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Due to their rabid consumption and desire for multiple females, they drove each other almost to extinction, with the remaining ones living somewhere deep in the Nambian deserts. People have seen these demon creatures before and the Nambian government warns people to stay out of Nambian habitats, below is a picture of such a sign warning people of what lies beyond.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



That being said I believe that I have met my BOP of why Demonized Nambian Antelopes do not live in everyone's poop, because they are extremely violent animals only known to exist in Nambia.

============================================================================

The Pro has argued that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) exists in poop, which he defines as "waste product of the digestive system"

I however believe he is using the incorrect definition of "poop" because the obvious definition of poop is shown in the diagram below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.




"poop" is a business slogan of the Krusty Krab, a very real restaurant chain that currently exists under water. Since "poop" is merely a campaign slogan it obviously contains neither Deoxyribonucleic Acid, nor does it contain Demonized Nambian Antelopes

I now will let the Pro offer his own arguments :)

Debate Round No. 2
PlanetTutTutTurtle

Pro

Con is arguing a completely different topic than I am, but his topic does not even exist.
Con has said that I did not specify DNA, but round one was just for acceptance, not definitions. I stated the real definition of DNA in round two.

These two videos show how waste is used for different purpose: Identifying dogs and detecting cancer. Neither of these would be possible without DNA present.
According to one video, "Colon pollens and cancers shed DNA and ends up in your stool."
Stool=Feces, waste

Con has not disputed any of my arguments so far and has misinterpreted my debate, even after I have extensively explained it. Con would rather debate a fantasy argument than debate mine.

http://www.google.com...
http://search.yahoo.com...
http://www.bing.com...=
-There are no "Demonized Nambian Antelopes" on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, three of the biggest search engines, therefore I say there is no such thing.

Vote PlanetTutTutTurtle!
imabench

Con

" but his topic does not even exist."
I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT, Spongebob does exist somewhere, hes chillin under the sea with whats left of Osama Bun Laden's corpse.



"Con has said that I did not specify DNA, but round one was just for acceptance, not definitions"
THAT WAS NOT SPECIFIED, no where did you say definitions of DNA or poop were specified for later rounds. I thought that DNA was open to interpretation. I gave my interpretation, and now the Pro is saying that spongebob isnt real. That is very poor conduct Pro, go to your room

" I stated the real definition of DNA in round two."
Only AFTER I HAD ALREADY DEFINED IT. That is some really bad conduct to change the definition of a word halfway through the debate...

"These two videos show how waste is used for different purpose: Identifying dogs and detecting cancer. Neither of these would be possible without DNA present."
Which definition of DNA are we using again, the one I made or the one YOU CHOSE. I for one do not see how Demonized Nambian Antelopes need to be present for detecting cancer.

"Colon pollens and cancers shed DNA and ends up in your stool. Stool=Feces, waste"
THATS THE DUMBEST THING IVE EVER HEARD!!!!!!

I have never looked down in my toilet and seen THIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



"Con has not disputed any of my arguments"

Yes I have, I proved how it is impossible for Demonized Nambian Antelopes cannot be in everyone's poop since they are known to only exist in the deserts of Nambia. I also proved how DNA cannot be in poop since poop is a campaign slogan for an underwater restaurant chain.

" Con would rather debate a fantasy argument than debate mine"
MORE INSULTS ABOUT HOW SPONGEBOB ISNT REAL >:O

"-There are no "Demonized Nambian Antelopes" on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, three of the biggest search engines, therefore I say there is no such thing."

So just because its not there it means it doesnt exist? by that logic everything that IS on the internet DOES exist

List of things the Pro thinks is real since its on the internet.
homicidal seals
that hillary clinton is a reptile
that aliens like to eat people who smoke
ghosts
aliens
ghosts having butt sex with aliens
that martians fought goblins
the alaska bull worm
that Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter

Allow me to recap this debate
1) Pro forfeits that Demonic Nambian Antelopes (DNA) does not exist in people's poop
2) Pro forfetis that Demonic Nambian Antelopes (DNA) can be represented as DNA
3) Pro believes that everything on the internet is real
4) Pro forfeits that the Demonic Nambian Antelopes were the spawn of the Great Antelope Civil War
5) Pro forfeits that he did not define DNA in the first round
6) Pro forfeits that he did not specify that we had to wait to round two and wait for him to define everything
7) Pro forfeits that poop is a campaign slogan for underwater fast food restaurant chains
8) Pro forfeits there is neither Deoxyribonucleic acid nor Demonized Nambian Antelopes in the campaign slogan known as poop
9) Pro forfeits that he did not lay the ground rules for the debate in round 1, leaving it open to interpretation, definitions, etc

for the record, all pictures come from different sources, so I have 7 sources to the Pro's 8, but of those 8, 3 are searches for Demonized Nambian Antelopes which dont count, meaning the Pro only has 5 actual sources. Since two are from youtube who knows how reliable it is because we have all seen youtube videos claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy. In reality Pro has 5 sources but two of them are not credible since they come from the same website that says 9/11 was a conspiracy.

So we have
9 forfeited arguments by the Pro (arguments go to me)
7 sources by the Con compared to 3 from the Pro (sources go to me)
The Pro used the word "feces" which I find offensive and has claimed Spongebob isnt real (conduct goes to me)
the Pro uses the word "poo" which is bad spelling since the correct term is poop, that is a misspelled word (spelling goes to me)

I thank the Pro for the debate and would like to remind the Pro that this is what happens when you make stupid debates designed to give you an easy win, THEY GET HIJACKED BY ME AND I COMPLETELY DERAIL THEM >:D

I thank all the voters for reading, Vote Con on all counts
Debate Round No. 3
128 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 71 through 80 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
THAT PROVES MY POINT!

Sorry um... Im logging off so I can chill... I'm only partially pissed... Never met mecpissec mkay. long story short other 14 year olds went airborne :)
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
you were leaning pro but now your not?
Posted by FourTrouble 2 years ago
FourTrouble
"this is what happens when you make stupid debates designed to give you an easy win, THEY GET HIJACKED BY ME AND I COMPLETELY DERAIL THEM"

lmao, I was leaning Pro until that statement right at the very end.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
mkay :)
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I am leaving... Bye... Um this was interesting... Actually hell XD
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
cause thats how I roll ;D
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
im derailing the comments section to the debate i just derailed
Posted by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
LOL WTF ARE YOU DOING IMABENCH XD

nac
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I like women. Stop being a creep. If you want to follow jerry sanduskys path by trying to make kids go gay, ok, just not me.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
16k you have to face your feelings and who you are on the inside. Now tell the world do you like women or do you prefer deep throating the p*nis of large muscular men?

Its perfectly normal you can come out now no one will judge you for who you are :)
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 2 years ago
Doulos1202
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Be specific
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 2 years ago
Mak-zie
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 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: I shall add to the already outrageous number of votes-conduct for Pro for taking the debate seriously and arguments to Con for making me laugh...
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 2 years ago
HeartOfGod
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: This was the funniest debate I have read on here lol In all honesty con wins based off the fact that that pro never specified exactly what DNA he was talking about and therefore took this (unfortunately) on semantics alone. As far the the entertainment value is concerned, this was an awesome debate!
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CON made me laugh so much ha. CON made the definitions first. PRO's case was still weak, and should of pointed out as the resolution, "Human Feces have DNA", then define Feces, human, and DNA. Feedback, hard work, and defining your terms is everything.
Vote Placed by baggins 2 years ago
baggins
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was obviously trolling. I usually dislike people who try to hijack serious resolutions through semantic attacks. However, in this debate Con has put in much more effort than Pro. Pro cannot win the debate without trying to debate it seriously! And imabench was extremely funny.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 2 years ago
DakotaKrafick
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the far better comedian, but failed to engage Pro in the actual proposition of the debate. Personally, I feel if a debate is created that is too in favor of the instigator, it should be left to die out, not be trolled and thought as an automatic win for the contender.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled, even though he is funny. I still have to give PRO the points. Just because your funny, does not mean you can rob the entire debate with semantics. I'll give conduct to imabench for being funny :D
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 2 years ago
Guitar_Guru
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 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: I really dislike Semantics so conduct goes to Pro, but Con made the debate funny as hell ! He pulled it off, so arguments goes to Con
Vote Placed by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled, but was funny as balls. Sorry but I still have to give PRO the points, bench. Just because your funny, does not mean you can rob the entire debate with semantics. But for the record, you made me lol
Vote Placed by Islam_Forever 2 years ago
Islam_Forever
PlanetTutTutTurtleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had obviously already defined the resolution in Round 1, clearly not abusive. The instigator is supposed to define the topic, and when he/she does not do it, it is open to abuse in my opinion. Pro also had worse S/G, and ignored Con's arguments, which were funny and relevant to 'the topic' at the same time. Con also used a surprising amount of sources for an argument like his