The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 12 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,735 times Debate No: 32089
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (12)

 

imabench

Pro

I will argue that cats, our four legged feline 'friends' typically kept as pets, are more evil then Satan, the ruler of Hell and Gods worst enemy

First round is acceptance only, 4000 character limit

Begin :D
jh1234l

Con

I accept. I will contend that cats are not as evil as satan.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Alrighty, my arguments that cats are more evil then Satan

1) Its possible that Satan doesnt exist

I cant prove for a fact that he doesnt exist, but its a possibility, just saying

2) Satan has only killed 6 people in the Bible, whereas cats are killing machines.

1 out of every 3 cats kill animals, and of those that do kill, they kill on average about twice a week

Cats live for about 10 years, 10 years x 52 weeks x twice a week = 1040 days of killing in their lifetimes. Satan on the other hand spends most of his days as the Chicago Cubs general manager, a job that requires no killing at all (minus killing the dreams of Cubs fans)

Satan has only ever been proven to kill 6 people if you accept the Bible (radical, I know), but the Bible lasts over a period of 30 years. This means that Satan kills on average of once every 5 years.

Satan: One day of killing every 5 years
Cats: 1 out of every 3 cats have 104 days of killing every 1 year

When you do that math, Cats are exactly 173 times more evil then Satan when you look at it in terms of how frequently they kill.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

3) Cats are merciless bastards while even Satan shows mercy

Of the all the animals that have been killed by cats, a study has shown that
21% of them are given to their owners as a present
30% are eaten as a snack
AND 49% OF THEM ARE SIMPLY LEFT TO ROT

When Satan kills people, even HE has a reason for doing so. Cats show no mercy towards half of their victims and kill just for sh*ts and giggles, meaning they are clearly more evil then Satan.

Keep in mind, these cats are usually well fed, meaning that they are doing a lot of their killing JUST FOR FUN. When Satan kills he always has a reason... Cats dont.

4) Total Body Count

Of the 84 million cats in the US alone, about 28 million of them are cold blooded furry killers

The total body count from cats is currently estimated at 2,912,000,000. Yes, that is in fact almost 3 BILLION deaths a year from Cats EVERY YEAR. Remember, Satan has only ever been accounted for 6 deaths, and those were like 2000 years ago.

http://theoatmeal.com...
http://articles.washingtonpost.com...

5) There are books that outline the evilness of cats but not the evilness of Satan.

"How to tell if your Cat is trying to kill you": http://media.npr.org...
"How to tell if Satan is trying to kill you": No results

6) Cats are Arsonists, Satan keeps it clean

http://lh4.ggpht.com...

^ See, cats are arsonists

7) Cats are cynical bastards, Satan has standards

http://img.izifunny.com...
http://toddtipton.files.wordpress.com...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
http://25.media.tumblr.com...
http://www.knowmemes.com...

8) Hitler is now a cat, Satan is now

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

Thats all for now, over to the Con :D
jh1234l

Con

Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective.

My arguments:
1 out of every 3 cats kill animals, and of those that do kill, they kill on average about twice a week

According to your source, they kill critters, not humans.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

However, remember that satan killed 6 HUMANS, not random animals.

When you do that math, Cats are exactly 173 times more evil then Satan when you look at it in terms of how frequently they kill.


If you count how frequenty they kill humans, which is not documented at all when I search it (http://www.bing.com... found nothing related other than an Uncyclopedia article) and do the math, you get ? because cat related deaths were not even documented.

The other arguments simply fail because of the Cat argument from ignorence razor:

P1. If you cannot prove I'm wrong, I am right
P2. You cannot prove I am wrong
C. I am right.


Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective."

So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evil

2) Cats are Killing Machines

"According to your source, they kill critters, not humans."

Even if a bird or a mouse was = .0001 of a human, then they still kill 291,000 people compared to just 6 from Satan. No matter how much you value the life of a bird to the life of a human, the sheer body count from cats alone make them more evil then Satan.

"The other arguments simply fail because of the Cat argument from ignorence razor"

No they arent, its a fact that cats - 1 - leave their prey out to rot, - 2 - kill for fun when they arent even hungry, - 3 - kill on a regular, often weekly basis, - 4 - that Hitler is currently a cat, - 5 - that cats are cynical bastards, - 6 - that cats are also arsonists, - 7 - that there are numerous books on the evilness of cats but NOT the evilness of Satan, - 8 - and also that SATAN HASNT KILLED ANYBODY IN 2000 YEARS.

This is all valid evidence that shows how cats are more evil then Satan, and if you cant prove me wrong than that does in fact make me right because thats kind of how debates work!

If you cant dispute these points or prove just how evil Satan is, then concede.

I extend all the dropped arguments.
jh1234l

Con

So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evil

It does not mean nothing could be evil, it just means that whether they are evil is affected by people's opinions, and opinions are not valid arguments.


Even if a bird or a mouse was = .0001 of a human, then they still kill 291,000 people compared to just 6 from Satan. No matter how much you value the life of a bird to the life of a human, the sheer body count from cats alone make them more evil then Satan.

Actually, cats eating the animals can sometimes help humans, for example they eat insects [1], and some insects are harmful. [2] By killing harmful insects for their owners, they benefit their owners who are feeding them food.

Pro provides a bunch of "facts", but I will refute them using the argument for cats from ignorance:

P1. If satan is more evil than cats, then satan is more evil than cats.
C. Satan is more evil than cats.

[1]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
[2]http://wiki.answers.com...
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

Well this is the final round, which means since no new arguments can be given this is basically it.

"opinions are not valid arguments."

Duh, thats why none of my arguments are opinions, simply facts.

"Actually, cats eating the animals can sometimes help humans, for example they eat insects, and some insects are harmful."

First off insects are only one of the many innocent victims of cats, there are also birds and mice as well. Secondly, insects are a part of an important food chain and cats killing billions of them a year disrupts that. In some areas house cats disrupt the ecosystem so badly that people petition to having cats as pets be BANNED:
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.mnn.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Pro provides a bunch of "facts", but I will refute them using the argument for cats from ignorance:
P1. If satan is more evil than cats, then satan is more evil than cats.
C. Satan is more evil than cats. "

Pro once again tries to use (some pretty crappy) smoke and mirrors to try to deny all the valid evidence I have given which show the evilness of cats compared to the evil of Satan.

Here is a list of all the arguments and points that the pro has now completely failed to counter:

1) Pro drops the argument that cats kill billions of insects, birds, mice, etc a year
2) Pro drops that Satan has only ever killed 6 people
3) Pro drops the fact that the last time Satan killed, it was over 2000 years ago
4) Pro drops the fact that cats are evil since they kill mostly for fun, not because they are hungry or anything
5) Pro drops that cats often leave their pray to rot rather then eat them, which shows just how sadistic cats are
6) Pro drops the fact that cats are actually arsonists
7) Pro drops the fact that Hitler is indeed a cat
8) Pro drops the fact that there are books to warn people of the evilness of cats, but not the evilness of Satan
9) Pro even fails to give any additional evidence to suggest that Satan is evil!

Basically the Pro has conceded every argument I presented as evidence that cats are more evil then Satan and instead has only tried to deny that this is valid evidence.

Vote Pro
jh1234l

Con

Con has taken my quote out of context to distort it. If you read it in context, it says:

"So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evil

It does not mean nothing could be evil, it just means that whether they are evil is affected by people's opinions, and opinions are not valid arguments."

All his arguments fail because of jh1234l's argument from argument (argumentum ad argumentum)

P1. jh1234l is right.
C: jh1234l is right.

Also, his accusations about me fail because of jh1234l's ad hominum razor:

P1. Imabench is the son of a bench
C. Imabench is wrong.

P1 is right because imabench's last name is Bench [1], and therefore his parents' last names are likely also Bench.

[1]http://www.debate.org...


Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Well that's because you're an idiot
Posted by OpponentDestroyer 3 years ago
OpponentDestroyer
I think I easily could have defeated imabench in this debate.
Posted by Peyton1 3 years ago
Peyton1
Oh... hahaha well alrighty then
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
This was a joke debate, nobody knew what the hell was being argued :P
Posted by Peyton1 3 years ago
Peyton1
Oops. switch PRO to CON in my previous comment haha
Posted by Peyton1 3 years ago
Peyton1
Wait a minute...

PRO: "Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective."

CON: "If evil's only subjective, then NOTHING could be evil."

PRO: "It does not mean nothing could be evil, it just means that whether they are evil is affected by people's opinions, and opinions are not valid arguments."

It seems that the aim of the subjective comment was to delegitimize any assertion that something could qualify as evil, so CON's response appears appropriate.

PRO's second reply to CON (when he qualifies his prior statement) appears internally inconsistent. It seems that one cannot assert that it is possible for something to justifiably qualify as evil while at the same time maintain that"if I am understanding it correctly"that the criteria for something to qualify as evil is dependent upon opinion, and opinions do not serve as justificatory mechanisms, unlike valid arguments.

PRO cannot respond that he never meant to say that opinions do not serve as justificatory mechanisms, for this would be contradictory to his initial statement, "Cats cannot be evil because evil is subjective." The most he could say is, "Cats cannot be objectively evil." However, this seems like the only relevant kind of evil. (And PRO is committed to agreeing with this"that objective evil is the only relevant kind of evil"since he used the subjective card to affirm that cats cannot be evil.)

My apologies if I did not understand PRO/CON"s reasoning correctly.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Oh, and I'll wait to be countered. rofl
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Then that means that dogs would also be more evil then Satan, duh
Posted by anb820 4 years ago
anb820
This is the most ridiculous debate I have ever seen... cats are not evil. Some can be vicious but can't any other animal? And saying that they kill many small animals, well, so do dogs and a million other species.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Tsk tsk, Con could have taken this win so easily.

I mean, it's pretty simple. If you go by the Biblical Satan, then you would know that he tempts everything in the world into doing evil.

Therefore Satan tempts cats into doing the evil things they do.

Therefore Satan is the source of the evil cats do.

Ta-dah, now most of the blame goes onto Satan.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Stop it qopel.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: cvb
Vote Placed by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: i thought x's arguments were funnier and x's arguments had more internal consistency
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
imabenchjh1234lTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro met his BoP, but used many fallacies. Con, your dislike of the argument you entered made you overlook the obvious holes in pros. Pro stated Satan killed one person every 5 years, but was not 'recorded' as killing anyone in awhile. Serial killers up their frequency, but at a static rate that's still thousands, then consider the weight of what cats are killing vs the weight of a human (weight corresponding to nerve tissue, thus possible amount of suffering). Hitler as a cat could have been twisted to prove the evil of cats is the work of Satan... Come on, give it some fight next time.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Kicker swag.
Vote Placed by Kicker_Swag 4 years ago
Kicker_Swag
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Satan is da worst doe
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: cvb
Vote Placed by Walrus101 4 years ago
Walrus101
imabenchjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cats are not near as evil as satin.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
imabenchjh1234lTied
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: Funny debate. I mean, I am all for Con here but Con's arguments were not up to snuff. Even though most of Imabench's arguments were flawed, Co didn't so much as refute a majority of them and Con's arguments were weak.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
imabenchjh1234lTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoyed Pro's trolling more, but my sympateh for teh kittehs precludes me from not awarding con at least something in this. 3:1 #kittehfoeva