The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Royalpaladin should be made into jerky (full resolution inside debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 8 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,794 times Debate No: 23350
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

Koopin

Pro

Note, this isn't supposed to be offensive to anyone. It's just a joke.

Full Resolution: The member known as Royalpaladin should be killed and made into jerky for debate.org members to eat.

No semantics.
First round is just for acceptance. No redefining anything or taking another position. You are Con for the original resolution. The only thing you may say in the first round is "I accept." Anything else will be a forfeit.
imabench

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. We shall jump right into this, since it is a very serious matter.

Throughout Debate.org's history, there have been people like Royalpaladin. Females who like to make threads about personal things. These threads that she has made can be about pretty much anything. From topics complementing herself (1), or her real life crushes (2). These threads usually get plenty of attention from members of all ages, races, and religions. She has also made threads about rating what other members look like, demanding that they post their own pictures for her approval (3).
She flirts with some fellows online, such as members Thett, Mestari, airmax, ect… (4)

Now we all know some people worship Royalpaladin on Debate.org, but wouldn't it be better to eat her?

Lately, Royalpaladin has been apart of lots of controversy. If you wish to read the full argument, you may observe it here. (5)
For the sake of a good debate, I will not get into details. I am sure that it would completely ruin the main point of this topic.

Now, she has many people upset. Some demanded her death! However, I can't prove this due to privacy policy on DDO. So ignore that part.

Royalpaladin has made people very mad, therefore making other's blood pressure rise. Studies have shown that high blood pressure can be a major health risk. (6) Not only can you die of a heart attack, but it can cause your brain to go crazy. If everyone's brains are being negatively affected by one source, would it not be better to eliminate the problem? Debating is good, however arguing like this can severely hurt us. Many of us have families that we need to provide for. How will they survive if we die of a stroke? And how horrible the funeral would be! Can you imagine the preacher explaining to the crowed, that we died over one person on a debate site? No, this must be stopped.

Not only can Royalpaladin hurt us physically, but what about the guys she flirts with? What if one day she flirts with someone who really thinks she is being serious? She has admitted to playing around with five members already, what happens when jealousy starts to settle in? Take airmax for instance. He was in the spotlight with Royalpaladin for a few days before she moved on to another prey. How can he just take that? The mental abuse may push him over the edge! What if he can't handle it and decides to become a serial killer? What if he becomes crazy and wants to physically harm others like so many before him? (7)

So many possibilities, letting the girl live is way to dangerous.

But what about the morals you ask? Would it be wrong to kill her? Well simply put the answer is no. Yes killing her will be sad; I myself can be somewhat fond of her. However, I never said anything about it having to be painful. She can be shocked so quickly that she won't feel a thing. Or we could give her a painless poison. Although she won't be completely willing to die, she may be more understanding than the average person since she admitted to being okay with abortion of a two year old. (8)

In a case of morality, it is really a matter of which evil outweighs the other evil. Killing Royalpaladin may seem quite bad, but what if she could bring so much more pleasure than when she was alive? Imagine turning her into yummy human jerky! Many members of debate.org could have a wonderful party while chewing on her fingers, arms, stomach, ect…
She claims to be Indian, so I am sure she is already filled with wonderful herbs and spices. We all need the protein to help our muscles grow, and brains think. With Royalpaladin in our stomach, we could always have her with us without the problem of her arguments. Her body fats will go into our arteries, so those in love with her will always have her in their hearts! This is a wonderful idea!

Also, many members want to meet each other and have a debate.org party in real life. However no one has a good enough reason to. But with Royalpaladin Jerky, we would all have an excuse to meet and eat. Everyone will want a bite of the girl. Just imagine being around a large table, everyone enjoying themselves as you take a nice large bite out of Royalpaladin's hot steamy leg. We can even get some of KFC's herbs and spices and sprinkle it all over her body.

Some people will argue that eating human is bad for your health. My answer is, so? Even if it is (which it probably isn't, look up cannibal tribes) eating Royalpaladin would outweigh the health influence. Alcohol is not good for you, does that mean it is wrong to drink it? It would be much better if we all had a yummy chunk of Royalpaladin in our mouths, oil dribbling down our chins. Yum!

It will allow me to prove myself not a sexist by preparing her myself. I will put some of her own skin on a sandwich thereby honoring her memory.

So, let Royalpaladin live and we have mass suicide, killings, and rising blood pressure. Let her be eaten means happiness and a debate.org party.

These are the wonderful reasons why Royalpaladin should be killed, made into Beef Jerky, and served to Debate.org members.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Sources:
(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://www.debate.org...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
(4) http://www.debate.org...
(5) http://www.debate.org...
(6) http://www.mayoclinic.com...
(7) http://fox13now.com...
(8) http://www.debate.org...
imabench

Con

The question really revolves around the quantitative introspective approach to this conundrum which is summarized partially by the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept and the third law of Dynamic Responsiveness. The Quantum Cosmological Differentiation summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox (A). The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness on the other hand argues that due to the existence of large objects with a mass greater than or equal to the mass of the star Sirius despite the existence of a black hole within the immediate orbit of the sun, then a force exists that would explain this science defying what would normally happen (B) within the orbital path of Sirius and the black whole. The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness is often used to explain why the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation paradox exists, however it does not explain why the laws (C) of one solve the paradox presented in the other since the given laws of both equations are completely contradicting and self defeating (D)....

To explain why these two can go together there is only one argument that can explain how these two theories (E) could co-exist in the same argument despite having contradictory laws. The thesis describing how Contradictory Laws and their co-existence is possible due to the existing explanations regarding other real world paradoxes (F) within the solar system that can be resolved down to a few basic principles and then reapplied to other paradoxes to explain their functionality. In the paradox described above the best, but not only, paradox that can be easily related (G) to the paradox posed in the quantum mystery that exists within the geographical coordination system in the north eastern hemisphere of Earth known officially as Area 7684, or as civilians refer to it, the Bermuda Triangle. This paradox isnt really a paradox according to common definition, however the logic and phenomena that is known about it can be used and applied to other paradoxes that the Pro has asked to be answered. What is known about the Paradox behind area 7684 revolves around sporadic magnetic field change, randomization of weather systems contrary to the long term climate that is in place within the region, the unusual manipulation and disruption of data transferred between satellites in geo-synchronized orbit and systematic reception stations on the ground. All of these phenomena deal with a force not yet understood but is also observed elsewhere in other common paradoxes that have been identified by the astrological community which have been found in the depths of the universe. This force can be used to answer the question posed by the Pro in round 1 along with a few other paradoxes that also exist. This force can be related back to the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept because these unusual forces can help explain the scientific paradox posed between the evolution of monotheistic ideologies and its confliction prior to the morphological advancement of science, and the original explanations for the natural conception of all things around us that could not be explained by early religious beliefs provided by clergy members of religious systems of the ground gods and sky gods. See the early beliefs about the origin of all matter were crude at first, and as time evolve so did the explanations for why things occurred even as scientific knowledge of how everything works slowly trickled into realization that became accepted by humanity. However in the period prior to the morphological age of science, religious belief held superiority over scientific explanation since scientific explanation was in its most basic form for an extended period of time. However when the morphological age arrived science began to quickly outpace what was commonly held belief and accepted knowledge of the origins of the world. These conflictions between deeply held belief and scientific explanation continued for years as science began to become more and more advanced and explanation and explanation held by religious clergy of a multitude of both monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems were debunked or proven contradictory to evidence (H). Now if you take this process and combine it with the existing paradoxes seen in multiple forms, and the explanation of the forces behind both of these that are not completely understood or remotely explainable at the atomic or chemical level, and you can now use those forces to answer the first part of the question given by the pro in round one.

However this only PARTIALLY answers the question given by the Pro, for all my arguments up to this point have only been regarding the physical antidotes to the issues his question addresses. To answer the faith based confusion often brought on by the possibility of using the rules of a paradox to defeat a paradox in itself naturally raises questions that conflict with ones own personal beliefs. The faith based questions that may have arisen yourself can be answered by the idea that all that does exist at one time existed before but does not exist anymore, and what exists today is only a different version of what existed before. So to clarify any natural conflictions currently colliding between ones own faith and the scientific explanations can be solved by the fact that what once was, is no more, and that what is now, is based off of something that once was. This paradox can be summarized under the 14 principles of the Thadaeu Thompson Equation which states that 1- there is what exists, 2 - what exists around us is seen by us, 3 - what is seen by us is believed by us, 4 - what is believed by us must be understood by us for us to have peace with it, 5 - for something to be understood it must be theoretically be proven true, 6 - for something to be proven true its basics must be understood, 7 - if the basics cannot be understood but can be explained, it can be believed, 8 - if something is believed but then be proven otherwise, confusion can be inflicted, 9 - with confusion comes conflict, 10 - such conflict cannot be easily remedied, 11 - the natural laws of unexplained and complex logic behind paradoxes exist, 12 - these laws in their basic form can solve other paradoxes, 13 - these paradoxes that can be explained can solve previous conflicts, 14 - therefore these logical truths can solve conflicts between beliefs and contrary sciences. Therefore the question given by the Pro can actually be solved fairly quickly if you take several known sets of laws, theories, and concepts, use them to define some of the basic functions that exist within paradoxes, use what can be obtained from these basic functions and apply them to other naturally occurring paradoxes, and thus use these basic truths and basic functions to answer questions similar to the one that the pro has created this resolution to debate over.

So summarizing all my arguments to this point, I placed letters at strategic points in this argument where letters represent all the arguments I have brought up. Using the syllogism below I will condense my arguments down to the bare facts to illustrate the point i am making

If A then B
If B then C
If C then not D
If Not D then maybe F
If E the G
If G and A then D
Since D is real then so is H
H is real, therefore F is actually real despite D existing at the same time C does

And that is why Royalpaladin should not be made into Jerky
Debate Round No. 2
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept and the third law of Dynamic Responsiveness.....for a moment I thought ima was serious there...
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Wow, imabench is a nerd. :D
Posted by Noradrenergic 4 years ago
Noradrenergic
Black whole...I giggled.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Oh god... This is why Royal is gone!@!Q1@!$#%@#
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
He can have that part. As long as he saves me a piece of the breast!
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I agree. Mestari can eat me :)
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
I hope someone reads this. It is very logical, and Royal needs to be eaten.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
lol
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Aha! you copied and pasted this argument! http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
I wrote it in thirty seconds. You copied your argument! Type mine in on google!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by SarcasticIndeed 5 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
KoopinimabenchTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: After careful reading, I understood that imabench's argument makes perfect sense.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
KoopinimabenchTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's give Con some points.
Vote Placed by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
KoopinimabenchTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Hilarious debate. From Koopin.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
KoopinimabenchTied
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: KFC for the win!
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
KoopinimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Drafterman's votebomb
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
KoopinimabenchTied
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: KFC ^_^
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
KoopinimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I love Indian food, the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept and the third law of Dynamic Responsiveness made a whole lot of sense to me.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
KoopinimabenchTied
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: KFC