The Instigator
canadabacon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheism_Debater
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should canadian nukes have maple syrup in them?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Atheism_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Fashion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 71892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

canadabacon

Con

Maple syrup is bad 5 u. It is very bad for you.
Atheism_Debater

Pro


I would like to start by accepting this debate, and wishing my opponent the best of luck. Since no debate guidelines were proposed, I will refute my opponent’s points.


Rebuttal:


In the first round, my opponent says this, and only this,


“Maple syrup is bad 5 u. It is very bad for you.”


I would like to combat this by showing how this is actually good for you, 100 grams of maple syrup contains: 7% Calcium, 6% Potassium, 7% Iron, 28% Zinc, and 165% Manganese of the RDA.


When you buy a sweetener, the replacing refined sugar in any other sweetener with an identical amount of maple syrup will cut the total sugar content by 1/3.


Maple syrup contains at least 24 different types of anti-oxidants, which can stop aging, and useful in breaking down carbohydrates.


One of the compounds found in maple syrup called quebecol, which has been proven to reduce the growth of cancer cells.


Maple syrup is proven to reduce indigestion and stomach issues.


Argument:


Maple syrup should be used in nukes because it is flammable. When the bomb explodes, the explosion of heat will catch fire to the maple syrup making it an even more effective weapon. Having maple syrup in nukes will make the nuke an even greater asset to Canada should they choose to build one.


Conclusion:


I have defeated what my opponent has stated and proven my point of view in this debate.




Debate Round No. 1
canadabacon

Con

Maple syrup is bad 5 u. It is very bad for you. It also causes ebola
Atheism_Debater

Pro


“Maple syrup is bad 5 u. It is very bad for you. It also causes ebola”


My opponent makes a claim and then does not back this with any evidence. Maple syrup does not cause ebola because ebola is a virus that you get from the transfer of blood from another living organism. Maple syrup doesn’t have blood nor is a living organism.


My opponent has not even tried to defeat my argument, my opponent is obviously a troll.



Debate Round No. 2
canadabacon

Con

Maple syrup in nukes would be a bad idea. The rough cost of a nuclear bomb is already $270 Million (USD), the price of maple syrup per gallon is $39.50 (USD). If the bomb were half filled with maple syrup, it would add an additional $6023.75/nuke. Assuming Canada buys as many nukes as the U.S (2,104), that would cost them $12,294,473.75 (USD). In conclusion, putting maple syrup in a nuclear weapon would be a very bad idea.
Atheism_Debater

Pro


Rebuttal:


What my opponent says is completely wrong. The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. http://abcnews.go.com...


My opponent blatantly claims that “Assuming Canada buys as many nukes as the U.S (2,104), that would cost them $12,294,473.75 (USD)”


What my opponent claims is completely false and destroys all credit to his argument. My opponent then goes on to say this,


“The rough cost of a nuclear bomb is already $270 Million (USD)”


“There isn’t a simple answer to this question, in part because government data on the costs associated with nuclear weapons are often inconsistent or incomplete.” http://www.ucsusa.org...


My opponent even trying to estimate a nuclear bomb is a fallacy in itself, since the estimate is absolutely wrong,


“The United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, but it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. The DOE is currently refurbishing as many as 2,000 submarine-based W76 warheads at a cost of roughly $2 million each.” (same source as above)


My opponent then concludes that Canada shouldn’t put syrup in a bomb just for the reason that it is expensive. If Canada really wanted to put syrup in their nukes, they could definitely afford it.


Conclusion:


This is the end of the debate for my part. The debate is now in the hands of the voters, it is most likely that my opponent is just another troll. Even if this was a serious debate, my opponent hasn’t even attempted to defeat my argument yet.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
canadabaconAtheism_DebaterTied
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: Con was a troll.
Vote Placed by MLG_Pingu 2 years ago
MLG_Pingu
canadabaconAtheism_DebaterTied
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: Con didn't even try