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

Stan Thompson was, in all likelihood, a psychopath

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,805 times Debate No: 27148
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




In the Family Guy episode "Screwed the pooch", Brian reveals that Meg Griffin's real father is actually a man named Stan Thompson[1]. Nothing else is ever revealed about this man, however, I will argue that there is strong reason to believe that he was a psychopath.

Whether or not Stan Thompson is really Meg's father is not the point of debate here, and it will be assumed to be true.

Note: this is a joke debate.




Thank you for starting this interesting debate, you gave me a good laugh. There should be more joke debates like these.
Anyway, I'll get to the point.

First, I think we can all agree that whoever must be the father of Meg MUST be a psychopath. Hey, seeing her, i wouldn't blame him xD

But sadly, I will have to end this debate in the first round. Meg was never the child of Stan Thompson.
And this is because Stan Thompson never existed:

- In one of the Star Wars specials, Meg asks Peter to tell a story about her being born. Peter replies: "We came back from the hospital accidentally with the afterbirth and had to go back to get you".

- In another episode, Peter talks about disappointments, resulting in a cutaway showing the doctors pulling Meg out of Lois exclaiming "it's a girl" with Peter standing by her.

- And finally, your own evidence spoke against you. Clicking the URL you presented brings you to a page with a sentence that says Brian tells Meg that she is just like her father and proceeds to compare her to Peter.

And besides, the family is screwing around with Meg all the time. When Peter talks about Stan, Meg is listening to her music, so this was probably a failed attempt to mess with her.

But thank you for the debate, but I hope I made a mistake or you found evidence saying otherwise so we can continue :)
Debate Round No. 1


Note to readers that in the comments section Con has conceded his opening argument as a simple mistake. It was decided at the outset that whether Stan Thompson is Meg's father will not be up for debate here, but will rather be assumed.

Obviously we've never seen Stan Thompson or heard of him in any instance besides the scene referred to in R1. This means if one is looking for 100% confirmation of the resolution, one will be left wanting. Because of this, I will simply draw on all available evidence to argue that Stan Thompson being a psychopath is the most supported answer.

Point 1: Meg is a psychopath.

To prove this let's just look at what makes a psychopath. Now there is obviously one tenet of psychopathy which most will admit Meg does not fit into and I want to refute this first. That is, glibness or superficial charm which Meg obviously lacks. While a trait commonly associated with psychopathy a la popular representations of psychopaths like Ted Bundy and Dexter Morgan, this alone isn't a necessary trait. Going off of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, no single trait is absolutely necessary, but one's score is based on a rating scale. Getting a high score is weighted higher than getting specific points checked off.

Now while obviously lacking in superficial charm, Meg tests positively in several other factors of the test including being cunning/manipulative (ep. "The Han That Rocks the Weelchair")[1], having poor behavioral control (as per her repeated suicidal outbursts and other incidents such as her jumping in front of a car to cripple herself[1]) as well as committing murder[3], taking pleasure in the suffering of others (as per her various dark comments to Chris throughout the shows run), etc. Meg is also prone to infatuation (as per her short-lived obsessions with both Brian and Joe), indicating impulsivity and her possibly even being psychotic.

The reason this is important is because psychopathy in many cases has been shown to have a strong genetic factor[3][4], indicating that one or more of Meg's parents may very well have been psychopaths.

Point 2: Lois associated with shady characters.

Further credence is lent to the idea that Stan Thompson is a psychopath by reference to Lois's past. Numerous allusions have been made during the show's run including her past association with pornographers[5], and her past use of (and possible addiction to) drugs such as crystal meth[6] and cocaine[7], and marijuana. Looking at the kind of people who are attracted to such niches (drug use and porn), it isn't too much of a stretch to consider that Meg's father could have been one of the people she associated with in those fields. This is not intended as unique evidence on it's own, but when observed in conjunction with Point 1 it lends credence to my argument.


[1] (Meg gets Bonnie arrested by planting a gun on her at the airport in order to be with Joe.)
[3] "AB (antisocial behavior) in children with high levels of CU (callous-unemotional traits) is under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment"
[4] "Twin analyses revealed significant genetic influence on distinct psychopathic traits (Fearless Dominance and Impulsive Antisociality)"
[6] Peter: [after sex] Ah, that was great. Where'd you get that tattoo on your lower back?
Lois: I don't know, Peter. Meth is a hell of a drug.


First of all, I'd like to thank Pro for telling the readers about my confession, I should learn to completely read the arguments next time.

Point 1: Meg is a psychopath

Even though it is true that Meg has done some very idiotic things, this doesn't mean she's a psychopath. She is going through her teenage years, a period of extreme awkwardness, changing, and impulsive actions. As a teenager you will find yourself liking one thing one day, but something else the next [1] (which explains her brief obsessions for Joe and Brian).

But what could be another reason? Like you said, what if Meg got this psycoticness from a parent? So, besides her father, who else could be the cause of her psycoticness? Who else but the mother herself, Lois Griffin? Lois isn't exactly squeaky clean and has a checkered history and home life. Very abusive, mentally unstable (first video: Lois' reaction to the family running out of paper towels) and is one of the biggest control freaks I've ever seen. And Meg isn't even the only psychotic child in the family. Obviously, Stewie also suffers from major psychotic problems as he wants to kill his mother. Regardless of who Stewie's father is (Pizza Delivery Porn Guy or Peter) there is no doubt in my mind that this insanity branches from Lois' side (like how you mention how Lois has done all kinds of drugs and has dealt with shady characters).

But what if the psychotic behavior from now probably all 3 of her children wasn't genetic? Now, it all turns around to the case of Lois' brother, Patrick. He was traumatized at a young age and has been admitted to a mental hospital because this traumatic event caused impulsivness and murderous thoughts/actions. This almost seems to be an exactly identical case to not only Meg's, but ALL of the Griffin children. With a mother like Lois, traumatization is very likely and nearly impossible to avoid so instead of looking at Stan, why don't we all look at Lois and honestly say who would most likely be the source?

Point 2: Lois associated with shady characters

Further adding to the conclusion that it is actually Lois who is insane as she has done as you quote: "Numerous allusions have been made during the show's run including her past association with pornographers, and her past use of (and possible addiction to) drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine, and marijuana." And if the Stan was really into that business, he would have most likely have shown up in one of her pornographic videos or flashbacks.



Debate Round No. 2


socialpinko forfeited this round.


Too bad you couldn't post your argument in time, so I'll give you another chance to post an argument.
Debate Round No. 3


Con's first counter is that perhaps Meg isn't actually a psychopath, ignoring the Hare Psychopathy Checklist which I brought up in R2 in support of this. Cunning/manipulation, poor behavioral control, committing actual murder (which Con never responds to), sadism, obsessive infatuation etc. are all exhibited on countless occasions by Meg. These can't just be explained away as Con attempts to do by ascribing it to her being a teenager. Most teenagers haven't killed their siblings (refer to source point 2 in R4) or stalked/kidnapped someone they're obsessively infatuated with. Meg's behavior is far from that of a normal teenager.

More than that though, Con straight contradicts himself by moving on from denying that Meg is a psychopath to saying she's a psychopath because she inherited the trait from Lois. Which is it? Fortunately, this point is also ill supported by Con.

A) The first problem with Con's analysis is that he assumed mutual exclusivity in psychopathy among Meg's parents. Proving that Lois is a psychopath wouldn't even refute my argument since it's wholly possible both parents could be.

B) The second problem with this argument is that Con mistakes an environmentally brought on mental breakdown on Lois' part (ex. freaking out over the paper towels) for a sign of genetic psychopathy. This is false for a few reasons. First, psychopathy is probably genetic as my R2 arguments showed and even the environmental factors are brought on in early age, not from having a stressful holiday season. Furthermore, Lois' breakdown wasn't even indicative of psychopathy. At most it was just a brief stress attack, not full on developed psychopathy.

C) On the other children as examples of psychopathy in action, we know that Stewie's condition comes from Peter, not Lois.* This is shown by example of Stewie's half brother Bertram who was born after Peter donated sperm[1]. Bertram shares no genetic material with Lois yet he shares most of Stewie's qualities i.e., genius level intelligence, malevolence, possible psychopathy, etc. This suggests Stewie mostly if not wholly inherited those qualities from Peter. Con also briefly suggests Chris might also be psychotic. While a possibility, it's more likely he's just of extremely low intelligence. Furthermore being psychotic is distinct from being a psychopath[2].

D) Con's final defense is to suggest that the seeming psychopathy of the children is environmental instead of genetic. First, Chris isn't a psychopath. He's extremely unintelligent and possibly psychotic, not the same thing. Second, Stewie's condition is almost certainly genetic and inherited from Peter as per the evidence from Bertram as an example in the previous point.

Now on whether Meg's psychopathy is environmental or not, refer to my arguments from R4 (which Con never responded to) showing that psychopathy was likely genetic as opposed to environmental. Also, Patrick became psychotic due to a traumatizing (and hilarious) early childhood experience. He didn't become a psychopath (there's a difference!) which throws out this piece of evidence.

I'd like to thank Con for an extremely interesting debate. I apologize greatly for my unfortunate earlier forfeit and hope it didn't shorten the debate too much.

*And no the pizza delivery guy Lois was in a porno with is not Stewie's dad. At least it's extremely unlikely given the similarity of Bertram (who we know came from Peter) with Stewie.




I'd like to thank the pro for this enjoyable debate and I look forward to the results. Again, thank you and I look forward to debating against you once more.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 3 years ago
So if Peter is a psychopath, doesn't your argument come crashing down?
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
Why didn't you post a response?
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
Yeah I read that and *facepalm*
Posted by MilesSilvagni 3 years ago
Oops, consider my argument non existant, as I now read that whether he is the father or not doesn't matter and we are assuming he is.
Sorry about that :/
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 years ago
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: Pro generally had stronger arguments, but also forfeited. Pro's stronger points were where it came down to definitions, and his careful analysis of Con's arguments in R4.