The Instigator
Brainmaster
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
OMGJustinBieber
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
OMGJustinBieber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,200 times Debate No: 16965
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Brainmaster

Pro

The point of the FAIL debate is to see how bad our arguments can get. Off topic, terrible, insulting, this is the point of the FAIL debate.

I will be arguing for animal rights, Con will argue against.


Also thanks to Illegalcombatant for the idea.


R1 for introductions.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Challenge accepted.

I'll be arguing against animal rights. I await Pro's opening statement in R2. I wish Pro good luck, although I predict he will indubitably be out-failed.
Debate Round No. 1
Brainmaster

Pro

My opponent is an evil animal hating tyrant. Is this the kind of attitude you want on a fmily site like DDO? This is evil! EVIL!

God himself speaks out against animal haters (In the bible, which is, as we all know, true) and damns them to a fiery hell with Colonel Sanders!


See, you are fvcking up the lives of innocent animals! This is RACISM! GAAAH! You racist! Animals are precious things from god, RACIST, SPECIEST DIPSH!T! BE DAMNED TO A HELL WITH COLONEL SANDERS!


P.s. the game.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Pro's argument is frivolous. I offer scientific arguments.

1. Animal's brains are much stupider than human's.

Science has proven that animals brains are stupider than ours, and they can't talk. Would you feel bad after killing an ant? Would you eat ants if they tasted like chicken? Is killing ants wrong? Since animals don't have the capacity to think very much it's okay to eat them because they benefit the human population and stop overpopulation.

2. God put animals on this Earth for humans to eat.

Humans have been eating animals for thousands, if not millions, of years. In the Bible God basically says that humans can use animals as resources to eat as much as we want, as the animals will reproduce and there will be more. Additionally, evolution states that the animal populations will rarely go extinct because animals adapt and get genetic mutations which make them stronger.

3. Animals contain important substances like electrolytes.

When you eat or drink animals your body gets good nutrition like proteins and electrolytes. If my opponent makes it illegal to hunt animals the human body will suffer greatly as our current stock of proteins and vitamins will be excreted out and there will be no replenishment, and everyone will lose.

In conclusion, Pro needs to step up his game here and address my arguments using facts and logic instead of just name calling which is stupid and unintelligent. I wish Pro good luck in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brainmaster

Pro

R1. NONONONONO! Has it ever crossed your mind that elephants never forget! Well lemme tell you something, I have forgotten things before so animals must be smarter than us! And this: http://animalsarebetter.wordpress.com...


R2. God said he loves sparrows in one of the four or something gospel books! We may be worth more than many sparrows but no number is specified so we may be equal to 2.0000000000001 sparrows!!! I am a vegan and animals are disgusting to eat! Their meat looks like pvssy! This is because God tries to remind us of our evil desires!


R3. Just like evolution and an old earth, ALL THIS EVIDENCE WAS PUT HERE TO TEST OUR FAITH! God left us this a challenge to test our faith!


I await the response from the villain known as con.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

C1: Even if that is true, elephants still can't talk. What use is memory if you can't speak? Regardless, this argument is iffy because there's like a 99% chance that Con is NOT an elephant, and therefore unable to comment authoritatively on the matter. Anyway, my argument is very simple:

P1: Elephants can't think critically.
P2: Humans can think critically.
P3: Most humans are intelligent
-----
C: Most elephants are not intelligent.

C2: I would like to point out to the audience that I hold a M.A. in theology from the prestigious academic institution NO U and based on my research this interpretation is dubious in terms of accuracy.

C3: Ok, lets be honest. It's not even clear that God exists so logically speaking the audience should just guess as to whether our arguments are even valid or not. Maybe they should flip a coin or something.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Brainmaster

Pro

Where is the fail in this?

R1: Elephants aren't built to talk! This is only by human standards! They talk too!

R2: I would like to point it to my audience that no one gives a sh!t about your unrelated degrees.

R3: God exists. After all, here is some logic:

God created the universe
God is above the universe
THUS GOD MUST HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Unfortunately Pro does not understand the art of subtlety (I use this term loosely) and as much as I have tried to ignore this it adds to his fail levels immensely. Very well done.

Anyway, Pro's argument looks legit so I don't really have a rebuttal. I'm sort of in the middle of a Jerry Springer episode called 'Transsexuals Attack' and it's really of stupid how Springer accuses all the male guests who are into trannies of being "gay" even though "bi" would be the more appropriate term if he's going to make that accusation at all. I don't think "bi" is right though, and I'm against using labels in this sense because in reality trannies can be really attractive as women and ARE beautiful women except for one feature. Then Springer, of course, backtracks at the end of the show and says like "We should respect gay rights blah, blah" after basically lynching these poor men in front of an audience.

In conclusion, I don't want my argument to be tl;dr so I have conceded to Pro that animal rights are okay and stuff, but I still have one more question. Where does it stop? If we give animals rights today, then animal rights activists like yourself will soon be demanding animal voting rights. Where does it stop? Do you want a cow working in a cubicle next to you? I'm just worried for the future, because although animal rights may be a "novel" or "enlightened" concept here and now, who knows what lies ahead? I do, and society will be worse.
Debate Round No. 4
Brainmaster

Pro

What the HELL was that on gay rights? Tl;dr. Um no one gives a sh!t thar.

Where does it stop? Do you want to rape animals? Do you want to spread "entertainment" videos of cows being burned to death?

And yes obviously I am right as he (obviously a bored 50 year old guy under a rock in Michigan), CON, so concedes.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the debate, and I would like to end by quoting one of Ezequielizedodyssey's inspiring raps:

Your opponents are dead, I'll cut your head
Oh my god! somebody just got out the bread!
How come your wearing a bra or a pantie?
that's true, hamlet's reacting by his tragedy
This Mother****** can't say Polonius and Osric
you can say that same s*** like Notorious Vagina and Dick
I'm a greatest poetry of the year even the cashier
You steal my baseball base, that's a mother****** error
have you write stories before, rap before, smoke before
You destroy my relationship with my girl, your a f***** h***
If you don't do that sh**, just say oh well
That means priceless 29, goes to hell!
Show me your genitals, Show me your genitals
Watch out, there's the atheist gay having sex with your a**hole!
What you gonna do? What you gonna do?
East Side 16 Mile Police Department might arrest you

Peace.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Noradrenergic 4 years ago
Noradrenergic
You guys should get a job, too much time on your hands.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
"When you eat or drink animals"

LMFAO

Also that rap at the end was fvcking hilarious, I need to look up that whole battle
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
A FAIL debate, I like that idea.
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
@ Bob's RFD

Nice thinking thar :P
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Yo kid your rap is just pathetic
Is your inability to rap genetic
Now I mean you no illwill
But next time you should step up your skill
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Also, by size, I weigh 180 pounds and a sparrow weighs 1.5 OZ by size their is more value in a sparrow per inch of existence.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
I don't think my arguments were good =/

I guess the viewers will have to decide if my arguments were too intelligent, anyway nothing in the debate says you have to even address them. The object is to fail anyway.
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Yes by normal standards. No by fail debate standards.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
Do you think my arguments are good?
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
This is the fail debate man, the arguments are supposed to be stupid.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
BrainmasterOMGJustinBieberTied
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: Close. Con's mock concession was a good fail.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
BrainmasterOMGJustinBieberTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really did well at ailing the first three rounds, by the time con came around the last 2 rounds it was too late.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BrainmasterOMGJustinBieberTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "What the HELL was that on gay rights?" - that was the entire point Pro, you should have argued that Bieber was making quality arguments. When you noted his arguments were poor you basically conceded. 3:1 for the teen heart throb.
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
BrainmasterOMGJustinBieberTied
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 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: This debate was a fail debate. Therefore users engaged in the debate with the preconceived notion that the objective was to fail. I am to judge this debate based on who failed the debate. Since the purpose of the debate was to fail, the person who succeeded in making the best argument relating to animal rights actually won the debate because they failed at failing. I believe OMGJustinBieber did just this in his R2.