The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Pak-a-Spak Knapsack with its fantastic plastic spastic is the ideal theme park accessory

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 3 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 39017
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Everybody loves theme park rides, don"t they? But nobody likes standing for hour after hour to get on them do they? No, but not everybody does have to wait: rich mothers from Manhattan hire cripples to pose as family members so they can jump the queues (cut the lines). That's because handicapped visitors go straight to the front of the queue (line) and all their family can join them. [1]

"Awesome!" I hear you say, "The next time I visit Disney World I'll hire a spastic stooge, but where do I get one from and how much do they cost?"

Well, dear reader, there are agencies that hire out people with reduced mobility issues or learning difficulties (or both) but the catch is they run at $130 an hour, or $1,040 per day. [1]

"Fvcking rats c0cks!" I hear you exclaim, "That's silly money, I'm not paying that!"

Don't worry, you don't have to. That's because the Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ - the fantastic plastic spastic you pack on your back - is now available from Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises for less than it costs to hire a live disabled person for an hour.

Expertly crafted from the finest polyvinyls these miniature manikins have extremely lifelike skin textures and are sure to fool any ride attendant into thinking you are holding a real disabled baby, rather than just a realistic replica retard. See for yourself by clicking this link: http://www.debate.org...

That's why the Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ is the ideal accessory for theme park visits.

Thank you.

Weiler

Con

I disagree. A young woman of low morals is a much better, and cheaper theme park accessory.

What better way to pass the time standing in line than getting a little trim. The only added cost is the price of a second admission. Young women of low morals are in plentiful supply these days.[1]

1. http://aspeneducation.crchealth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro


I thank Weiler for accepting this debate and for his considered contribution and, I agree, there is no better way to pass time than “getting a little trim” with a “young lady with low morals” (or “snogging a slag” in British English). However, I am sure that engaging in this absorbing activity would raise some eyebrows in theme parks which are, after all, the most family friendly of all attractions...


“Mummy, why has that man got his hand up that lady’s skirt?”


“Daddy, what is that lady doing on her knees in front of that man?”


“Look, Mummy! That lady’s got all milk round her mouth.”


Better to do enjoy all the rides in less than half the time it would normally take by using your new Pak-a-Spak Knapsack™ imitation invalid infant to jump the queues (cut the lines) and then take the dirty slapper (lady with low morals) to a cheap motel and give her a proper seeing-to there.


Thank you.


Weiler

Con

Weiler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
lol, I laughed for nearly a minute after reading Brian's round 1...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
brian_egglestonWeilerTied
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: Oh Brian, what have you done now. You've made me think that it's potentially a viable option to not wait 3 hours in line for a 2 minute ride. Am I going to hell for that? Oh, reason for voting, right. Forfeiture and what Con provided was refuted by Pro. Kinda obvious.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
brian_egglestonWeilerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly obvious score. FF, and PRO refuted what little CON cared to proffer.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
brian_egglestonWeilerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Another interesting resolution by Brian. Con takes a good shot a refuting the resolution with his suggestion in his R1, making the case for a potentially better theme park accessory. Pro reasserts the resolution in his R2, showing why the resolution is more accurate than Cons alternative. Should Con have replied it may have been a closer debate, but as Con FFd, Pros resolution is affirmed so he gets argument points. Conduct points to Pro for the FF.