The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Trying to make troll debates serious

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 80474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Troll debates are not meant to be serious. First round is acceptance.


Troll debates are serious business.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I stated that the first round was for ACCEPTANCE. Did Pro use the first round for acceptance? No. Instead, he says that "Troll debates are serious business." This is an OUTRAGEOUS conduct violation, and it proves that Pro is not willing to take this debate seriously.

Second of all, here are my arguments:

1. It's annoying.

People create troll debates to let off steam, only to be bored, because of semantics. Here is an example:

Someone creates a debate entitled "Am I a cactus", and someone accepts and goes into depth about how cacti are good or bad for society. I mean, seriously, wtf?

2. I don't have a second contention.

I don't feel like it.


First round was acceptance, and I accepted. I did not present an argument of any sort, hence I have not committed any conduct violation. Con is just trying to rule-shark for an automatic win. He must be Jewish or something.

Now, on to Con's points:

1. The societal implications of being a cactus can be far-reaching. It could affect your ability to get a job. Or to live in certain countries. Cactus-people can't even vote - how outrageous!

Fun debates are good once in a while, but we should never lose sight of the serious, cactus-related matters they address.

2. Con doesn't have a second contention, yet he makes a second point. What a waste of our time!
Debate Round No. 2


"He must be Jewish or something."
Ad Homenim? What is Pro, some sort of salesman?

1. As a Cactus Person myself, I find Pro's lack of knowledge on the subject of Cactus culture extremely disturbing. The UN and all other countries declared Cacti equal to all others in 1870.

Sources: www.datxdudesleptwithoneormoreofyourdistantrelatives/CactusCulture.Gov

This negates your argument. So there, you abolitionist.

2. Civil disobediance, my friend. It is morally justifiable. Why should one have to have more than one contention. Sounds kind of gay tbh.

Vote Con or be a moron.


"What is Pro, some sort of salesman?"

There's only one thing I sell, and that's yo mama.

1. Con is mistaken. The UN wasn't established until 1945, in response to World War 2.

The US tried to mandate Cactus Suffrage in 1870, as part of the Fifteenth Amendment, but this did not pass.

Fifteenth Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice it says nothing about being a cactus. Since 'cactus' is a Family and not a race (, the rights of cactus-people are NOT protected under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Cacti are not found outside the Americas (except for Rhipsalis baccifera -, and Cactus Equality within the Americas is generally opposed due to the War on Drugs (, so no other country has attempted to pass Cactus Equality legislation.

2. Con is a homophobe.

Vote Pro, or your dog will die.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro has admitted that he is a salesman.

1. Obviously, I meant the UNited States of America.

"The US tried to mandate Cactus Suffrage in 1870, as part of the Fifteenth Amendment, but this did not pass."

What? I believe Pro is mistaken. I wasn't talking about the Fifteenth Amendment, but rather the ultra secret 15.5th amendment. But Pro doesn't know about that amendment, because he is always high on cocaine.

Section 1
Cacti are equal!

Section 2
Anyone who opposes this amendment is racist!

2. I said it was gay. The word "one" is in "one contention". It has three letters. So does gay. Therefore, they are the same.

Thos is anonymos. Wore currontly hocking onto your compooter. Vote Con or retrobotion woll occur. Oh yeah, and Pro is guilty of 1st degree penis theft.


Salesman... pimp...


1. Con is backpedaling by talking out of his_ass.

2. Since you are ignorant, I refer you to this source here:

Pro doesn't need to commit penis theft; his penis is big enough for two people (the second person is yo mama).
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Oh. Well thanks. "Gibbe da pussi" was just a reference to Filthy Frank. He's extremely funny.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
No. You haven't been making those "gibbe da pussi" arguments. You're trying better.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Lol, I know that was sarcasm. I do troll debates nowadays because political debates piss me off too much.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
You've been doing great with debating lately, DATXDUDE.
No votes have been placed for this debate.