The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,858 times Debate No: 8430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Tatarize

Pro

Werewolves are an animal in the sack whereas zombies just kind of lay there like a dead fish and occasionally try to bite you. And not one of those sexy give you shivers kind of bites but actually eat your fricken neck. It's a total turn off.

Further, zombies claim they want your for your brains. But they don't seem to do anything but groan... and not in a sexy way either. No conversation no lusty toss you against the wall and howl. It's kind of sad.

Werewolves clearly make better lovers than zombies.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lexicaholic

Con

I refute my opponent's resolution. Werewolves do not necessarily make better lovers than zombies, and in some cases will be a worse choice, depending on one's subjective interests. Clearly, zombies are the choice love interests of necrophiliacs, where as werewolves are of interest of those with ... other kinks. See http://en.wikipedia.org... In addition, zombies are more versatile. Arguably you could snap off a few pieces and use them for various odd activities, which shall remain nameless, where as werewolves would suffer injury if employed in the same manner. Actually, that brings up another very useful attribute of zombies as lovers: those with a more sadistic streak could enact any brutal fantasy desired on the zombie with little more than a moan of displeasure, where as werewolves would probably fight back instinctively. The zombie biting issue can be handled with the appropriate restraints.

Also, zombies includes this particular zombie: http://images.google.com...

Not to mention Living Dead Girlz. Look it up, I'm not sure if I can link it or not.

I challenge my opponent to find an attractive werewolf of either gender that can actually be howling and acting like an animal while retaining its more attractive features. Google does not seem to be replete with hot werewolves. Well, the fur might make them hot, just not in a very sexy way.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

My opponent is a sick sick man. Only a complete pervert would suggest that dead rotting flesh makes one a better lover. That's absolutely disgusting. Now, having sex with a half-wolf half-woman lover... DAMN! That's hot!

I've seen a vast number of zombie movies and you know how many times I've seen people have sex with zombies? About twice. And both of those times were pretty much because the individual hadn't turned yet and turned at an inopportune time. You see, it wasn't the zombie that ever attracted the lover but rather the human and guess what? Werewolves are human most of the time. Seriously!

Think of the best sex you've ever had, (virgins just imagine your English teacher), now just think... that sex could very well have been had with a werewolf and you didn't even know it. Every full moon you could have a total spice up the sex life manimal romp session and still have all the romance and normal lame human sex you want.

Zombies however are disgusting! And, for all the ladies out there (or guys who swing that way), just think... his junk might fall off. Then where would you be!

Zombies make horrible lovers! Werewolves are an animal in the sack.

Once you go Lycanthrope; to other sex, you say "nope".
Lexicaholic

Con

"My opponent is a sick sick man. Only a complete pervert would suggest that dead rotting flesh makes one a better lover." I am willing to accept this statement. Being sick does not make my subjective understanding of better any less valid. For the record, I never said zombies were my thing. But if it's yours, that's fine, because no one gets hurt except for the person performing the activity and dead people, and they're not really people because they're dead. Admittedly, I have no idea if the state of undeath changes this issue, but it seems proper to list a creature that must eat humans of necessity as something separate from humans, and so I am inclined to say that human rights do not enter into the equation.

As for my opponent's contention that dead rotting flesh is unappealing, the solution for him is as simple as the best practice of selecting fish: only take the fresh ones.

As for my opponent's contention that werewolves can be human, that's fine, but if you're attracted to the humans ... why not just date humans? Clearly to discern the advantages of werewolves against zombies as alternative love (or lust) interests, we need to look at what makes them less human, not what makes them more so, in order to distinguish them. So we're looking at either a nine foot tall fur covered, drooling wolf-(wo)man or an actual honest to goodness wolf, which amounts to bestiality. I'm pretty sure that's about as shunned as necrophilia is in polite society.

As for zombies being unloved, that just makes them a virgin market. Well, that is to say, unless they were very busy while they were alive. Speaking of living, if you must look for a more human lover between the two, a zombie made by a bokor (see the wikipedia article) is as human as they come, does not need to eat people, and can be treated essentially as an entirely complacent lover if under your control. Not terrible exciting, but not lethal either. Of course, human rights probably do come into play if you select this type of zombie, but just look at it as if you were buying a new car: you can get the beater (regular BRAAAAINS zombie) that you just use until you can't anymore, or the luxury vehicle (voodoo zombie) that you need to maintain and keep up a bit. See, versatile.

Finally I answer my opponent's lyricism with my own rejoinder: Once you go undead, you just plain lose yo head.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

I thank my opponent for a fruitful and productive debate. I do wish however he would do a better job. He offers as a mitigating factor that if you don't want a rotting zombie you could just have a freshly dead one. Why not just have a human at that rate? What's the point of the zombie. It's my contention that due to the added spice a werewolf would be a better lover than a human and most of the time would be in human form and thus the same. However it's his contention clearly that zombies are sub-human lovers.

The analogy is clear. If humans are better lovers than zombies and werewolves are better lovers than humans then clearly it must be the case that werewolves are better lovers than zombies.

My opponent equates having sex with a werewolf with bestiality. But, werewolves can often be perfectly human at different phases of the moon. So my opponent is clearly calling having sex with humans bestiality. What do you have against humans? What do you have against werepeople? That is racism through and through.

If you go undead you will lose your head. They will rip it off to eat your brains!

Readers, don't be fooled by my opponents clever word play and his fancy college words. The decision is clear. You can either suggest that a dead rotting corpse that stinks and kills you is somehow a better lover than a wild, kinky, hot, animal in the sack werelover, or you can accept the truth... the sexy sexy truth!

Vote Pro!
Lexicaholic

Con

I thank my opponent for a fun debate, even if it did get a little hairy at times. http://www.instantrimshot.com... However, I think my opponent failed to understand that this is a debate of werewolf versus zombie. The point of the zombie is to pose an alternative to humanity, just as the point of the werewolf is. The difference is that I would understand if you wanted to select something that's sort of human, while my opponent wants you to go prancing with wolves.

The analogy is not clear. Any given person may find a different trait better as a matter of sexual preference. Some may prefer something that doesn't turn into a slavering furry beast on occasion. God help you if your werewolf lover changes when its in heat. My opponent recognizes the limitations of his argument, he's just not willing to face it. That is why he resorted to ad hominem attacks.

My opponent accuses me of being a racist against werepeople. That is patently false, as I am merely comparing the pros and cons of werewolves and zombies based on their objective physiological limitations. My opponent, on the other hand, is clearly guilty of typical political doublespeak, accusing me of being a racist when he puts down hard working Zombie Americans with aspersions like "disgusting," comparing them to"dead fish," emasculating them (literally), calling them "horrible lovers," and even, *gasp*, suggesting they are pointless. What have zombies ever done to my opponent? How dare he suppress their unlifestyle!

I have never suggested that zombies are "sub-human" as my opponent asserts, but rather inhuman, which is completely different. A dolphin is not a human, therefore inhuman, but you could have a PETA rep and a whale poacher debate all day about whether or not the dolphin is 'subhuman.' Human rights just don't attach to things that aren't human. That's not to say that zombies don't have any rights at all, as my opponent suggests.

As for the brain eating thing, I have already shown you how to select the zombie that's right for you and informed you of the conditions of its upkeep that are necessary. Real life zombie brain attacks are significantly fewer in number than they are in movies. Around 0%. I think you'll be fine, if you prefer zombies over werewolves. Which you should, seeing as how my opponent was unable to provide an example of an attractive werewolf to counter my initial response.

Finally my opponent asks you to ignore my words. By what other criteria are you supposed to judge this debate? Scent? That may work for my opponent's werewolf lover, but it doesn't work for me and it probably doesn't work for you either. In conclusion, you don't have to select a zombie as a lover, or a werewolf as a lover. Select what you want, whether you prefer stiffies or yiffies. There is no absolute better in a free society, except in this debate, where I believe I have surpassed my opponent. Remember friends, a vote for Con is a vote for free choice, and that's as American as apple pie and BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
THIS IS gROSS!
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Awesome, S-M! Thanks for the abbreviated RFD! :D
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I'm too tired for a complete RFD, but all tied except for convincing arguments. The biggest point was Lex's argument that Pro was addressing the werewolf form opposed to zombies; the fact werewolves appear to be human most of the time is irrelevent. I wish the slow/fast zombie issue would have ... er... arisen in this debate, but alas we are left with a dead lover searching for the hair of the dog, that bit her/him last night. If I make it to DragonCon this year, I will bring a copy of this debate.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
If you are reading this while logged on your computer, note Tatarize's bigotry against bigots. Now who's the kettle calling the pot black ... waitaminute ...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
If you're reading this from outside the US, note that Lexicaholic is an american-centric bigot who doesn't even consider your opinions valid or acceptable.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
PS: If there is anyone reading this debate who is not from the United States, just pretend my last sentence was "Remember friends, a vote for Con is a vote for free choice, and that's as [nationalist phrase of your choice] as [quaint cultural dish] and [ EXTENDED ALL CAPS WORD IN YOUR NATIVE TONGUE THAT MEANS BRAINS]"
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
I did vote on this one, actually, because I saw that a vote came up right after the debate ended and knew it must have been you. XD I never promised to abstain in this debate. And I'm pondering the other ...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I voted for myself.... because that's what I always do.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Oh, if people could leave their RFDs, that'd be cool. I'd like to see the responses on this one. :P
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Yeah, I love that site. XD Same to you!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
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