The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Whoever accepts this is a better debater than Manatee.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 7/1/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 35212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Resolved: Whoever accepts this is a better debater than Manatee.

Allowing 8,000 characters per round, but I have no intentions to use that many and don't expect you to do so either. I just need this to have three debates completed.

First round acceptance.


I hearby accept your challenge for debate. I will be arguing the position that I am in fact an inferior debater to a Manatee. I shall base my prospective arguments on the premise that your profile is indicative of your species, and that you are in fact an Atlantic Manatee, possessing the normative characteristics and attributes typical of your kind. My evidence to your oratory and argumentative skill shall crush you beneath its wake like the majestic manatee crushes those who oppose it beneath its pure unrestrained fury.

Of course I intend for this to remain a civil debate and look forward to your arguments which shall come forthwith.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Con is correct that I am, in fact, a manatee. However, I'm actually an amazonian manatee, not an atlantic manatee. You can read about my species here: With that said, let's get down to business.

First, it's extremely important to understand that debating requires speaking. As a manatee, I am completely unable to make any intelligent sound. Thus, competitive debate on my part is impossible! The obvious objection to this point is that debate could be through a series of messages, or perhaps even online by conversing through text. However, I do not possess any thumbs either. Thus, I have no method of communicating, which is essential to be an effective debater.
  1. Let's assume, however, that I simultaneously grew a full set of human vocal cords and thumbs. Even then, I am not intelligent enough to be an effective debater. There are two ways to support this claim. First, you can find a video of me being dumb on youtube. It's somewhere in this argument box, I'm too stupid to know where it appears.
  2. Second, manatees are scientifically known to be pretty stupid, as can be confirmed on any reliable scientific website. (

Even if I were able to speak, however, I still have extremely poor argumentation. We're only a few paragraphs into my opening statement and it's already extremely easy to tear apart my first argument. This is the essence of terrible debating. My opponent will likely point this out in his next round, thus securing his place as the superior debater between the two of us.

Moreover, it's not difficult to prove my terrible argumentative skills with empirical examples. Of the two debates that I have participated in, I have lost one of them. My opponent, on the other hand, has never lost a debate. Ever. The top ranking debater on this site, RoyLatham, has lost thirteen debates. How could I possibly be better than my opponent when he, in turn, is better than the best debater on this site?!

But enough about me. The more important person in this debate is my opponent, since he's leagues better than me. Beyond examining my own faults, we need to understand just how good con is.

First: As a banana, my opponent is an excellent orator. A quick search for "talking banana" on youtube provides numerous examples of talking bananas ( Searching for "talking manatee," on the other hand, does not bring up a single video with an actual talking manatee. Clearly, my opponent possesses superior oratorical skills.

Second: My opponent brings numerous unique banana benefits to the table., a leading scientific website for how to live strong, explains the numerous reasons why bananas are good. Note that none of these statements apply to manatees.
  1. They are only 110 calories.
  2. They are naturally fat and cholesterol free.
  3. They have a lot of potassium.
  4. They have a good amount of vitamin C.
  5. They also have vitamin B-6.
  6. They are a good source of manganese.
  7. They have 3g of fiber.
  8. They deliver other vitamins and nutrients.
  9. They are a great source of carbs.
  10. They are easy to digest.

Third: As explained earlier, my opponent has shown himself to be a great debater. He has no losses, a feat which very few people on this site have ever accomplished. He made me doubt the validity of my own position in an acceptance round. Imagine what someone of his caliber will accomplish in the following two rounds.

Back to con.


To begin, I would like to address some of the points presented by my honorable opponent before presenting my own.

Manatee indicates that as a manatee he cannot speak, however it is well documented that many species of animals are capable of communicating not only with each other, but with other species as well, the most well known example of this being primapes which use sign language. Language does not provide a significant barrier to discourse. Now with concern to the subpoints laid out:

1.Manatees have a historical background of overcoming stereotypes of being unintelligent, and in fact use their dopey appearance as a cunning ruse. Their act of preforming feats of ineptitude are a method of discouraging predators to eat them for lack of challenge and dignity. As evidenced by theory, mermaids are in fact a mythical being based on the sightings of Manatees(1). Mermaids are known to lure sailors to their death, by causing them to jump overboard to meet them and drown. Clearly this is due to above average persuasive skill, as beauty could not possibly achieve this end when manatees have a face that looks like a cooked leather purse.

2. Manatees are perhaps stupid according to reliable scientific websites, however, this newspaper editorial clearly advocates manatees as creatures of intellect on par with dolphins, animals of such sentience that it is considered immoral to eat them, while lesser but still somewhat smart animals like pigs are regarded simply as delicious(2). Clearly my secondhand opinion succeeds scientific study. This is the philosophy I choose to adhere to in debating, despite it being flawed inherently.

My opponent proceeds to refer to my credentials as an undefeated wordsmith(3). I submit to you that this source of information is compromised. Looking through my profile, it can be seen that I claim to support "No President" politically. However this is false! I do in fact believe in having a president! Clearly either I am lying now or have done so in the past. This tendency to mislead destroys my credibility and ability to inspire confidence in others of my reasoning. Nothing on that page can be considered a reliable source of information.

As to my genetic disposition toward argumentation, I would ask my opponent to take into consideration that I am not just a banana, but rather a Bannanawamajama, more correctly pronounced as Banana Whammer Jammer, based on my habit of jamming on a guitar while applying liberal use of the whammy bar, inspired by the hit song of the same name probably;(See Video I). Anyone who bothered to watch that video in its entirety would find that not a single noteworthy lyric was to be found, and rather based its entire thesis on one of the least celebrated instruments of the modern age, a harmonica. My name in fact betrays my inability to speak coherently. I would also take this opportunity to remind the audience and my opponent that bananas do not contain vocal chords, while manatees in fact contain several, if not more.

As to the nutritional facts presented, I have the follow grievances to address:

1. Manatees, on average, contain far more calories, and natural fat. As fat is an essential nutrient for
long term health, this makes Manatees more nutritious per capita than bananas.
2. Potassium and Manganese are both metals, and it is well documented that heavy metal poisoning is
a potential serious health risk. Bananas offer at least three sources of heavy metal, with the afforementioned
Potassium and Manganese, as well as badass guitar licks as I shred this awesome solo(SOLO RETRACTED).
3. Fiber is inherently messy and confusing, its primary purpose to entangle and dredge up old S***. This is
primarily what we wish to avoid in a civil debate, as it is the opposite of good debate tactic.
4. I cannot verify or deny the rest of the points, as bananas do not bother to include nutritional info on the
inside of the peel, showing gross negligence and irresponsibility.

Now in addition, I would like to submit the following to the debate for consideration:

The instigator has proposed a flawless argument in his very challenge that makes my position untennable. Clearly my efforts to convince anyone of his superiority undermines the possibility of me being correct. Yet despite this, I continue to work against my own position by refusing to admitt defeat. My obsession with winning an impossible to resolve argument only shows that I am incapable of accepting that I may be wrong, which goes against the very spirit of debate to begin with. My futile arguments are not even always well supported, I don't even think I have cited source for many of my points, although I can't be bothered to double check.

I would also draw attention to how masterfully and eloquently my esteemed rival is able to expound his notions through such succinct and artfully subtle methodology, specifically his opening challenge, which reads something along the lines of how inherently superior his opponent is purely by the act of acquiescing to this verbal duel, a statement which employs such masterful brevity while delivering the full impact of its implications, while I, in contrast, tend to ramble on and on about a single topic incessantly, and even now this sentence has run on far longer than would be advisable and yet somehow I cant stop talking oh god.

Further, I have noticed the impeccible logic found in Manatees argument. While his premises may be suspect to challenge, his logical processing of information which leads to his propositions seem fully coherent and valid. On the otherhand, sometimes my logic seems schizophrenic and unstable at best, and despite a good start, not all of my arguments end with the conclusions that you logically would think they would reach, which in turn, leads one to believe that Pancakes must be more delicious than Waffles(4).

Finally, I would like to assert the capability of large mamalian creatures to achieve impressive displays of eloquence in both poetry and prose, as demonstrated Above(See Video II).
As you can see, both Hippopotocampi and Rhinosaurs are capable rap artists, and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume Manatees cannot be great mass debators.

Debate Round No. 2


Why am I bad?

My opponent has given you the perfect rebuttal to my argument regarding an inability to speak. In fact, I must concede this point. There is no way that I can possibly hope to refute his claim that language does not provide a significant barrier to discourse. However, this only proves that he is a better debater. By eloquently pointing out the flaws in my argument, my opponent has shown that he possesses superior argumentative skills.

Con then tries to tell you that manatees are very persuasive in leading people to their death. I would like to turn this argument against him: Remember that debate requires an opponent, and it cannot be done solo. By leading people to their deaths, manatees are not practicing persuasion. Rather, they are degrading debate by murdering potential opponents. This is not good debate practice. How can I debate if there's no opponent?

Bananas do not do anything remotely equivalent to this. In fact, bananas are responsible for keeping people alive. Thus, bananas are practicing superior debate skills by expanding the pool of potential opponents. Manatees, on the other hand, and weakening debate by employing intimidation tactics.

My opponent makes a fatal flaw in his response to my intelligence argument. The source that he cites is talking about the florida manatee. Remember that I am an amazonianmanatee. There are a number of reasons why amazonian manatees are inherently more stupid than florida manatees.
  1. Florida manatees naturally look more intelligent. Here is a picture of a Florida manatee: Here is a picture of an Amazonian manatee, which is clearly far less intelligent.
  2. Amazonian manatees die a lot. According to wikipedia, "Their slow-moving, curious nature, coupled with dense coastal development, has led to many violent collisions with propeller-driven boats and ships, leading frequently to maiming, disfigurement, and even death." Obviously Amazonian manatees are not intelligent if they repeatedly commit suicide.
  3. Amazonian manatees live in the Amazon. However, there are also snakes in the Amazon. There are no snakes in Florida. Clearly, living in an area with snakes when you could live in a region without them is a dumb decision.Thus, my opponents argument that Manatees are intelligent does not apply to my specific species. We remain dumb as a box of rocks.
Finally, my opponent brings up some arguments regarding this debate itself. First, he talks about how good my argumentation is. This is not, however, because I am a good debater. Rather, there is extreme bias toward the pro side in this debate. My arguments are effective because it is extremely obvious that my opponent is a better debater than I am. There is literally no way that I could lose this debate, because there are just too many arguments which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my opponent is one of the best debaters to ever walk the Earth.

Then, con discusses how eloquent my speech is. In doing so, however, he reveals his complete and utter mastery of vocabulary. Here's a list of fancy words that he used.
  1. expound
  2. succint
  3. subtle
  4. acquiescing
  5. incessantly
  6. impeccable
  7. coherent
  8. good
  9. one
  10. pancakes
  11. like

It is well known that a large vocabulary is a prerequisite to being intelligent. Thus, my opponent has just proven himself to naturally be smarter than I am. Logically, it follows that he is also a better debater. Debating involves using words, and con has proven that he has a better mastery of words than I do.

So why is con better?

There are, honestly, too many reasons to list. Instead of introducing one of the potential trillion arguments regarding my opponents superior debating skills, I will continue to cover the ones already examined in the debate.

First, remember that my opponent is still undefeated. He has been on the website for sixteen hours, and is yet to lose a single debate. He claims that this is irrelevent, because he is lying about something on his page. He forgets, however, that lying is an essential part of debate. In fact, every single national debate champion in the history of the world has lied. Coincidentally, every single national debate champion in the history of the world has won the national championship. Coincidence? I think not. There is clearly a causal link between lying and winning debates.

He then tries to tell you that he cannot speak. There are two problems with this argument
  1. My opponent has already established himself as a masterful liar. How do we know if he's actually a bannanawamajama instead of just a banana? It's likely that he's lying and is, in fact, just an ordinary banana. In this case, my argument on how effective of an orator he is would still stand.
  2. Like my opponent himself said, you do not need to speak in order to debate. I propose that my opponent would be effective at debating through the use of a harmonica. The obvious advantage to this is that harmonicas sound really nice, and would probably put the opponent to sleep. At this point, the opponent concedes, and con wins the debate. This extremely advanced tactic ensures that he never loses a debate, and thus is a superior debater than I.

Finally, we have to examine the statistics that were presented.

  1. While we contain far more calories, it is absurb to believe that any individual could eat an entire manatee. Usually, I am full after a flipper or two. Bananas, however, are not filling at all. Thus, the average individual could eat more raw banana than raw manatee, thereby absorbing the most essential nutrients.
  2. While bananas pose a serious health risk, the potential side effects are not actually that painful. You just die. Nothing more to it. Death by manatee, on the other hand, is an extremely painful way to die. There's a video somewhere in the sidebar of Manatee performing The Almighty Excruciating Pain, which proves how painful manatees actually are.
  3. While fiber might make you s***, eating a manatee would mean actually eating s***which you then have to s*** again. The average manatee is carrying around almost 70 lbs of s*** in its bowels at any particular time. Gross.
  4. The lack of nutritional info for bananas does not show gross negligence and irresponsibility. Rather, it shows craftiness and humbleness. Both of these are essential debate skills which manatees do not possess.

Back to con, and thanks for the debate. Never before have I engaged in such a difficult task as debating against someone with the level of skill which you possess.



Pro is merely exercising excellent strategy by conceding my initial point, as as I have stated in our last volley, him highlighting my proficiency serves to support his position. In surrendering that point of contention, he is demonstrating an understanding that winning a debate involves more than winning each distinct point, but rather to paint an overall picture which weaves together to create a more holistic overall message.

I would agree with con on his assertion that debate requires two or more parties, however, the idea that manatees are not debating with sailors is simply not true. Rather, manatees debate with sailors over whether or not to place themselves in mortal peril, which will likely lead to their deaths. Since sailors are usually very good at swimming, the number of supposed mermaid victims attributed through history stands as testament to how many sailors fell to the wily charms of the manatee, as only a fraction of those who jumped in would be unable to survive and make it back to their ship.
Now, speaking of murder by things unusual to be murdered by, I must take issue with the point made that bananas are responsible for keeping people alive. Bananas are in fact terrible at this task. It can be seen recorded data that aside from choking, people can die from overeating bananas or suffering cardiac arrest due to the chemicals in bananas(1). I would like to note here that cardiac arrest is painful. Quite so. In addition, there have been multiple(2) banana peel related deaths over the years. Even our broken and withered corpses are scourges of the human race. On the other hand, there are virtually no known cases of manatee related deaths, unless you are including cases in which humans are killing manatees, in which case yes that happens.

I will, for the sake of my future argument, agree with the next point made by my opponent, namely that I do indeed use words in arguing, and also agree that being intelligent is directly correlated to good debating. However, it will be demonstrated that the Instigator is still yet more intelligent than I, and thus it would stand to reason a better debater as well.

I present the following evidence that my masterful dictionary reading prowess is not indicative of great intelligence: I misspelled my own freaking name. There are not, apparently, two N's in succession in the word "bannana", however it seems that I did not realize that when making my account.
My opponent mentioned that he was not a Florida manatee in the last round. This, I believe, further supports his intelligence. As a resident of Florida, I can tell you, the reader of this message, with some certainty, that nothing in Florida is smarter than its counterpart outside of Florida. There is a natural propensity for my people to fail at basic reasoning. According to a reputable political party in this state, the Florida Tea Party, manatees are in fact some of the most devious beings in the state, and are actively plotting against America, and winning(3). Logically we can come to this conclusion: If we accept my assumptions that
A. Things from Florida are inherently less intelligent than things outside Florida
-Supported by primary source, first hand account from local resident, Me
B. Manatees are smarter conspirators than the majority of the rest of the state
-Supported by a politically powerful and somewhat respected professional organization
C.I am a resident of Florida
-Supported by my drivers license, before it was revoked for shooting fireworks at Commie Liberals while ridin' my hog down the Reagan Turnpike
D. Manatee is a manatee
-Admitted by Manatee in round 2
Then we can logically prove with total confidence that an Amazonian manatee must be better than a Florida manatee, which in turn is better than anything else in Florida, a group that includes me. As agreed earlier, enhanced intelligence leads to enhanced debate, so in proving he is more intelligent, I conclude that he is also a better debater.

Using a harmonica to win a debate by default is a despicable and underhanded tactic, unworthy of praise or being titled a credible debater. I therefore deny your argument to that end. Now I must admit that my method of comparison earlier was somewhat skewed by the fact that manatees and bananas are different sizes. However, I have undertaken ACTUAL FREAKING RESEARCH ON HOW FAT MANATEES ARE. By looking at studies which involve measuring manatees(4) and banana puree(5), I have found the average densities per meter cubed of bananas and manatees to be 1240 kg and 1123 kg respectively. That is cold hard data on the two, and it is clearly visible that bananas are in fact more dense on average than manatees, and as such, more filling, leading one to eat less bananas before feeling satisfied or full, and refusing to eat any more. So my original argument still stands, manatees would be more nutritious. I don't remember what this had to do with my argument, but there it is.
I have previously asserted that death by manatee is so rare as to be nearly nonexistent, so I cannot say much as to that subject. The fact that manatees are full of s*** only serves to illuminate their dedication to processing and picking apart whatever is presented to them, showing superb analytical skill which has reached a level where they no longer even need to consciously apply effort to do it. Their autonomic nervous system alone is a more intellectually stimulating opponent than any banana, jamming on a whammy or not, could hope to be.

As it seems we have reached the end of our third round, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for so adamantly defending his position in spite of the difficult proposition he was forced to take up. He has made some profound points and impressive arguments. This has been my first debate on and it will truly be one I remember for a long time. I did more research in an effort to disparage myself compared to a manatee than I probably have ever bothered to do in any high school or college course I've ever taken. So thank you, Manatee, for inspiring me in this debate even when we are arguing a truly inconsequential battle.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I was very pleased with both of them. Both did very well.