Whoever accepts this is a better debater than Manatee.
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.
Of course I intend for this to remain a civil debate and look forward to your arguments which shall come forthwith.
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.
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 (http://www.youtube.com...). 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. Livestrong.com, 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.
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.
SUBSECTION I- ADDRESSING OF SAID POINTS
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.
SUBSECTION II- MY PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS
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.
SUBSECTION III- STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
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.
SUBSECTION IV- NEW CONSIDERATIONS
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.
SUBSECTION V- REFERENCES
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.
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.
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
Finally, we have to examine the statistics that were presented.
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.
SECTION I-THE BEGINNING OF THE END
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.
SECTION II- ON DEATH AND THE SUPPOSED CAUSATION THEREOF
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.
SECTION III-THE INSTIGATOR IS STILL YET MORE INTELLIGENT THAN I
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.
SECTION IV- STATISTICAL ANALYSIS MK. II
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.
SECTION V- CONCLUDING STATEMENTS
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 Debate.org 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.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|