The Instigator
MassiveDump
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,418 times Debate No: 36724
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

MassiveDump

Pro

I love Whoopi. I really do. But she looks, like a b!tch.

First round is for acceptance only, good luck.
imabench

Con

It.

Is.

On.

>:)
Debate Round No. 1
MassiveDump

Pro

YES.

Thank God that of all the people who could have accepted this debate, it was imabench. This debate will truly be a grand ol' time.

So let's start by establishing some definitions.

A. We are debating the one and only Whoopi Goldberg, the comedienne, the star of Sister Act, and one of the hosts of the hit talk show, The View.

B. "looks like" will mean "bears some physical resemblence to," as according to Princeton University in 2006.

C. A "b!tch" can mean a female dog, a female canine in general, a malicious and unpleasant woman, a person who performs demeaning tasks for another, or a prison sex slave, as accoring to Random House Dictionary in 2013.

And Now...

The Big Picture

As you can see in the photograph below, Whoopi Goldberg does in fact bear some physical resemblence to that of a b!tch.



The "some physical resemblance being, obviously, the curly black locks.

Establishing That the Dog is Female

This goes without saying, but the breed of dog shown, unlike some breeds of cat, comes in both male and female variations. Since the dog shown has both male and female varieties, whether the dog shown is female or not, there is a female dog like that, that indeed looks like Whoopi Goldberg.

Therefore, Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch.
imabench

Con

"A. We are debating the one and only Whoopi Goldberg, the comedienne, the star of Sister Act, and one of the hosts of the hit talk show, The View."

Ah yes The View, the show that makes my penis want to shrivel up and die..... Just like watching any Twilight movie.

"C. A "b!tch" can mean a female dog, a female canine in general, a malicious and unpleasant woman, a person who performs demeaning tasks for another, or a prison sex slave, as accoring to Random House Dictionary in 2013. "

Ah yes, a b*tch CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN refer to a female dog, however there are many definitions for the word b*tch that must also be taken into account.

B*tch is also a word commonly used to describe someone who is prone to whining excessively over stupid sh*t, such as GWL, or me whenever some f*cking idiot takes a troll debate seriously.

A b*tch is also a person who performs demeaning tasks for another person which is degrading in status (Like anyone who campaigned for Romney)

Now for Whoopi to look like a b*tch she must satisfy ALL of the conditions of looking like a b*tch. Since there are multiple definitions of a b*tch though, several of which Whoopi does not fulfill, she is not a b*tch since she doesnt look like someone who worked for Mitt Romney, or like GWL

Debate Round No. 2
MassiveDump

Pro

Rebuttal

"
Ah yes, a b*tch CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN refer to a female dog, however there are many definitions for the word b*tch that must also be taken into account."

Yes, I was sure to mention that in my definition.

"B*tch is also a word commonly used to describe someone who is prone to whining excessively over stupid sh*t, such as GWL, or me whenever some f*cking idiot takes a troll debate seriously."

Au contraire. I rarely do troll debates. Often times, I make a silly resolution, but I take it quite seriously. This debate is no exception.

"Now for Whoopi to look like a b*tch she must satisfy ALL of the conditions of looking like a b*tch. Since there are multiple definitions of a b*tch though, several of which Whoopi does not fulfill, she is not a b*tch."

Um, nope. In order to have Whoopi look like a b!tch, she needs to look like A b!tch, not ALL b!tches.

Of course, it is my fault for not defining A.

Regardless, my opponent's lone contention has fallen if it even stood up at all, and the resolutions still stands:

Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a B!tch.
imabench

Con

"Au contraire. I rarely do troll debates. Often times, I make a silly resolution, but I take it quite seriously. This debate is no exception."

Yes, but then people like me come in with the sole attention of f*cking it up ;D

"In order to have Whoopi look like a b!tch, she needs to look like A b!tch, not ALL b!tches."

But im arguing that since there isnt a clear consensus on what a b*tch is then Whoopi Goldberg must look like a b*tch in what everyone initially thinks when they think of what a 'b*tch' is. If the resolution was 'Whoopi Goldberg looks really gay', and you define gay by its less commonly used definition as 'joyfully happy', then you technically havent met your BoP since there is a more commonly used definition of Gay that Whoopi Goldberg doesnt satisfy, and therefore wouldnt be gay.

"Regardless, my opponent's lone contention has fallen if it even stood up at all, and the resolutions still stands"

You argue that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a dog, and you are correct in that.
I argue that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about stupid stuff or does demeaning tasks for someone else, and I am also correct in that.

Since there are multiple definitions of b*tch, Whoopi Goldberg can both be and not be a b*tch.... Since b*tch has multiple definitions, it means people can both be and not be real b*tches..... For example:

GWL whines like a little b*tch but he may not look like a b*tch

Fox News Anchors b*tch frequently about menial things but they dont look like b*tches

Obama has to cater to Democratic voters like a b*tch but he doesnt look like one.

Libertarians are the b*tches of Rand Paul but chances are they dont b*tch about everything in politics (although many of them do)

Iraq is America's b*tch since we demeaned them, but since Iraq is a country it certainly doesnt look like a b*tch

The national debt is a real b*tch that wont go away but the national debt doesnt look like a b*tch

The person at the DMV acts like a b*tch but she certainly isnt anyones actual b*tch

The hooker who stands on the road prostituting herself is somebody's b*tch but she doesnt act or look like a b*tch

People can both be and not be a b*tch at the same time, so that means both Pro and I have met and not met our burdens of proof over whether or not Whoopi Goldberd does or doesnt look like a huge b*tch.

Debate Round No. 3
MassiveDump

Pro

Rebuttal (Again)

"Yes, but then people like me come in with the sole attention of f*cking it up ;D"

*intention.

That said, this is not the first time bench has tried to f*ck up one of my debates. In my debate on one going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like, bench tried cluttering my debate with a bunch of stupid quantum mechanics. It did not work. Because I am immune to shenanigans.

"But im arguing that since there isnt a clear consensus on what a b*tch is then Whoopi Goldberg must look like a b*tch in what everyone initially thinks when they think of what a 'b*tch' is."

I had a clear consensus one what I was defining as a bitch. I never resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like what everyone initially thinks when they thing of what a bitch is," I resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like a bitch."

"you technically havent met your BoP since there is a more commonly used definition of [bitch] that Whoopi Goldberg doesnt satisfy, and therefore wouldnt be gay."

There are three places where my opponent went wrong here:

1. I provided a solid definition in Round 2. During this debate, I have only had the burden to prove that Whoopi looked like a bitch in one qualification, therefore looking like a bitch. This I have done without refutation.

2. The definition presented comes from Random House Dictionary in 2013. The definition my opponent provided (someone who works for Romney) is one used by what he calls the "common person." My definition of bitch prevails because it comes from a credible resource, rather than a bench.

3. Had my opponent played the common person card in Round 2, it would have at least been worth refuting. Rather, in Round 2, Con simply threw forward some definitions with no reason why they were better.

"You argue that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a dog, and you are correct in that."

Vote Pro.

"I argue that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about stupid stuff or does demeaning tasks for someone else, and I am also correct in that."

Congratulations. But my opponent is still not arguing against what I am arguing. If he's not doing that, then he's not refuting the resolution. Since he's not refuting the resolution, the resolution stands without a dent and Pro wins.

"Since there are multiple definitions of b*tch, Whoopi Goldberg can both be and not be a b*tch"

It's not about whether she IS a bitch, it's about whether she LOOKS like a bitch.

Assuming that's what my opponent meant, if she both looks like and doesn't look like a bitch, then she looks like a bitch. Case closed, I'm going back to bed.

"Pro and I have met and not met our burdens of proof over whether or not Whoopi Goldberd does or doesnt look like a ... b*tch."

In this specific debate, if Pro meets his burden of proof, he wins.

If we've both met and not met our burdens of proof, then we've both met our burdens of proof.

If we've both met our burdens of proof, then I've met my burden of proof.

Since Con admitted that I've met my burden of proof, this debate is basically over.

Whoopi Goldberg Looks Like a Bitch.
imabench

Con

"In my debate on one going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like, bench tried cluttering my debate with a bunch of stupid quantum mechanics. It did not work. Because I am immune to shenanigans."

If it didnt work then how come you didnt end up winning that debate? ;D




"I had a clear consensus on what I was defining as a bitch. I never resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like what everyone initially thinks when they thing of what a bitch is," I resolved that "Whoopi Goldberg looks like a bitch.""

You resolved that Whoopi Goldberg looks like a b*tch, I argued that Whoopi Goldberg does not look like a b*tch. We both have succeeded and failed to some extent.





"1. During this debate, I have only had the burden to prove that Whoopi looked like a bitch in one qualification, therefore looking like a bitch. This I have done without refutation."

And I only had to prove that Whoopi does not look like a b*tch in TWO qualifications. This I have done without refutation





"My definition of bitch prevails because it comes from a credible resource, rather than a bench."

Well I know im not credible, but these sources which provide ALL the definitions of a b*tch do

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://www.vocabulary.com...






"It's not about whether she IS a bitch, it's about whether she LOOKS like a bitch."

Right. And you have dropped all my arguments about how Whoopi Goldberg does not look like someone who whines about every little thing or someone who does demeaning tasks for someone else.






"Assuming that's what my opponent meant, if she both looks like and doesn't look like a bitch, then she looks like a bitch"

Thats like saying that if Obama is both white and black, then he is only white.... Which is just irrational to claim.






"If we've both met and not met our burdens of proof, then we've both met our burdens of proof."

But you also havent met your burden of proof at the same time, which you choose to ignore and simply dismiss as irrelevant.






"Since Con admitted that I've met my burden of proof, this debate is basically over."

Except I havent ;)

============================================================================================

You cannot simply ignore all the definitions of a 'b*tch' when claiming that someone does or doesnt look like a b*tch in the same way that one does not simply walk into mordor. Not only has gingervitis over here NOT met his bop on why Whoopi Goldberg looks like a whiny b*tch or why she looks like someone elses b*tch, he has also flat out denied the other valid definitions of b*tch for the sake of preserving his own arguments.

Does Whoopi Goldberg look like:

A dog b*tch? ================ Yes
A whiny b*tch =============== No
Someone elses b*tch? ======== No

The final score is 1 Yes to 2 No's, therefore Whoopi Goldberg does NOT look like a b*tch
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I have to agree that bench could have done far worse things... In a recent debate my opponent wanted tax dollars to buy him an awesome car so he could pick up girls, and I used the following picture to refute it: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
Dangit, I meant to vote for a tie in arguments, but I accidentally clicked on Con. Whoops.
Posted by wordy 3 years ago
wordy
I don't know what is going on. I'm a new-bi. But, Just LOL.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
This is a troll debate retard, logic ain't welcome round deez parts. You betta move along now boy
Posted by Graffiacane 3 years ago
Graffiacane
"Now for Whoopi to look like a b*tch she must satisfy ALL of the conditions of looking like a b*tch"...
Logic? Not in this sentence.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
it is on ^* *^...my eyes are popping out! Lets see...
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
No but really. Anyone know why daytona hates me so much?
Posted by daytonanerd 3 years ago
daytonanerd
Kick his @ss, Imabench!

Lol, I won't vote on this one. Only laugh. Laugh my lungs out.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: That picture. Wow, just wow.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con's arguments "stupid" and "shenanigans". Conduct to Con. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro for Con's lack of apostraphes. Arguments were tied, and neither used sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments kind of fell flat against each other... I ended up agreeing with pro, but due to con's reasoning; which pro failed to properly exploit. Whoopi looks like a host of The View, which makes her do demeaning tasks for someone, thus their b!itch (along with having been in the movie Theodor Rex). She's probably cried a bunch in some movie, making her look like a whiny b!tch (a picture as evidence would be great). Also the shape of Iraq does remind me of a female dog in heat... Yet these are all my thoughts on it, none of which came from pro (therefore no credit to his argument). Everything else was also too close to the middle to get my votes in those areas.