The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

if you put chicken salt on chicken the world will implode.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 89787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




You will have to argue that chicken salt, because of its bizarre qualities, would react with a plate of chicken, resulting in the world folding in on itself and dissapearing into a infinitesimal singularity. There should be warning labels on chicken salt containers.


In the famous words of George Carlos: "I got this!"

Kosher-Parve have clearly overlooked the implications derived from anthropic principle and quantum physics by developing and marketing a product with such severe implications for the continuation of the universe.

With so very much of the earth biosphere already tasting like chicken, we must explore the ramifications (and inherent dangers) of making a chicken taste that makes non-chicken taste like chicken when applied to actual chicken.

Clearly anthropic principle has already made itself known as self-evident by such a tasty and succulent bird being duplicated time and again throughout evolution. The desires of sapient life to observe (and roast, fry, bar-b-que, broil, flamb" or otherwise prepare) this otherwise seemingly unimportant member of our ecology has already lead to a profound affect on evolution. Should a seasoning actually achieve, let alone surpass, the appeal of this savory avian then the universe would be forced to adjust at the quantum level.

Suddenly all of the sapient observers in the universe (or at least within our observational frame: the solar system) would desire that all things previously tasting like chicken begin to taste like Jada Chicken Salt (tm). This would lead to biological and physiological changes to the evolution of many species and, quite possibly, the collapse of entire ecological systems as the rules of chemistry and biology become stressed the limits of newtonian law.

I do, however, think that these dangers pale in comparison to the real danger: that of an even more chicken chicken. What happens when people realize that real chicken can suddenly taste even more finger-lickin'-good!?

Suddenly sapient minds, following the dissemination of data along the established principle of 6DS (six degrees of separation) would begin twisting the universe into reinforcing perception of more A than A. Once the anthropic universe begins along that pathway, things will proceed quickly. As sapient life beings noticing that chickens have become more chicken, they will extend the principle to things like happy being more happy and fun being more fun. On and on it will go, unfortunately for a very brief (one should say almost imperceptible) span of time. To our knowledge the universe has no self-correction mechanism for this phenomenon and as everything becomes more of itself, so will the physics of the observable universe.

The causative wave will only leave earth at the speed of light, but as the increase goes out, gravity will also increase and within only moments of the anthropic chicken singularity becoming realized the earth will go through something similar in appearance, to any outside observers, as a super-nova. Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational bonds would all increase at once, creating a shockwave followed quickly by quantum collapse.

The only thing left would be a bose-einstein chickensalt condensate capable of nothing save glacially slow self-perpetuating question of "why did the chicken-salt salt the chicken-salt chicken?"
Debate Round No. 1


Chicken salt, not to be confused with seasoned salt, contains salt, chicken extracts, herbs and spices, and sometimes msg. It is only called chicken salt in Australia and New Zealand. Besides these facts, it is yummy, and probably tastes better than real chicken. Because it is so yummy, I don't think anyone has ever dared to put it on chicken for fear that it will overpwer the taste of the chicken, thus rendering the chicken as a regretted purchase. The myth of the world imploding because of chicken salt meeting chicken is just that - a myth. This myth is most certainly borne from man's fear of ruining his cooked chicken dinner with a flavor that is greater than the meal. I think if one is to put chicken salt on chicken, the only thing that would result would be a set of confused taste buds, however, nobody wants to be responsible for the end of the world, and this is why to this day, nobody has ever put chicken salt on chicken. The only person other than me who has ever been brave enough to even mention the idea is the comedian Carl Barron. This shows how strong fear brought on by myth has controlled our society and its eating habits. Fear breeds myth and myth in turn perpetuates fear. The real danger of chicken salt is the msg component. Perhaps this myth is being used in a conspiracy invented by the chicken salt companies to distract consumers from the real threat. By restricting the use of chicken salt to non-chicken foods only, they are cleverly promoting its use on all other foods without actually saying so. A similar thing happens with tobacco. By restricting it to 18 and above only, one feels compelled to smoke once they turn 18. Chicken salt and tobacco have a lot in common. This is why the chicken salt on chicken myth needs arguing. We must reveal the truth wherever the chance presents itself.


where the hell was the humor in what you wrote!?

This is humorous debate, not serious. I'm not researching the product to debate things like 'contains salt, chicken extracts,' which I already knew because I had to look up what the this stuff was in the first place. I had to do that in order to make up some silly crap for the fun of seeing how many logical fallacies I could mix with pseudo-science in one argument and still have it coming off sounding rational.

See, to me that's fun. I figured it would be humorous. But you come back actually sounding more like you're promoting the product than making the debate a silly argument about a silly theory.

I concede. You win. i'm convinced. I'm not going to implode the universe because I'm not ever going to try this vegan salt. I tend to cook chicken like a pro, and I'm not going to wreck anything like Chicken Marsala with some vegan seasoning. Find someone else to market to.
Debate Round No. 2


I couldn't find the humor in your argument. I thought you were serious, that's why I made my argument more funny. I was not trying to promote any product, in fact if anything I said that chicken salt is bad because it has msg in it.

I didn't know this was a contest about who is funnier, but if it is then I think I'm funnier.


such salty

much wow
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SkyLeach 2 years ago
I should have checked my typing

I left out a couple of words when editing my response.

Change this:

... ' which I already knew because I ...

to this:

... ' which I already knew was BS because I ...

Chicken salt doesn't have chicken extract.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Here Pro took an otherwise impossible topic and argued for it most well. Because the instigator, Con, made a debate and gave his opponent an otherwise impossible challenge Pro automatically get's conduct points. However Pro proceeded to "concede" the debate. On to the main arguments! Pro clearly and swiftly shows his knowledge and skill in debating very early on in Round 1. Before I break down the arguments I would first like to add another point. One of the main secondary reasons I gave Pro arguments was his structure. He broke down his arguments into well organized and simple paragraphs that made reading much simpler compared to Con's wall of text. Now looking at Pro's arguments he clearly demonstrates thorough knowledge of quantum physics and spiritual deities the earth would implode. Con however goes into the ingredients rather than rebutting Pro's arguments.