The Instigator
erinrauh44
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
nate_hartmann
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

nate a weeaboo

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...
nate_hartmann
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 252 times Debate No: 90075
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

erinrauh44

Pro

ur a weeaboo
nate_hartmann

Con

No... I would know if I am a weeaboo or not... You do not have the evidence to support it. yes i do like things that are associated with Japan, but I like things associated with other countries too. I like Mexican food, does that make me a Mexico-afile? NO! That is a very harsh generalization to just assume things based on likes. I like food, does that make me a food-afile? No.
Debate Round No. 1
erinrauh44

Pro

you personally told me u were a weeaboo so fight me irl
nate_hartmann

Con

So? People change. Just deal with me and my likes and dislikes.
Debate Round No. 2
erinrauh44

Pro

so that means ur a furry now
nate_hartmann

Con

A. I am not disgusting.
B. I do not have obsessions over animals.
C. Why would I be a furry?
D. I'm not a furry or a weeaboo.

Thank you and goodbye!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 10 months ago
famousdebater
erinrauh44nate_hartmannTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the sole BOP to prove that Con was a weeaboo. Pro provided no arguments in support of this premise and failed to define any key terminology. Given that Pro had the sole BOP and failed to defend this, this is an instant Con victory. Con also provided arguments to defend the premise meaning that there was virtually no chance of Pro winning or meeting his BOP.