The Instigator
GhostWriter
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Koopin
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

pandemic!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,851 times Debate No: 11402
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (7)

 

GhostWriter

Pro

This is it! The end of the world has finally come! Sweet chaos and disaster at the hands of two intelligent creators will.

I choose Koopin to be my partner in crime in our newst plot: Destroying the world!

This debate is meant to be humerous.
The purpose of this debate is for each debater to make a theory of the things that would cause world wide pandemic. If koopin accepts this debate, then we will each start the round with three theories of what could cause wide-spread pandemic and disaster world-wide. We will each take turns in explaining about why our theory would be correct, then will move on to dis-proving why are opponents would be in-plausible.

For example:
Debater one-
1. If everyone was transformed into chickens the world would be incapable of being able to take care of itself.
2. If every person was forced to listen to enigma, their brains would explode.
3. The world would end and pandemic would arise if man kind were to burn a hole in the atmostphere.

Debater two-
(states there three theories then move on to negating their opponents)
1. This would not cause pandemic because chickens are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

2. Enigma would actually cause world peace thus mute point!

3. We have enough scientific material to fix up or patch any hole made in the atmosphere.

This debate is meant to be taken light heartedly, and to have fun with.

Koopin if you do decide to accept this challenge, this debate will start in round two.

Let our plotting begin, my fellow evil mastermind!
Koopin

Con

I accept your challenge!!!
Debate Round No. 1
GhostWriter

Pro

Now that my partner in crime has accepted this challenge, LET OUR PLOTTING BEGIN!

1. My first theory of what would cause incensessant is if animals were allowed to walk freely among citizens and ownership of them was never permissable and considered slavery, the world would be in utter pandemic.

This is true because human kind could never live peacefully among animals.
Humans are more intelligent beings, who have the ability to control themselves, and have the ability of making logical intelligent choices, which animals do not have. All mammals generally need to eat meat to survive. Before humankind became sophisticated, we would have to savagely hunt for our food. Thankfully now that the years have progressed, humans have found much more efficient and less violent and socially inattractive ways of getting meals.
However, most animals do not have this ability. This argument is aimed mainly for the animals who must eat other mammals to survive. Let's take for example a Lion. A lion is going to be in no way able to control it's survival instinct when it get's hungry. It's first goal is going to be finding and eating meat. Now allowing lion's to roam free among humans, would put alot of meat on the table for them. This is very bad, and would undoudbtebly lead to nation wide pandemic.

2. My second theory of pandemic is if every human being broke their nose at exactly the same moment in time.

This would lead to wide-spread disaster for many reasons.
(1.) Where is the person going to go to? All the doctors and nurses have broken noses they have to care for, let alone some patients broken nose.

(2.) Everyone would be bleeding everywhere! There are so many viruses and diseases in peoples blood, that having them all unleashed at the same time would open up aids and milaria big time for people all over the world.

(3.) What about all the babies and the grandparents? For some of the frail people, a broken nose could prove to be fatal! Not good stuff.

These would all lead to worldwide pandemic as well.

3. And my third theory is that the world would become incapable of taking care of itself if all the worlds smart people were abducted, and would lead to pandemic.

Smart people are the ones who lead and rule our lives and keep this in control and order. If we had all our most brilliant people abducted by aliens, we would no longer be able to take care of ourselves.

The smart people are who run and manufacture clothing, distribute food, and who keep law and order.
Without all these things we would not be here today!

After we use up all of our resources pandemic would arise and we would be forced to go back in to the caveman era!

These theories are all devastating, however if true would cause sweet pandemic.

I will now allow my foe, to have the table to lay down his evil plots to see how they compare to the vast destruction mine suggest.

Thankyou Koopin for accepting this debate, and good luck.

-Ghostwriter.
Koopin

Con

I thank my evil foe for posting her argument.

First I will Post why her pandemics are implausible.

1. So, you claim that if all animals were aloud to walk freely with humans and humans could not own animals it would cause a pandemic. This is not true. Bears, lions, Wolves, and other meat eaters are already allowed to walk with humans, but the reason they do not is because they know that humans are at the top of the food chain. Humans, like you said, are capable of forming logical thought. We have strategy in the art of death, and we have weapons such as guns and flame throwers. No where in your argument did you say we could not hurt the animals. After discovering that there is no way to win, the animals would most likely retreat back to their own land to fight with fair game. On the subject of not owning animals, that would be fine to. We have many machines that can do their job. Although we could not eat meat, humans would greatly benefit from a vegan diet. Plants provide all the protein we need, we just have to get the right ones.

2. Your second theory of breaking our noses is clever, yet would not cause a pandemic. When you say "Broken nose" I assume you are saying "Broken nose bone." It is easy to fix a broken nose; many people do not even go to the doctor to get it done. Blood would not be a problem seeing that broken noses do not cause blood. What causes the blood is when a blood vessel is tampered with. So if someone punched me in the nose they would brake the nose bone and tamper with my blood vessel, causing it to bleed. If our noses automatically broke, there would be no blood. Usually, a broken nose would not kill anyone, even babies and the elderly. In the end, we would most likely just have crooked noses.

3. If smart people were abducted, it would not cause much chaos. You say that ‘smart people' are the people, who run and manufacture clothing, distribute food, and who keep law and order. This is definitely not true. In today's world, most of the smart people are the ones sitting in their offices drinking coffee ordering people to do the actual work. If the world went back into the Dark Age, it would not be the people who know what solipsism is who live, It would be the ones who know what needs to be done and how to do it. If you take a school teacher, then take a navy seal and put them in the woods, the navy seal would survive longer. Also, most evil leaders were smart, Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, ect….

Now I will post my Pandemics.

1. Somehow, all the water in the world intoxicates you twice as much as vodka, even if filtered, treated, of cleaned. The effects are irreversible. While many people would rejoice over this, the joy would only last for a little while. We would no longer be able to operate cars, go for walks on bridges, or make it to KFC before closing time. Many people would be out of jobs, therefore millions of people would not have money to buy food. Even if they could get food, how would they walk there? You can not drink 8 cups of vodka a day, but that is how much water one needs. Many people would get poisoning, some would throw up, cops could not stop anyone because they would be drunk to.

2. If everyone had their legs chopping of, it would be horrible. There definitively would be blood, and disease. Some people who can not get antibiotics would die. And even if they could get medicine, would not be able to walk again. Although some people could get a fake limb, many would not be able to even get a wheelchair. Millions would be dead, billions would be unable to walk, PANDEMIC!!!

3. If water turned into HIV infected blood, that is irreversible, even if filtered, cleaned, treated ect... This would be bad for obvious reasons. First of all, sea life would die. Many parts of the world get their food from the sea. Plants would also die, they need water to live. Humans would die, even if they could find a way not to drink the water, the air would be infected with HIV. Water is in everything, juice, crackers, candy, so blood would also be in everything.

I look forward to my Foe's response
Debate Round No. 2
GhostWriter

Pro

Thankyou Koopin, for the intriguing response.
I will begin my refuting my opponents criticism of my plots, before going on to his.

In response to my first plot of allowing animals to walk freely among humans, my opponent stated that the situation could be handled easily by fighting back with the animals using guns and other things. However that would suggest allowing all citizens to carry guns on them at all times (seeing as potentially any citizen is open to being attacked).
This would not be good, because if all citizens were permitted to carry their weapons on them constantly, they would take advantage of that and use them for personal greed and treachery as most humans with killing power choose to do when its legal. So this would re-circulate into itself creating anarchy and crime rate increases. You claim we could push the the animals back to their own lands with openly getting into a fight with them. However, there are still peaceful animals who would have to suffer the consequences. The animals would revolt seeing as only carnivores were being banned rather then the vegetarian animals.
Next you say that human kind would be better off not being able to eat meat, and would survive sufficiently off of just plants. However, this is not true. Every person, needs meat or animal fats and oils to stay perfectly functionals. Those vegans who claim they don't eat meat, have to get their protien source from somewhere. While some plants do provide proteins, it is not sufficient enough to sustain the human race itself. Not only that, but alot of people wouldn't take kindly to beinf forced to eat nothing but veggies. People would wordwide revolt against the situation, thus causing pandemic.

In response to my second plot, one thing was un-looked upob. When adressing many people suddenly breaking their noses, we forget about the pain factor. While, it is easy to fix, everyone simultaneously breaking their nose would feel the people with a sudden burst of pain. Now my opponent says that a broken nose does not always mean blood. However when these people's nose broke, who is to say that the fracture didn't puncture the blood vessel on its way? Seeing as this is the case with Pretty much all nose breaks, and blood is usually sure to follow. My opponent says a nose break would not kill elderly and babies. For babies, a nose break would prove fatal seeing as they rely on their noses while still in the growth stage to provide oxygen for them. A nose break at that young would prove to be un-repairable. In an elderly person it would depend more on the specific elderly. However alot of elderly have trouble breathing as well and rely on machines to help them with the process. A broken nose at that age would proabably near impossible to fix.

In response to my third plot you say that it is the smart people who just sit around in their offices and order lessers to do the work for them. Yes this is true. Because without the smart people, they would not know what to do or how to do their jobs. The smart people rule our world for a reason. Everyone else would have to start from scratch, not knowing how to handle the situation. Its progressism of the smaller society who have always worked for the upper class in all societies, seeing that it is human nature to rule and have power. Now with your navy seal compared to teacher part, a navy seal could just as easily be considered a smart person, seeing as the yare trained in the art of surviving and have all the know how on what their specific job in the branch is.

My opponents:

1. If water was intoxicated, things would actually be better! Lets look at the bright sides. People when drunk are more happy. They are less judgemental. They are more fun. They are able to feel less physical pain. These are all qualities that every human wishes they could posess! We wouldn't have to worry about offending people while being drunk because other would be just as drunk. We could rid ourselves of modern discrepencies, and live happily and freely without worrying about cars, working, family provisionals. It would seemingly take care of itself. We would be able to get food fine, because we could easily hunt and kill the animals who would be just as drunk off the intoxicated water, and they would be unaware of their surroundings. It doesn't take much to fire a gun, even when drunk. We as humans could provide for ourselves just fine while drunk. And for alot of people, getting drunk increases IQ and intelligence rates! Double win! We wouldn't even need cops, because everyone would be happy and drunk. Seeing as all water would be intoxicated, our bodies would adapt to the environment, and grow used to the constant drinking. It would adjust the immune system to be able to handle the intoxicated water as if it were our regular drinking habit.

2. Who needs legs? Without legs humans could focus on walking with their hands, or using wheel chairs. This would increase arm strength, and wouldn't limit us a whole lot at all. We could still race (thought they would be a bit slower), we could still have sexual fun, we could still play sports, we would just have to be more creative and use other body parts that are perfectly functional. We have enough technology to most likely prevent bllod and disease from spreading past a certain point, seeing as they major diseases have immunities in human bodies. We could easily protect ourselves in that sense.

3. If all water was turned to HIV infected blood, then humans would still be able to survive off of soda's and juices and other liquid substenances. We really do not need sea life, although they provide food for many people. While not being able to eat fish, peopel would still be able to survive sufficiently off of other things and other meats. And if it were a problem driven to the extreme, we could always use our advanced space technology to look for water on some other planet or solar system.

I would like to thank my foe for an interesting and fun response, and look forward to his next rebuttal.

GW
Koopin

Con

Okay, I will refuting my opponent's plots, and then defend mine.

1.For some reason you say that all civilians would need guns to fight back the animals, this also is not true. During a war, the army is the one who fight with the guns. Everyone's army would be to busy to fight with anyone else, therefore it would cause peace. We need to do whatever we can to stop all these wars that are happening. If the army could not handle some parts, the militia would help. We can not know truly if people would go crazy if everyone had a gun. But the FBI's crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. If everyone had a gun, people would be more afraid to rob people.
If the harmless animals revolt, that would be fine to. All we would do is take them and start eating them. Soon they would realize that they have a better chance away from the humans.
Here is a clip for "Freedomforanimals"

"Our intestines, like dogs, bears, and other omnivores, are much longer -- meant to allow foods such as fruits, vegetables, and grains to take their time moving through the system, so that all the nutrition can be absorbed. This long system is what makes meat and dairy so bad for us -- these items stay in the system too long, and we get all the fat and calories, plus we get all the hormones and antibiotics that have been fed to the animals we've eaten. We also don't have big fangs for tearing meat -- we have teeth meant for chewing grains, seeds, fruit, and vegetables."

The fact is that there are other alternatives to meat. People would not revolt because there would be no one to revolt against. If people wanted meat that bad, they could go and hunt.

2.Breaking ones nose would not be that bad of a pain factor. It would simply be one crack in the bone. Our body is built with an automatic number that would help us deal with the pain. It would almost be as painful as breaking a finger, which I have done. Many times, people don't even know that it broke.
You ask me who's to say that the bone did not tamper with the blood vessels. Who is to say they did? The bone is pretty far away from where the blood vessel is. It would take someone or something from the outside to break the vessel. But the bone alone could not do it if it simply broke.
If a nose bone broke in a baby or an elderly person, they would still be able to breathe. The bone has nothing to do with the oxygen. Even if their noses never straiten out, it would not cause a Pandemic.

3.Okay, so you said that the smart person could be the navy seal, since he is smart at something. Well in that case, everyone would be abducted by aliens, since everyone is smart in something. Babies are smart at being babies. Can you be a baby? Nope, only babies know the secret. Mentally ill people are usually the smartest, but their brains can't take it. A black person is smart in being black, a white person is smart in being white, a skinny man is smart at being skinny, and a fat man is smart at being fat. If all these people were abducted, they would most likely be treated well by the aliens. We automatically think that aliens are bad because of the science movies. But if aliens were smart enough to get to earth, they would be smart enough not to kill the humans, but rather take care of them.

===============================
DEFENSE
===============================
1. People are sometimes happier when they are drunk, but not always. You are wrong about their being no violence. View video 1, these people are drunk. You hear almost everyday how a fight started because these people were drunk. And they just had a few beers! Imagine 64 shots of vodka a day! And let us not forget the hangovers. There would be hangovers every day, which is not fun. People tend to get mean with their hangovers, and some people get sick. You say it does not take much to fire a gun, while this is true, it does take a lot to aim. People would be shooting other people. In order for our bodies to adapt to it, we would have to drink a lot for decades. We would not live past the first year! In the end, it would be a horrible Pandemic.

2.You suggest walking on our hands. Even if our hands could support us for that long, we would die of brain attacks. All the blood in our bodies would rush to our heads. So hands are out of the question.
You suggested wheelchairs, but like I said before, most people in other countries can not afford wheelchairs. Even if they could, they don't have smooth floors like they do in America or England. You also could not walk around and pick things up. How could we cook dinner? How could we load groceries?

3.Look on any juice or soda pack you like. Every single one will have water in it. Like I said before, water is in everything. Milk, Coke, Pepsi, pee, ect… So therefore everything would be infected. We do need the ocean, it provides us with water everywhere. The heat makes the water come up from the ocean and into the clouds. The clouds would be infected, therefore everyone would be.
We could not make it to other planets because of the lack of water. And ever if we did find water, that would be infected. I did not say all water on earth, I said all water.
I look forward to your next response.

Sources:
(1). http://www.csmonitor.com....
(2). http://www.freedomforanimals.org...
Debate Round No. 3
GhostWriter

Pro

I will start with my rebuttals of my points then move on to my opponents.

1. Earlier you say that civilians would not be able to use the guns. However, when enacting the ability to live peacefully among animals whose natural instinct does not allow them to, we must use force. Now we can't just automatically kick them out, because that would be against the law that says we may live among them in the first place! So that means we would have a constant military, (or a militia as you state) guarding the people. America's democracy would turn into a communistic plot! Next he says we could just eat the animals. However that would be against the peace treaty too! We would be going back to the old ways and nothing essentially would have changed.
People would go crazy because they cant eat the animals, and would have to be vegetarians! People would steal and break things and riot so they could have their pets and food! All pandemic!

Next you say if we wanted meat badly enough we could go hunt. However the activists who first started the law, would then revolt, and try to get back at the people who hunted! This would lead to a war within the country, and ultimately pandemic!

2. Of course breaking our noses would be a painful! How many times have you ever broken your nose and not felt pain? You say who is to say that the blood vessel did break. In this theory were going to assume that because it was part of the original plot that it happened, seeing as it was my pandemic factor. The bone is located next to the blood vessel and the tiny little blood sacs that are very open and vulnerable to the slightest things, such as too much heat or cold, or even too much force applied to it. All these would cause it to break.
And if the bone broke in a baby, they are still to young to have developed the proper ability to breathe through their mouth alone. It would be very difficult and near impossible for them to do so while eating, and nursing and other things.
As far as elderly people go, with their bones and oxygen levels the way they are most of the time, it would easily prove fatal for their frail bones to break, no matter how small. For an older person, life is more psychological, and when in a large amount of pain, they can often lose their thread of life. Not to mention if they were to get a heart attack.

3. Being smart is more about just knowing how to be you. Being smart means having intelligence enough to make logical and practical dicisions. Babies, obviously can't make intelligent decisions to save their lives when in hard situations. Next if the aliens abducted all these intellectual people, it wouldn't matter how bad or good they were to the humans. The point would remain that their in space and not on earth and the remaining people on earth would not be able to help themselves enough to maintain a sophisticated and working society. There would be constant riots, people fighting for food, starving children, gangs would evolve in the fight for dominant power, slums would arise, and general chaos would be enact. We would go back into the era of desperation, AKA Pandemic!

MY OPPONENTS PANDEMICS

1. Now considering violence, most of the time when it occurs, one party is not drunk, fighting some one who is drunk. If everyone was drunk we wouldn't likely come across this situation. Also when people do get into drunken fights, alot of times the become friends afterwards, and look at it as more of a bonding experience.
Next you talk about hangovers. There wouldn't be any hangovers because people would be constantly drinking the vodka adapted water to survive, thus the drinken binge would refuse to cease. And when it comes to shooting, I'm sure even a drunk person would be able to make sure they were in the woods where nobody is around before they make the decision to hunt. And like I said earlier, hunting would be easy because the animals would be jsut as drunk if not more drunk, from the excessive amounts of water they drink. Our bodies would not need times to adapt either seeing as it would be a constant ongoing thing where the drinking did not stop. It would be jsut like drinking orange juice the rest of your life and learning to have your body adapt to it as well, which has happened in the past. Who is to say that the same wouldn't happen with intoxicated water?

2. You make it sounds impossible for people to do anything with just hands, however that is untrue. Look at the video I have made, and you will find that if people are determined enough they can do anything with what they have.

Not only that but you'll also see that people with neither arms NOR legs can function just fine and provide for themselves just fine, so legs really aren't all that needed.

You say that all the blood in our bodies would rush to our heads but that is untrue. It's not like we would have to eb upside down or anything. Without legs our hands could extend below the torso acting as legs allowing us to push our selves forward. We could easily load groceries and cook dinner. With our hands!

3. Assuming all water is infected no matter what, and everyone must drink water to survive, it would be more probable that humanity developed an immunity to HIV. This goes along with the first point, everyones body would adapt so that it could survive is such times of desolation in order to protect itself.
There are currently hundreds of people in africa who are open to HIV everyday, that have adpated immunities to t he disease. The more you are around something, the more you can develop immunities towards it. You see what you body does is, it creates white blood cells that work to try and detroy a disease. When some one instantly get the disease, the body cannot work fast enough to produce enough white bloodcells to destroy the disease. However when you are in the environment where its a human nessecity, your body slowly produced more and more WBC's which slowly bite off HIV or any other disease. Then what your body does is memorize the process and create WBC's that are strong enough to attack and kill the disease the instant it is detected. AKA immunity.

Sources:
(1). Youtube.
(2). http://www.wikipedia.com...
Koopin

Con

I will be refuting then defending.

1. Nowhere in my argument did I say that citizens would not be able to use guns, but I suggested the Army instead. Please explain why America would turn into a communistic plot. You can not claim something without explaining how it would happen. In the previous argument I explained how to would benefit the world greatly by forcing everyone to disarm and fight the animals instead of the people.
Nowhere in your law did you say that we could not eat the animals. So it would not be going against your peace treaty. Therefore we could still hunt, and the people who put the law into play would not have anything to complain about.

2. I did not say that a breaking of the nose would not be painful; I was simply saying that it would be a very minimum amount of pain. I stated the reason why above.
Okay, you want to assume that the noses would bleed because it is the original plot. Well, I will accept your idea, although it was not in the title of your plot. You said that there would be a pandemic if everyone's noses broke. Okay, if everyone's nose broke and blood came out, it would not be that bad. A little blood would come out, but our noses automatically clot to stop the bleeding. A nose bleed can heal itself within a few minutes. Not everyone would get HIV since the blood would be so minimal.
A baby CAN breathe through there mouth, babies are not stupid. And if a nose broke, it would not stop them from breathing. A nose break does not make someone not be able to breathe.
Elderly people are less susceptible to pain, so they would feel the break even less. Therefore they would not have a heart attack, which is very extreme.

3. You said,
"Being smart means having intelligence enough to make logical and practical decisions"
There are many definitions of smart, but to be kind I will accept your definition of "smart." Although I accept your definition, everyone is still smart. Babies still know that they need to nurse. It is a ‘logical and practical decision.' People know that they need to drink, that also is a ‘logical and practical decisions.' Therefore, everyone would still be abducted.
=====================
DEFENSE
===================
1.You say that most of the time it is one party who is drunk fighting another party who is not drunk, where are these fact? You also say that most people become friends after these fights, where are your facts about that? Hollywood movies usually depict what you speak of, but not real life. Being drunk makes people lose their good judgment. This is why so many people do stupid things like fight with each other. View the videos of the fights, both people in these fights are dunk. We can all think of people with temper problems, can you imagine these people drunk? People do have hangovers, even if they continue drinking. It is when your body can not take it anymore. Also, if you drink water during a hangover it is even worse for you. The hangovers would be never ending. A mildly drunk person may be able to know that there in the woods, but a person who drank two cups of vodka probably wouldn't even know if they are on plant earth. There is no way they would even be able to hunt. Also, who would make the bullets? We have a few, but they would run out in about month. No one would be able to make the guns or even sell them. Like I said before, it would take years and years to adapt to the alcohol. Some people drink vodka everyday and are still get sick and drunk. Orange juice is different than Vodka. And our bodies do not really ‘adapt' to the drink. It simply takes what it needs from it.

2.I have viewed your video, and like I have said for the past two arguments, some people would not be able to get a wheelchair or, pegs, or the stuff they have. They also both got surgeries to help them function like they did. Many people can not even afford shoes! Even though those people can do somethings, they can only do it because other people make the things for them. The man with no arms can not make clothes. If everyone walked on their hands, they could not do things like cook dinner. We can not assume that everyone will have things made for them. We can not walk on our hands and carry groceries at the same time. In the end, there would be panic, and pandemic. Also, if everyone's legs were chopped of, there would be mass blood loss. Some people can not lose that much blood. It would be different if it was something like a nose bleed, but a leg bleed would be detrimental.

3.Like I said in my first point, it takes years and years to adapt to something. Let me ask you this, if our bodies can adapt to HIV as fast as you say they can, how come HIV never leaves peoples bodies? Same thing with other STDs, they never leave. There is no one in Africa that have adapted to the HIV virus, they all must stay away from it as much as possible. Our bodies do produce white blood cells to protect us, but not to certain things such as HIV's. Something else that you must realize is that we would all die within three days. Our bodies need water to survive; we could not live off of blood. And our bodies could not adapt to it in three days. Once everyone realize that they are all going to die, there would be chaos all over the world.

I look forward to your last response.
Debate Round No. 4
GhostWriter

Pro

I would once again like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate. It has been fun and enjoyable. Funny situation. My computers internet has been shut down and wont be up again til friday. I am writing this off my phone, which so inconceinently logs me out literally every five seconds. Also my phone doesnt have the capability of showing previous arguments. In other words i have absolutely no idea what my partner has said in the last round. Once my computer is up i can post a proper argument, hopefully not too late. I may either post my response in a seperate challenge or in the comments section depending on what koopin chooses. Thankyou again! Ghost writer
Koopin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I think we both left on good terms, 4 rounds is enough.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
very fun debate to read! IMO It was pretty evenly matched until the last round when Koopin laid it down hard. GW's no response dis-appointed me. However you guys both did great. Congrats
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
very fun debate to read! IMO It was pretty evenly matched until the last round when Koopin laid it down hard. GW's no response dis-appointed me. However you guys both did great. Congrats
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
Cool we should do more silly debates like this if you ever find the time
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
It is fine, I'm real busy anyway.
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
same with your water to intoxication one. Sorry I was not able to post my last round. I feel really bad seeing as I was the one who started it!
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Thank you. You were quite clever with the nose pandemic.
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
Really good debate Koopin. Great arguments!
I was very impressed with your debating
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Thank you Teleroboxer for your...Vote.
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
Lol no its just where i got the info. better than loading it with like 5 different links.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Yikes. Supports *her*.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Firejack 7 years ago
Firejack
GhostWriterKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
GhostWriterKoopinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00