The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

shold guns be filled with marshmallows

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  
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: 9/14/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 79711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




guns are too dangerous with bullets but marshmallows will make them safer.


While marshmallows will make guns less potent, it is undoubtable that guns themselves will become much harder to use if they filled marshmallows.

By the time someone ate their way into the marshmallows to reach the guns, they'd be too full/fat to efficiently kill the target who had all that time to run away.

I conclude that it is not guns that should be filled with marshmallows but mashmallows that should be filled with guns.
Debate Round No. 1


Dear "Tough'

When I stated that guns should be filled with marshmallows I was saying this with the intent that guns would be less dangerous to a human filled with marshmallows. If we put a significant amount of money into producing these weapons filled with marshmallows the reload time will be considerably fast.



A human filled with marshmallows is dead since what happened to their bones and flesh? How can such a being be dangerous?

Pro has yet to provide any sufficient reasoning as to why we should be filling guns with marshmallows when the far better solution is to fill marshmallows with guns.
Debate Round No. 2


Dear tough

Look if marshmallows were to be replaced with bullets and people started to eat the marshmallows while being shot at they wouldn't keep eating until they get obese and die or have a stroke or explode its physically impossible to keep eating marshmallows until you die. Maybe after like 50 marshmallows ypud probably feel sick and full and throw up. But what I meant by there beingarahmallows in guns was to replace the bullets so there would be no pointless deaths like in war or by some kid finding a gun in there parents draw or cupboard and accidentally shooting there siblings and killing them which actually happened to someone in America. In conclusion if marshmallows were to replace bullets than the world be a much safer place.


That's a ridiculous proposition and people would just make harder and better marshmallows to compensate.

The faster the acceleration of something (m*s^-2) the larger its weight/force (kg*m*s^-2) [] hence Newton's second law is that the force applied in one direction is proportional to the speed moved in that direction. []

If you shot a marshmallow as fast as you did a bullet, as seen with pellets or paintball ammunition, it actually can severely damage and cause pain as well as bruising to the victim. Aimed at the eye it can blind and aimed at the testicles it can castrate.

Aside from this, the resolution doesn't ask if filling guns with marshmallows is a valid idea in itself but rather if it shouldd be done. This leads to the point that since protecting all guns by hiding them within marshmallows is a far more efficient way to slow down access to guns and increase time for the victim/target to escape in time for the full/obese individual to catch them with the gun.

Pro failed to address this and hence loses.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Sources, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Con had more logic to back up their logic. They made sense, and really backed up their opinion. Pro didn't have much of a case, and didn't seem to be as prepared. Con was just more clear in their statements, and backed everything up.

[*Reason for removal*] While S&G may be justified, the voter has to do more than just state that one side had sources while the other didn't. The voter must explain how the sources enhanced Con's argument, and not simply assume that their presence is worthy of the point allocation.
Posted by Sarra 2 years ago
This argument felt like a kritik.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con used sources to show that marshmallows in guns can still be dangerous and that the other way around would be safer