The Instigator
Moistcabbage
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

walrus need tusk protectors

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 3 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,970 times Debate No: 9558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Moistcabbage

Pro

cumquats are too rediculous to eat
XStrikeX

Con

Um, I think the audience should ignore that first part of your argument. I'll start with my own points, seeing as there is nothing to currently refute. I am for the opposition saying that "Walrus do not need tusk protectors."

Contentions

1. There is no such thing as a tusk protector. So walruses can't have them if they don't exist, right?

2. No walrus will let you get near it, even if a tusk protector existed. And how would you suggest how to place a tusk protector on a walrus tusk in the first place?

3. Ruins the idea of "survival of the fittest." If a walrus is somehow helped by us and given a tusk protector, won't that just mean he wasn't meant to survive in the first place? On nature shows, you can sometimes see an animal suffer and starve. But we don't interfere because it is the law of nature.

4. A tusk protector would ruin the sharpness of a walrus tusk. If it was made of metal, it would be too heavy for the walrus. If it was made of plastic, the sharpness would not be retained and the tusk could only be used to lightly poke something. And if it was wood, then all you would get are splinters.

For these reasons, walruses do not need tusk protectors.
Debate Round No. 1
Moistcabbage

Pro

View video when prompted.

Warning: do not ignore the first part of my arguement!

1) Obviously there is no such thing as tusk protectors or we wouldn't need to have this debate.

2) "No walrus will let you near it" ( please view video now before reading further ) Need I say more?

3) "survival of the fittest". You are refering to natural selection I asume. Humans have been interfering with that for centuries with the introduction of vetrinary care. Point is mute.

4) A tusk is not very sharp, and they only dull further with age. A tusk protector could be made from titanium,this would be very light and strong. And the tip could be shaped like a natural tusk. Or sharpened to a point, made very blunt, or even serraded for that matter. A female walrus ( cow ) averages 900-1100 pounds, a male ( bull ) 1600-1800 pounds, even if the protectors were made from lead ( or depleted uranium ) a creature of this mass would not have a problem with their weight.
XStrikeX

Con

First of all, the idea of putting a protector on a walrus tusk is extremely ridiculous.

Uh, the walrus shown in your video is a domesticated one...
And we certainly can't domesticate all walruses now can we?

About natural selection... Yes, we have been "interfering" with natural selection with veterinary care, but this rebuttal is mute. We have veterinarians for cats and dogs, domesticated animals, not wild ones like lions or wolves.

We should not be baby-sitters for these walruses and if they are to ruin their tusks, we should nothing to them and see what lies in their fate.

By protecting too many walruses, there can be extinction between animals like clams and some like seals.
To end, let me just ask you, why do walruses need tusk protectors? Is it to save them? Because they're not really endangered. Those that are endangered are because of hunters, not lack of food.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Moistcabbage

Pro

No we can't domesticate all walruses, but it is easy and painless to tranqualize the ones that are in a bad mood because their neoghbors dog keeps deficating on it's lawn.

There are thousands of "wild animals treated for injury all over the world, every year by lisenced vetranarians who donate their time and skill simply because they love animals.

Walruses certainly do get on just cine without babysitting, but protectors could help prevent painful and embarrasing tusk breakage.

Walruses use their tusks mainly when competing for a mate. Not to hunt seals or... Wait.... Yes I read it correctly, clams. Um... Clams, I'll have to double check but I don't think walruses spend much time piercing clams.

And finally the question of why. The reason for these protectors is to stop walruses from impregnating our helpless neighborhood giraffes. This is horrible and simply must stop! Theese mischiefous heathens will have to find their fun elsewhere.
XStrikeX

Con

Your last reason isn't even a valid one and is completely ridiculous. It should be completely ignored. And still leaves the question, "Why do walruses need tusk protectors?"

"Walruses certainly do get on just fine without babysitting..." So if they're fine, then we don't need to babysit and give them tusk protectors, correct?

My opponent has said that walruses use theirs tusks to compete for a mate. But putting a tusk protector on a tusk could totally change the way a female views a male. A NATURAL tusk encourages mating, not an artificial one. And even if the walrus population was going extinct because of broken tusks, it is not because of mating but because of hunters and they need to be stopped.

Pro has made very weak arguments and for these reasons, walruses do not need tusk protectors.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
Agreed
Posted by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
A very intellectual debate.
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
What do you mean?
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
cabbage, your always commenting on our debates like a movie critic, now you make the armpit of all debates
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
I hope a walrus eats your unborn children.
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
Aretheusa668, we both had bad conduct and grammar. And only I used any sources of information.
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
Well that's what Jimmy gets for saying they don't need tusk protectors.
Posted by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
Walruses kill 2.5 people a year. Jimmy didn't die, but he was never quite the same...
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Sorry, then.
Posted by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
The way you typed it would connect hunters to tusk breakage. Not hunters to walrus extinction.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by debateboy 6 years ago
debateboy
MoistcabbageXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by arethusa668 6 years ago
arethusa668
MoistcabbageXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Moistcabbage 6 years ago
Moistcabbage
MoistcabbageXStrikeXTied
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