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

should light bulbs scream at my bald head?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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: 9/30/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 80358
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




my lightbulb screamed at my bald head when i farted


Light Bulb - a glass bulb inserted into a lamp or a socket in a ceiling, which provides light by passing an electric current through a filament or a pocket of inert gas.

A lightbulb is not capable of screaming as clearly stated in this definition. You have also failed to proivde any reason as to why I should believe that you have a bald head.

My opponent has provided no sources and has used poor spelling and grammar (failure to capitalize 'I').

The BoP is on Pro.


Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had appropriate conduct in this debate. S&G - Con. Pro failed to capitalize properly in R1. Arguments - Con. Pro instigated a debate that had a resolution in the form of a question. By taking the Pro position, he had to support the motion that light builds should scream at his bald head. Instead of doing so, he merely presented a claim that his "lightbulb screamed at my bald head when I farted". Clearly this is a troll debate in his mind, but by failing to support his position he gives me nothing to work with as a judge in the argument department. As it stands, for Con to win all he need do is present a coherent and reasoned argument supporting his position. Con did just that. After defining the key term in the resolution Con proceeded to utilize that definition to prove that lightbulbs can't scream, effectively winning arguments. He then also pointed out how Pro lacked any reasoning. Sources - Tie. Pro used no sources and Con's only source was a definition.