Instigator / Con
Points: 28

BLARGGH - Should this be allowed?

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
420
Required rating
69
Contender / Pro
Points: 42
Description
BLARGGH is a very dangerous substance for public health. Dr Anthony Fauci has said BLARGGH is the number one leading cause of death in the US. BLARGGH is involved in norad and haarp machines. BLARGGH is almost as bad as black beans which supply 85% of the protein in BLARGGH. The question: should blarggh be allowed?
What is BLARGGH? - it’s up to you
BoP - shared because BLARGGH
This is an actual debate. I’m supplying a few prompts for the contender to build off of. I thought it would be fun having an argument about something we know nothing about. I might do this in the future with a rated debate.
Round 1
Published:
Blarrgh is very dangerous for public health. Blarrgh can cause stomach irritation and heart disease but that’s not the worst part. It can also cause a fatal addiction to mayonaise. Blarggh infiltrates it’s victim’s skin through their Microsoft support mechanism. This is why blarggh should not be allowed. Just think about one of your family members dying from mayonaise. All because of blarggh, which we could prevent.
Published:
Blarrgh has shown amazing effects when curing diseases such as LARGH and ZARGH. I believe that some of it's nastier side effects is worth it as LARGH has a 100% death rate without Blarrgh. My opponent may bring up uterrly false facts such as addiction to mayonaise, but BLARRGH also supplies Apple, Google, and even the US Government with several technologies. Yes, families may die, but many more millions more suffer from LARGH. Thank you.
Round 2
Published:
Ah hah, and that is your own demise. Because so many people have been exposed to BLARGGH, they have not realized it contains a nasty chemical that in fact causes LARGH and ZARGH, which then forces people to take more BLARGGH, which makes a looping supply chain. In fact, bill gates says that there is only one disease, which is in fact called BLEP. BLEP is treatable with BLIP, so why legalize BLARGGH?
Published:
See you have shot your one foot, I'm afraid my friend. BLEP is treatable with BLIP. Yes, yes, I agree. But, what is BLIP made of?

Correct, none other than BLARGGH.

As to your other points about the chemicals that contain both LARGH and ZARGH. Well, that is curable with BLIP, which needs BLARGGH in the first place. I have proved that BLARGGH is crucial in the supply chain of the earth as well as beyond. This is because, rockets made by SpaceX use BLARGGH, and as I stated, so does Apple and Google.
Thank you.
Round 3
Published:
Please tell me why the Taiwanese company that makes BLIP would collaborate with the Chinese company that makes BLARGGH. It makes absolutely no sense. China is trying to get you to believe this. Support Taiwan, like you said in your other debate! If we legalize BLARGGH, China will make 5G towers out of it and then there will actually be side effects of 5G. China wants to make this all muddled in a web of conspiracy.
Published:
The Chinese Government wants you to believe that in the first place. Both companies are located in Taiwan. The one that makes BLARRGH and BLIP. BLARRGH is amazing, and the Chinese government wants it.. The Chinese government said that the BLARRGH company is located in China to get more leverage on the world overall, and the company that makes BLARRGH is too scared to act. As to the 5G points, BLARRGH has shown no signs of being able to build 5G towers; China is trying to reverse engineer it. Thank you

Round 4
Published:
BLARGGH laid in the sun for two weeks becomes harder than steel.
That is science.
I want you to refute that.
Published:
See my friend, I can easily refute that. 

BLARRGH is the sun. According to totallynotavirus.xyz BLARRGH makes up the sun. BLARRGH IS the Sun. All stars have BLARRGH. We are here because of BLARRGH. The little singularity that started the universe was BLARRGH. God is BLARRGH. That, is science. That is the truth. This small blue planet was brought to you by BLARRGH. Thank you.
Round 5
Published:
totallynotavirus.xyz is a far-right website funded by the Chinese government to make you think BLARGGH is good. I’m telling you, if BLARGGH is legalized, China will BAN Bart Simpson, which is a violation of free speech. BLARGGH enters the body through the nose and infiltrates the brain stem where it modifies the information coming from nerves in the limbs. If 5G towers are made of that stuff, we’ll be mind controlled.

Published:
But not just totallynotavirus.xyz says this. Many other news sources including defitnleycentrist.com and communism.orgyz say the same thing. 

Who cares about 5G towers, when we are here because of BLARRGH. Your phone is made of BLARRGH. Everything is BLARRGH. We are BLARRGH. BLARRGH is essential. Bart Simpson is the creator of BLARRGH.
Added:
***
This is a comedy debate, so generally not moderated.
-Ragnar, DM
***
#16
Added:
--> @nmvarco
I don't know if you are playing dumb or you are mocking me, but what you are saying is essentially 2x2= -4.
#15
Added:
--> @User_2006
“Grown adults”
This is a double positive, which means that both myself and Crocodile are children.
Instigator
#14
Added:
I need to offer the obvious K to the topic: BLARRGH should not be allowed, it should be simultaneously mandatory and banned.
#13
Added:
--> @nmvarco
"You don’t know nothing."
Because that is a double negative, it means I know something, which is truism consider if I know nothing, I won't even be writing this comment because I don't know how to operate a computer nor use English if so.
#12
Added:
--> @nmvarco
Could you vote on this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2012/the-most-important-use-for-intercourse-is-procreation-and-reproduction
THANKS
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @User_2006
You don’t know nothing.
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com, @Ragnar
BLARRGH is the key to the universe.
Please add BLARRGHISM to the list of religons.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Crocodile, @nmvarco
But studies about BLARGGH are still coming out. We voters need more than six months to analizie it properly!
#8
Added:
OK. we just witnessed two grown adults making something that could have minor negative effects on our health, to something essential for humanity, to something detrimental to humanity, bla bla bla.
#7
Added:
What is Blarggh? I am confused. Is this some type of technology that China needs?
#6
Added:
--> @Crocodile
;–(
Y u gotta do me like dis bruh??
#5
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Ha I got it first
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @nmvarco
420? That is barely enough for a single paragraph!
#3
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Ok.
Instigator
#2
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I feel like pro kept con on his feet more than con could refute
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments:
Pro got the last word. Therefore, the argument point goes to Pro.
Sources:
Con successfully countered Pro's use of totallynotavirus.xyz, arguing that it is Chinese Government Propaganda. Pro fails to counter this point, thus rendering this source void. However, Con did not counter the other sources that Pro used (definitelycentrist.com and communism.orgyz). For this, the sources point goes to Pro.
S&G:
It is common knowledge that BLARGGH is an acronym, and thus it should be capitalized. Pro wrote it once as "Blarggh", while Con wrote it as "blarggh". While Pro's spelling blunder is bad, Con's is worse. Thus, S&G goes to Pro.
Conduct:
"Support Taiwan, like you said in your other debate!"
Here, Con referenced something in another one of Pro's debates. This is cross-debate contamination, which is an egregious conduct violation. Conduct point to Pro.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Pro managed to keep Con on the defensive after round 1. As a result, Con spent more of the debate in rebuttal than in positive argument.
Sources: No sources from either side, except one* which will be discussed under Conduct.
S&G tie
Conduct: Con referred to a previous debate by Pro; not good conduct and a worse source.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments are just confusing jokes. No sources. S&G good on both sides. No forfeitures, thus equal conduct.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: None of the arguments made sense.
Sources: No sources
S&G: Both sides presentable
Conduct: Tie
This is most likely not moderated because it is naught excluding nonsense.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This debate was quite entertaining, but it is clear the debate was merely satire, as a result I am uncomfortable assigning the arguments point. Both sides had good conduct so that will also be a tie.