Ducks are the most dangerous animal
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
Spelling and grammar points
With 8 votes and 35 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 20 / 5,000
Ducks are dangerous
Ducks enslave people to feed them bread Wich humans are the second most dangerous animal
Thanks to my opponent Jboy3r for such an interesting topic. I do realize what I have written is short but the context of the situation and the topic is very vague. My argument and rebuttals follow.
Ducks are not inherently dangerous. They will only bite you if they are brooding or have been attacked recently . Plus, they do not even have teeth. If anything, we are the ones making their lives dangerous. We are the ones destroying their habitat  and mistreating them in factories . Pro’s argument simply makes no sense and is hard to understand.
Pro simply says that ducks have somehow enslaved us and forced us to eat bread. Ducks do not have that kind of technology or capability to do that. This is a assertion, and not based on any sort of facts. I have been to places where ducks live, and never have I been forced to give them bread or felt a compelling urge to give them bread or any other sort of food. Pro then states that humans are the second most dangerous animal. Again, this is not backed up by any sort of fact or source or even theory.
But ducks don’t have to be smart to be dangerous. Sum ducks are poisonous and have pointed bills and are pritty spoopy if I do say myself sometimes They attack me at random times if that isn’t dangerous I don’t know what is.
Con concedes that ducks are not smart and that they cannot have enslaved us to force us to feed them bread. Con follows by saying:
Sum ducks are poisonous and have pointed bills
The only duck ever reported to be poisonous was known as the Paraguayan Venomous Duck (https://venomousduck.wordpress.com). But this claim is not backed up and the PVD does not appear on the list of ducks, geese, and waterfowl of Paraguay (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_Paraguay?scrlybrkr=0692e020#Ducks,_geese,_and_waterfowl).
Ducks can have pointed bills but their bills could never be pointed enough to actually inflict trauma or serious injury. Then Con says:
and are pritty spoopy if I do say myself sometimes
By stating this, Con concedes by calling them spoopy, which means he does not think they are dangerous but rather funny (https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2017/10/what-does-spoopy-mean). Con says:
They attack me at random times if that isn’t dangerous I don’t know what is.
Con provides no proof or background information that ducks attack him at random times. Even if they do attack him, they certainly do not gain the title of “most dangerous animal.”
I will now let Con rebut my arguments and rebuttals.
You should also be scared by how they can run at you at 12 feet per second or they can fly at 31.2 in comparison humans run at 26 miles an hour so they can fly and then pull out your eyes and then the could scare away everyone else so no one would help you and you would die a slow death. Don’t even try fighting back they can peck hard enough to cut you so you will bleed out and die. Also ducks are very quiet and can slice your throat open and then you will be dead so a duck would silently sneak up at you at night and sit your throat and nmvaco I shal summin the duck god to smite you in your sleep tonight.
Last argument all the times I mentioned Con I meant Pro. I apologize. My final rebuttal follows. Pro says:
You should also be scared by how they can run at you at 12 feet per second
I could not find any place to corroborate this fact, but I could find places to refute it. The average human runs at about 10 to 15 mph , easily outrunning a duck (12 feet per second is around 8 mph). Pro then says:
or they can fly at 31.2 in comparison humans run at 26 miles an hour
Pro has clearly researched some disreputable sources for I have found that the average duck flies at around 50 mph . Pro follows by stating:
so they can fly and then pull out your eyes and then the could scare away everyone else so no one would help you and you would die a slow death.
There speed would instantly decrease after maneuvering and even if they pull out your eyes it does not mean you will die. If your eyeballs were bleeding uncontrollably, you would probably be knocked out from the impact of the bird and you would die not knowing you were dying. Even that would not be slow. Besides, ducks would not want to attack humans. We are the ones with guns and nerve agents. That’s why there should be less strict concealed carry laws. Pro then says:
Don’t even try fighting back they can peck hard enough to cut you so you will bleed out and die.
The only places where you could actually bleed out and die is your main arteries and I severely doubt ducks have studied human biology and would deliberately peck you there. Pro says:
Also ducks are very quiet and can slice your throat open and then you will be dead so a duck would silently sneak up at you at night and sit your throat
Ducks are only quiet when they are not angry . Obviously a duck in the situation described by Pro would be very angry if it wanted to slice your throat open. Then, Con again concedes that ducks are not dangerous, for sitting on a human’s throat might be seen as a gesture of love. Pro finishes by stating:
nmvaco I shal summin the duck god to smite you in your sleep tonight.
Obviously Pro is a crackpot because I do not know who nmvaco is and I am not nmvaco. I rest my case. Vote Con.