Instigator
Points: 18

Ducks are the most dangerous animal

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 8 votes the winner is ...
nmvarco
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Art
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 53
Description
Ducks are dangerous
Round 1
Published:
Ducks enslave people to feed them bread Wich humans are the second most dangerous animal 
Published:
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. 

Argument

Ducks are not inherently dangerous. They will only bite you if they are brooding or have been attacked recently [1]. Plus, they do not even have teeth. If anything, we are the ones making their lives dangerous. We are the ones destroying their habitat [2] and mistreating them in factories [3]. Pro’s argument simply makes no sense and is hard to understand.


Rebuttal

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.



Round 2
Published:
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.
Published:
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.

Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Extend.
Round 4
Published:
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.











Published:
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 [1], 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 [2]. 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 [3]. 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.

[1] https://causeiloverunning.com/average-running-speed-of-a-human/
[2] http://www.softschools.com/facts/animals/mallard_duck_facts/587/
[3] http://www.backyardpoultry.com/keeping-ducks-as-pets/


Added:
--> @nmvarco
OMG I JUST NOTICED LMAO
#27
Added:
Category: Art
Contender
#26
Added:
As an aside, I gave a pretty legit review for this debate, regardless of it being a "troll" debate or not. Someone is reporting my votes just to be a dick and waste the moderator's time.
#25
Added:
It fits the definition moderation uses in that it is primarily a humorous/facetious debate. This is evidenced both by the topic and the content of the debate. Exhibit 1: "Ducks enslave people to feed them bread."
#24
Added:
--> @bsh1
How is this a troll debate?
I talked to Jboy irl and he seemed quite serious about this. I was too.
Contender
#23
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reasons for Decision: PRO made arguments, but they were refuted better by CON in an organized manner. I believe his arguments are more stronger and have relevancy to them
S&G to CON. Various errors and missed periods cause me to vote CON. Run on sentences that drag on too much
Conduct to CON. Summoning the Duck God and being at peace with them is just bad logic
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
#22
Added:
--> @Raltar
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
#21
Added:
Rational Madman was trying to summon the DebateArt 'god' to smite Jboy3r!
#20
Added:
--> @Alec
I was saying to report it to bsh1
#19
Added:
--> @Alec
Last round
#18
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
When did Pro make a death threat to Bsh1?
#17
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Dude nmvarco is my friend it was a joke
Instigator
#16
Added:
--> @nmvarco
Report pro for the death threat to bsh1 and remind anyone who votes you down on conduct of what we implied.
#15
Added:
It's still poor conduct. You shouldn't insult other users even if they deserve it because it could cost a conduct point. If you think they are showing poor conduct, let the voters award you a conduct point.
#14
Added:
--> @Alec
I called him a crackpot, which means an eccentric or foolish person, not a crackhead, which means somebody who smokes crack a lot.
Contender
#13
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's arguments were subjective and hypothetical, countered by Con's cold, hard facts. More to the point, Pro attempted to argue that Ducks were dangerous when the argument was that ducks were the "most" dangerous animal, a fact refuted by Con by showing that humans are more dangerous. By not refuting this or supporting his original argument, Pro concedes it.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Since this was a troll debate I’m voting based on who was funnier. Pro definitely took the debate more tollishly than con. That being said I’m awarding con the conduct point for the forfeit and for taking the debate seriously.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Troll debate: con wins as he’s the only one that really provides an argument.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con won this in the weakest way possible in my eyes. Con needed only to provide one more dangerous animal to win and instead chose to mitigate to zilch which hardly is easier, it's actually not just weaker, it's more effort to pull off.
Pro actually was winning until R2 from Con in my eyes because Con wasn't explaining why there is to be assumed to be an equally/more dangerous animal out there as/than the duck.
I believe Pro loses because Con mitigates everything Pro brings up to either be a failure to meet BoP or to simply be proven irrelevant (as opposed to cast doubt on, which is more passive). From the speed of ducks to the mental-control of ducks over humans, Pro is constantly pushing forth points without expanding on their relevance to the resolution or to the reason why that in itself makes ducks dangerous if they can't execute well due to lack of strategy, as Con keeps pointing out.
Con wins via mitigating every point if Pro successfully and the 0-sum favours Con since Pro ends up with the BoP thrust unto him at every stage and isn't up to par in that regard.
Conduct to Con because while Con is rude calling Pro a crackpot in a really condescending tone, Pro says the following in R4:
"so a duck would silently sneak up at you at night and sit your throat and nmvarco I shall summon the duck god to smite you in your sleep tonight." which is clearly intended to terrify Con and even if it is a joke, is poor conduct in a formal 1v1 debate as 'just joking' doesn't mean your conduct was better within the context of the debate. A Graphic oblique threat followed by a direct one is not a joke. I do not care what you say, if you take 'duck' and 'smiting' to be metaphors, this is a very sinister comment indeed and since Pro is saying (in this debate) that genuinely ducks are that dangerous it's not even a case of 'can't be done' from Pro's point-of-view.
I found both to use terrible sources. Personal blogs and Wikipedia are terrible. Both score low so both tie. Good troll debate
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
In Round 1, Pro argues that ducks enslave people. Con rebuts by stating that there is not evidence to prove that. Con also states that ducks will only attacked when provoked, however, he does not provide an animal more dangerous.
In Round 2, Pro argues that ducks are poisonous and "spoopy", and that they attack him randomly. Con states that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a venomous duck, and that Pro's point about them being "spoopy" is a point in his favor. Con completes his rebuttal by stating that Pro has no evidence to support his statement the ducks have been attacking him.
In Round 3, basically nothing happens.
In Round 4, Pro states that ducks can be very vast, and that they can very quiet and angry, along with stating they could sneak in his house at night and slit his throat. Con rebuts this by stating that ducks make noise when they are angry and thus cannot be stealthy. Con also states that ducks are not intelligent enough to sneak into a house at night and target specific vessels.
ARGUMENTS: Con had stronger arguments for why a duck is not dangerous, but he did not specifically provide another animal that could be more dangerous. However, Con appears to make the argument that humans are more dangerous, although never specified. All in all, I say Con wins in the arguments category.
SOURCES: Both sides provided reliable sources, so it is tied in this category.
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: Pro made an abundance of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors throughout the debate. Con's arguments were cleanly laid out, with no errors. As such, Con wins in this category.
CONDUCT: Pro threatened to summon the Duck god to attack Con. Con responded by calling Pro a crackhead. With that in mind, it is a tie in this category.
CONCLUSION: Con wins this debate overall.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
PRO made arguments, but they were refuted better by CON in an organized manner. I believe his arguments are more stronger and have relevancy to them
S&G to CON. Various errors and missed periods cause me to vote CON. Run on sentences that drag on too much
Conduct to CON. Summoning the Duck God and being at peace with them is just bad logic
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments:
While Pro had some arguments, they were refuted by Con and Pro didn't refute Cons back.
Citations:
Pro doesn't cite at all, at least some of Cons sources connect to his evidence.
Spelling and grammar:
Pro says, "nmvaco" which interferes with the meaning of the text. this is poor spelling.
Conduct:
Pro threatened to summon the "Duck god" to Con at the end. He also forfeited a round without apology. This is poor conduct. However, Con also called Pro a crackhead at the end. This is also poor conduct. Since Pro made 2 mistakes whereas Con made 1, this means that this point should go to Con.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Definitely the most entertaining debate on this site, by far.
Most convincing; Con.
Pro claimed that ducks were the "most dangerous" animal, which was a point that got sadly overlooked. Although Pro made a few claims that could imply ducks are dangerous, even all these claims being true wouldn't make them the "most" dangerous. Con effectively rebutted these claims and pointed out that many of them were false or inaccurate, such as the flight speed of ducks and supposed ability to utilize poison.
Sources; Con.
Pro didn't use any sources until the very end, while Con began citing sources right away. When Pro finally did use sources, he seemed to ignore what the sources actually said, such as misquoting the flight speed of ducks.
Spelling and Grammar; Con.
This category goes to Con, hands down.
Conduct; Con.
Pro threatened to summon the 'Duck God' to smite his opponent. Oddly, that also brings up a question of why ducks are always attacking him if he is on such good terms with their deity.