Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

1
5
Sounds legit. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:6
Arguments:8
Total Votes:6
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Sounds legit. (1)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (5)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Biological weapons are better than nuclear weapons.

Biological weapons do not destroy stuff.  They just kill people.  And after the people are dead, the biological agent dispenses relatively quickly and new people can just walking and take over the dead people's money, houses, cars, iPods, iPhones, etc.

Nuclear weapons lays everything to waste for decades.

Sounds legit.

Side Score: 1
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 5

Let Assad gas his people and when he's done, we can gas Assad and whoever is left and take over. I can use a summer home over there ;)

Side: Sounds legit.

True that biological weapons has less damage than nuclears. But they can be easily mass produced and does not demand too much care

What it lacks in destruction, it makes up in numbers

but either way, I support banning them both

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

That's the whole point. Take out a large number of people and thus fix global warming ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Centifolia(1319) Clarified
1 point

Dark Humor and joecavalry does not mix. Sorry

Side: Sounds legit.
1 point

Better for what, saving the environment or crippling your enemy for generations? Please clarify

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Better for getting rid of people. Which, in turn, helps counteract global warming. It's a win-win situation ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!