Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:26
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 True. (10)
 Wait..., what? No!!! (9)

Debate Creator

jolie(9809) pic

A lesson in irony.


Side Score: 15

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 11
2 points

You shouldn't feed living things because they become dependent and never learn to take care of themselves. ;)

Side: True.

Very true. That sound advice of course includes human beings such as the hapless African Bongos, the equally hapless Haitians and the so called Muslim refugees who head towards Europe in endless droves reminiscent the great herds of wildebeest sweeping across the Serengeti planes as they migrate in search of the lush grazing pastures.

If gnus can look after themselves, how come Bongos and Muslims rely on Europe and white Americans?

Side: True.

..and like the animals in the wild, the human variety will bite the hand that feeds it.

Side: True.
1 point

So very true but it is very confusing to those on the Left.

Side: True.
1 point

Though I can see the relevance of the analogy, food stamps are served as a means for those who are in horrific economic conditions to be able to find a means of which to survive. So comparing humans feeding animals as a means of just pure entertainment to the government attempting to make sure U.S. citizens don't starve to death isn't entirely right (though it does, in turn, lead to some extent for some to be dependent on government intervention in their lives).

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

Keeping any species alive artificially is flouting one of nature's fundamental laws, ''survival of the fittest''.

Nature's''natural selection'' is why the vast array of species have evolved into their present day successful state.

The weak and incapable are meant to become extinct so that the earth's finite resources can continue to support the evolution of the superior classes.

Government's don't keep the useless layabouts alive, the successful, hard working taxpayers do.

Side: True.
2 points

Nature isn't meant to be ethical, but efficient. For that, there aren't really much laws except for the rule of the powerful.

If we are to talk about that, then everyone who gets old enough to retire should be disposed, and all those who aren't fit enough (any longer) for any contribution or survival. There are no accumulated earnings from past in nature.

But, just so you know, our evolution wasn't guided that way. Because we're 'weak' in the animal kingdom. Ideally, our weak ancestors should have died when it began.

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

As harsh as that is, it can't be any closer to the truth. Well-put bud.

Side: True.
1 point

The lesson is that animals don't matter as much as humans.

That's about all I learned from this right wing attempt at justifying treating the poor as starving animals.

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

Who said anything about letting people starve?


Supporting Evidence: (
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Winklepicker(1021) Clarified
1 point

Actually, that's exactly what I am saying, whilst trying to be as politically correct as I can with such a realistically harsh message, and I make no apology whatsoever for doing so.

Every now and then some people will hit hard times and the strong and capable will provide a temporary safety net for such occurrences.

However, those people who, perhaps through geographical isolation or religious dogma, have missed out on the distribution of superior genes will need to be fed and cared for indefinitely.

We can witness this ''inferiority'' in numerous countries where the inhabitants require to be provided with food, shelter and medical care for generation after generation.

They never learn from their experiences of disasters nor are they capable of reasoning and understanding the world in which they live and what makes it tick, and they never will.

The learning process and survival instincts can be observed in animals such as the lowly wildebeest as they cross great distances to reach the rich grazing lands which they need for survival.

Many of the lower orders of mankind cannot even make this fundamental observation that radical decisions, such as moving on will be necessary to survive.

They have come to expect handouts as their God given right and become indignant if the bounty which is being provided by the hardworking ''superior'' taxpayers of the world is, in their opinion, too slow in coming.

They should be left to perish so the earth's finite resources can be utilized to support the proliferation of superior humankind just as nature intended.

Side: True.

For those taking this as anything more than a joke:

- Food stamps provide less than $1.40 per meal on average - ref

- A typical household pays about $37 a year for food stamps, school lunches, and WIC combined (that's about 10 cents a day) - ref

- 82% of all SNAP benefits (f.k.a. - food stamps) go to households with either a child, an elderly person, and/or a disabled person - ref

See also

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

If we only provided $1.40 per meal to wildlife would we avoid having the wildlife become dependent on it?

Side: True.