Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4319
All furries are bad and i have yet to see a person prove otherwise
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Wanna play with fire?
Reason #1 Sexual actions/pornography
"...survey at a furry convention in 2013 found that 96.3% of male furry respondents reported viewing furry pornography... ...estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic..." "...17.1% of males reported that when they viewed pornography it was exclusively or near-exclusively furry pornography, and only about 5% reported that pornography was the top factor which got them into the fandom."
An anonymous survey conducted by the Furry Research C
There was also abuse solely related to the furry fandom.
"Investigators say the abuse began in 2009 when Parker began taking a 9-year-old boy to a Bucks County home where a group of men dressed up as animals and referred to themselves as "furries.""
"The boy told investigators that a man dressed up as a Red Fox who called himself "Lupine," would take him upstairs during the parties and sexually abuse him. The boy said the abuse occurred several times over a seven-year period. The boy identified "Lupine" as Kenneth Fenske.
Local"
DISCLAIMER: These are not my current opinions and I am currently playing devils advocate.
Thanks randomason,
Burden of Proof:
"All furries are bad and i have yet to see a person prove otherwise" is shared but mostly relies on pro.
Definitions:
bmake a bad impression
Observations & "Rebuttals":
Con seems to be confused, I'm pro, not them. Meaning all their arguments apply to my position, no rebuttals needed.
Argument 1:
With my definition of "bad", just thinking about all the furries in the world is unfavorable. I find all furries unfavorable.
I mean, look at these furries: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/furries.html?sortBy=relevant
Imagine a furry coming up to you and starting to bark...
'Lord' better help if I see one of these barking at me.
Argument 2:
Nobody has yet to prove me otherwise. Based on your arguments, i'm glad you agree with me!
--
Round 2
Forfeited
Extend.
Round 3
Forfeited
Extend & end.
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."
Bump.
Look at me mommy, I am a furry.
im against furries, but the options were confusing. sorry for inconvinence
Depends. I can refer to "I" as me.
Yes, the short description does target the opposite side however the set in stone position for them is con.
"All furries are bad and i have yet to see a person prove otherwise" is what con posted. But they're posting as con, meaning their against the topic sentence. So why put "and I have yet to see a person prove otherwise"? That description targets the instigator, but the instigator is con meaning they disagree with the claim, so they're disagreeing with their own experiences?
Maybe they wanted to put pro and mixed it up, who knows.
You know what.. i'll just accept this and see how this goes.
all furries are zoophiles
The definition of "bad".
definitions of what
I will accept if you list the definitions.
He's probably trying to pull the old Pro-Con switcheroo.
You're on the wrong side.