[Blue_Nose]

Alright, it's time for all the 'debators' out there to have some fun and relax.

The point of this thread is to make the worst possible argument on the given topic as possible... Logical Fallacies, stupid reasons, whatever. Only rule is it can't contain a bit of good reasoning.

The subject is:

Which band is better: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

We can change it to a new one later if people actually enjoy this.

(This is just for fun, so please don't try to bring your squabbles from other threads in here... but hopefully people will start to see what makes a good argument and what doesn't.)

Ready set go.

[The Hoser]

The Beatles are better because Mars was in alignment with Venus last night.
Also because I said so.

[Blue_Nose]

The Stones are better because Hoser likes the Beatles, and he's only 13 and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about.

[canadian1971]

Beetles r better....I mean I had some of them Stones and man it hurts when you pee them out! They Suck. Beattles r crunchy too.

[The Hoser]

The Beatles are better because they can get a 13 year old in this century to like them! Crap, my argument made sense... Does that mean I';m disqualified?

[canadian1971]

Yes

[BartSimpson]

Not at all. The Stones are better because the Beatles actually are better but in being better than the Stones the Beatles have cleverly fallen into the trap set for them by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who foretold their rise to fame in his opera "Die Fledermaus" and accurately predicted the death of John Lennon if you read the notes of "Fur Elise" in a sequential order and assign them numeric values which you then divide by the constant of the meter of the song by Falco, "Amadeus", which acts as a decoding hash algorithm that reveals that while the Beatles are better, they didn't have the same quality makeup artists for the cover of 'Abbey Road' that Mick Jagger had in "Freejack" and that the Stones are better because they had the presence of mind not to have Alan Parsons involved in their records as did the Beatles, a fact that led directly to the marriage of Yoko and John and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

[Canadian_Mind]

beetles suck because of their crappy hair styles. This is proven by the fact that a picture of them was on a magazine named after the band that is better than they are. also because they had white teeth and that they weren't drunks when they started their careers.

[Jaime_Souviens]

I've won!! I've won!! You're all miserable little smelly things! I've won!! I've won!!

[marq=left]Nyah-nyaaaaah!!!!!! [/marq]

[canadian1971]

Beattles are better cause ducks fly!

[The Hoser]

The Beatles are better because when you play part of I'm So Tired backwards you hear "Paul is a dead man, miss him miss him miss him"

[BartSimpson]

Jaime_Souviens wrote:

I've won!! I've won!! You're all miserable little smelly things! I've won!! I've won!!

[marq=left]Nyah-nyaaaaah!!!!!! [/marq]

You've won the...what exactly?

[Blue_Nose]

Are you crazy? The Beatles are better. Anyone who says otherwise will be kicked off CKA.

[Blue_Nose]

...and the Beatles are better because my aunt's favourite band in the Beatles. She's in the hospital with heart problems... The Beatles are what brighten up her day.

[Ripcat]

In a Globe and Mail poll, 63% of respondents picked the Rolling Stones!








The question asked, however, was: Which band, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, has the most surviving band members.