• Cyberninja - October 11, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    Simply brilliant and BTW pokemon's happiness can increase while in a pokeball so keep that in mind.
  • sniper430 - October 11, 2012 2:29 p.m.

    I almost voted for cooper when he pointed out that our tax dollars are being used to fund those socialist pokemon centers. XD
  • Sjoeki - October 11, 2012 2:35 p.m.

    No these games shouldn't be banned, people just need to realise that they are games and remind themselve that they shouldn't try to do any of the things in real life that they are able to do in games. This debate kind of reminded me about those news stories including the "forced sex scenes in mass effect" or how shooters are turning us all in cold blooded killers. If people use common sence we will be fine, and people claiming that games made them do the horrible things they did had some issues to begin with.
  • PlainLikeVanilla - October 11, 2012 3:06 p.m.

    That wasn't even the topic of the debate...
  • Sinosaur - October 11, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    Stop trying to take away my right to bear balls, Cooper!
  • ObliqueZombie - October 11, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    You're fighting a losing battle, Peta--err, I mean Cooper.
  • Fenrakk101 - October 11, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    I know a lot of people who play this game and are very attached to their Pokemon, and they would probably care more if their Pokemon took damage than if their mother was hospitalized. I don't know a single person who plays Pokemon purely to enjoy torturing helpless creatures.
  • D0CCON - October 11, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    I should run for office in the Pokemon world on the platform that all Pokemon deserve luxury balls. It's too late to stop the fighting, but we can give them comfortable homes.
  • codystovall - October 11, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    If pokemon battled to the death Id still do it.
  • Meleedragon27 - October 11, 2012 3:53 p.m.

    Lot of Michael Vick supporters here... my vote goes to Cooper; I don't see how making my Pokemon fight will make me closer friends with them. If I love my pets, wouldn't I want to make sure they don't get hurt? Sending them to fight other people's pets seems to go against that. Also, I totally forgot how my tax dollars go towards Pokemon healthcare - Pikachu gets a free ride and I don't? That ain't right.
  • RadgarLaser2 - October 11, 2012 10:41 p.m.

    I somehow imagine a completely different response from you Melee dragon, being that 26 have fallen before you.
  • SpiritTemple - October 11, 2012 4 p.m.

    I wish PETA would leave Pokèmon alone and actually focus on real-life problems.
  • SpiritTemple - October 11, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    Anyway awesome article, go Henry.
  • BladedFalcon - October 11, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    Several times it's been established that the pokemons taht are with their trainers very much LIKE being with them, and otherwise would rebel and simply not obey. And this is evidenced in something that has been present in the universe ever since Generation 1 with traded pokemon: If they're up a certain level and you're not skilled enough to command them, (proved via the badges you have.) the pokemon is very likely to ignore you, do something else, or outright refuse to obey you. So the above serves to prove that Pokemon CAN and WILL resist command if they chose to. So if they don't resist, it's more likely than not because they WANT to fight and obey it's trainer. Bottom line, Pokemon battles would only be cruel if the pokemons themselves had no say whatsoever in what they do, and were forced to battle against their consent. Since they DO have the ability to resist, and chose not to do so for the most part, (And when they do resist, is just because they don't know their new trainer very well and they aren't skilled enough. Meaning also that they WANT trainers who they can trust in battle.) it means that they WANT to battle, and thus can't be considered a crime, or even animal cruelty.
  • ParagonT - October 11, 2012 6:03 p.m.

    I agree with the fact that they can resist as seen in many episodes, I just wanted to add that I recall some episodes where good pokemon did bad things because of their trainers commands (long-tie and short-time). To be honest, its not like the pokemon universe is precisely written and planned out, they just come up with shit as they go on, so of course there will be inconsistencies. So it's really just up to each person to decide and interpret, which if you just look at the franchise and show, you cant tell that almost each story has a moral dilemma and lesson, so the correct answer is: "Who gives a shit what PETA thinks?". If PETA would focus their energy from some of these ridiculous endevours and put it into something more useful, I'm sure we could all rest easy at night knowing in a couple of years that cancer and teleportaion's riddles would be solved.
  • J-Fid - October 11, 2012 4:31 p.m.

  • SketchLemon - October 11, 2012 6:02 p.m.

    I used to be pro battling until I played through a little gem called Pokemon Snap. How can someone justify these cruel, inhumane acts of battle after watching Pokemon frolic around in their natural habitats? And so what if stopping battles did ruin the economy! Instead of having an economy, let's just all hold hands and sing the Pikachu song. Pi Pika Pikachu, Pi Pika Pikachu, Cha-aa
  • awesomesauce - October 11, 2012 6:15 p.m.

    Never though i'd say this but i agree with Cooper. Also why is Cooper in like every one of these debates?
  • Sinosaur - October 11, 2012 7:25 p.m.

    Because he has an entertaining tone, most likely. Even when you don't agree with his position, his method of expressing it, through ridiculous attacks, tempts you to vote for him.

Showing 1-20 of 50 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000