• evilpacman18 - October 11, 2012 8:06 p.m.

    Based solely on whose argument was better, Cooper won by a mile.
  • GR HollanderCooper - October 11, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    You're all monsters.
  • TheFabricOfTime - October 11, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    I think the thing about Pokemon is that it's just a video game. None of it is real. I don't see anything wrong with it. If you're into animal rights activism, go help the animals that are in actual trouble, being abused, so on, so forth. Don't attack Pokemon for starting this, animal fighting has gone on long before.
  • BladedFalcon - October 11, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    ...You do realize he's not being at all serious, right?
  • GR_SophiaTong - October 12, 2012 8:10 p.m.

  • BladedFalcon - October 13, 2012 5:20 a.m.

    LE GASP! :O
  • BladedFalcon - October 11, 2012 9:13 p.m.

    If we are... it only make sense for us to have POCKET MONSTERS! Get it!???? Ahahahah-*gets shot, maimed and dragged away on a truck*
  • Hobogonigal - October 12, 2012 12:11 a.m.

    I laughed at that way harder than I should have...
  • pl4y4h - October 11, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    Ling-Ling from Drawn Together. Essentially a pokemon parody but his greatest desire is to battle + transitive property = pokemon love to battle = It doesn't need to be banned.
  • ThatFanInThePeacoat - October 11, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    Both sides brought up important points, but my ultimate choice was Pro-Pokemon Battles. There are some things that should certainly be regulated, but shunning the entire act will only make us all more the ignorant to what lies within the hearts and souls of all pokemon and people.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • J-Fid - October 11, 2012 4:31 p.m.

  • 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.
  • SpiritTemple - October 11, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    Anyway awesome article, go Henry.
  • SpiritTemple - October 11, 2012 4 p.m.

    I wish PETA would leave Pokèmon alone and actually focus on real-life problems.
  • 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.

Showing 21-40 of 50 comments

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


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.