Yesterday, Lance Armstrong decided to stop contesting the charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his career. He still denies that he ever doped, but it still means that he’ll be stripped of his seven Tour De France titles, his Olympic bronze medal and any other titles from 1998 onward (thankfully, he can keep his Latin Grammy). He’ll also have to return all prize money, and will be barred for life from performing or even coaching. That’s all gotta hurt…and it’s not even the worst of it!

Should MAD start a "Point/Counterpoint" feature?

NO.
By Dave Croatto, Associate Editor

It feels great when someone agrees with you. It’s how friendships are made, bonds are formed, orgies are organized. So why then would you set out to disagree with someone? (Put another way, why would anyone spurn an orgy invite?)

To set out to argue is a rejection of friendship. It’s looking at an extended hand and slapping it away. And that’s all point/counterpoint is — someone saying something and someone else saying, “You are wrong and I’m determined to make you look stupid.” To which I say, “Count me out!” I would never participate in such a banal, hurtful dialogue. 

What kind of monster would embrace something that by definition is contrary, antagonistic, mean-spirited and ugly? (I won’t mention any names here, but it’s contained in the sentence “Joe Raiola is a despicable douche-nugget.”)

And consider this: Our Founding Fathers thought that America was a good idea. Agreed! Meanwhile, the King’s “counterpoint” was “America is a bad idea!” America is a bad idea (italics mine). When you embrace the point/counterpoint format, you prop up a system that allows (nay, encourages!) the notion that America is bad. And that kind of thinking has no place in MAD — and no place in our country. 

YES.
By Joe Raiola, Senior Editor 

Are you kidding me, Dave? You’re wrong and I’m determined to make you look stupid! The more relevant question is why haven’t we already started a point-counterpoint feature?

Is the MAD blog the premiere go-to-place on the web for meaningless idiocy or not? If it is, then we need to feature passionately heated arguments about extremely unimportant subjects. In fact, I’d argue that the subject we’re debating now isn’t trivial enough. Our readers would rather us clash over dust, lint or politics. Blah blah blah.

I say this and my opponent says that. But please remember, that my opponent (in this case, Dave Croatto — I will mention names) is an ignoramus of the highest magnitude, unfit to scrub the tub in which I have bathed. Whereas my opinions are brilliantly well-reasoned, his opinions have less worth than a cup of chicken feces. Now we’re getting somewhere. 

We do an unforgivable disservice to our loyal fans by not providing them with this kind thoughtless, repetitive and ultimately meaningless dialogue. To suggest otherwise serves no purpose, though on second thought, if no one were “suggesting otherwise” this wouldn’t be much of a point/counterpoint, would it?

Thank you for agreeing with me. 

When asked recently if victims of rape should be allowed to have an abortion, idiot Congressman Todd Akin (R-Missouri) said that such pregnancies are "really rare.” “If it’s a legitimate rape,” he added, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” The predictable political backlash followed and soon Democrats AND Republicans were re-evaluating his creepy campaign — saying it was time to shut that whole thing down as well.