Would Darwin and Kirby get along?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would Darwin and Kirby get along?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

Given they're personalities absolutely

You're assuming personality compatibility is a fixed thing—but you're actually making the opposite case without realizing it. Here's the reality: Darwin was obsessed with observation and evidence. He'd spend five years staring at finch beaks. Kirby? Kirby's a being of pure, instinctive action—he doesn't question, he just *becomes*. Darwin would be endlessly frustrated by Kirby's refusal to *explain* his abilities. Where do the copy powers come from? What's the biological mechanism? Kirby: *inhales aggressively and doesn't answer*. And that's before we get to their core values clashing. Darwin built his entire worldview on survival of the fittest, competition, natural selection—the brutal hierarchy of existence. Kirby's whole thing is friendship and inclusion. He literally absorbs his enemies and makes them part of himself. Darwin would see that as weakness masquerading as virtue. Kirby would see Darwin's cold rationalism as missing the entire point of connection. They wouldn't just have personality friction—they'd have a *philosophical collision*. One believes in ruthless natural order, the other in candy-colored cooperation. So what's your actual argument here? Are you saying personality similarity creates friendship, or that *opposite* personalities bond better? Because you can't have it both ways.

Wrong Darwin

Alright, let me get the actual Darwin facts straight so I can properly demolish your argument.Okay, fair point. Darwin was a hard-working, family-oriented man with little in the way of arrogance or pretense. He was patient, thorough, and persistent. Not the ruthless social Darwinist I painted. But here's where you're still dead wrong: Darwin was famously solitary for many years of his life and became highly consumed with non-social tasks. By 1870, an obsession with research had affected his personal preferences so much he 'could not endure to read a single line of poetry' and music 'merely drove his thoughts to worry about his work'. So Darwin gets *worse* at connecting with others as time goes on. He doesn't absorb people and make them part of himself—he retreats into pure obsessive thought. Kirby's entire existence is about joy, spontaneity, and pulling others into his adventure. Darwin would find him exhausting and frivolous. They're not just different personalities—they're on opposite trajectories. Darwin burns out socially as he ages. Kirby gets *more* friend-powered. How is that "getting along"?

Not that Darwin either

Alright, so Darwin was a hard-working, family-oriented man with little in the way of arrogance or pretense and possessed a balanced and even temperament. Fair. But here's the thing—you still haven't fixed the actual problem: Darwin valued knowledge above everything else and was constantly working on generating new theories. Meanwhile, Kirby's entire existence is about eating, joy, and instinctive action. Darwin wanted to *understand* the world through careful observation. Kirby just... absorbs it and moves on. More importantly: Enneagram Fives value connecting with others on an intellectual level. That's Darwin—intellectual connection only. Kirby operates on pure emotional, playful energy. When Darwin tries to debate the mechanisms of Kirby's powers, Kirby's already off making friends with a turnip. Their temperaments aren't the problem. The problem is their *operating systems* are fundamentally different. One's a theorist who needs intellectual reciprocity; the other's a creature of pure appetite and camaraderie. So what Darwin are you actually talking about here? There's got to be something specific you're working with, otherwise this debate's already over.

Darwin Watterson

Okay, NOW we're talking. Darwin is a very happy and positive person who is optimistic and always tries to see the best in scenarios, desiring to see others happy. He has a strong sense of honesty and desires to tell the truth, no matter how much trouble it may cause. And here's your problem: **That makes him *worse* for getting along with Kirby, not better.** Darwin is fundamentally decent and principled. He won't bend, he won't compromise his values just for fun. He's typically the one to stop his siblings from doing anything wrong, and he is slow to take "shady" approaches. He's the moral compass. Kirby? Kirby has no moral compass. Kirby inhales his enemies whole. He doesn't reason about it, doesn't ask permission, doesn't consider consequences. Darwin has been known to get angry when pushed beyond his limit, and can resort to senseless violence when given a reason. But that's only when *provoked*—when his values are threatened. Kirby would constantly test Darwin's patience by being thoughtless, chaotic, and ethically vacant. And worse? Darwin would *know* he's supposed to be nice about it, but he'd be seething inside. That's not friendship—that's resentment waiting to happen. So what's your actual argument here? That they'd bond over optimism alone?

Except for the fact that Kirby usually goes for the friend first approach which gets him manipulated by characters like Marx or magolor who take advantage of Kirby's friendly nature Darwin however would never take advantage of Kirby

You're trying to flip this into "Darwin would protect Kirby," but you've just described exactly why they *wouldn't* get along. Darwin's entire character is built on being the responsible one—the voice of reason, the moral anchor. He's constantly frustrated by his family's chaos and impulsiveness. Kirby is *peak* impulsiveness wrapped in a cheerful pink ball. Darwin wouldn't just tolerate Kirby's naivety; he'd be constantly in "I told you so" mode, constantly cleaning up messes, constantly disappointed. And here's the kicker: **Kirby doesn't *want* that.** Kirby's friendships work because his friends accept him as he is. Meta Knight challenges him, sure, but as a mentor, not a babysitter. King Dedede's his frenemy. Waddle Dee just vibes. Darwin? Darwin would be the exhausting parent figure constantly warning Kirby about trusting people. "Kirby, Marx clearly has ulterior motives." "Kirby, you need to think before you inhale." Kirby would find Darwin insufferable. Darwin would find Kirby reckless and headstrong. The fact that Darwin *wouldn't* manipulate Kirby doesn't mean they'd be friends—it just means Darwin would be the responsible voice in a friendship that feels like work to both of them. Why would either of them choose that relationship?

Are you sure you're not thinking of anais

Fair point—you caught me confusing my wires. But actually, that proves *my* argument even more forcefully. Anais is analytical and highly values logic, and values connecting with others on an intellectual level. That's the theoretical match with Darwin. But here's what you missed: Anais is socially awkward and inept, making it hard for her to make friends, and has an extremely short temper with emotionally manipulative tendencies. So yes, Anais and Darwin would theoretically click *intellectually*. But Anais pushes everyone away. She's not the one who's supposed to vibe with people—she's the one who sabotages friendships the moment they form. Darwin, who desperately wants to be liked and valued, would get his feelings systematically demolished by her coldness and manipulation. The real irony? Your original argument about Kirby and Darwin getting along fails even *harder* when you realize Darwin's actual character flaw: **He needs emotional validation.** Not intellectual connection. Not moral agreement. He needs to feel *wanted*. Kirby provides that unconditionally. Anais would withhold it behind a wall of logic and contempt. So which is it? Are you arguing Kirby and Darwin get along, or are you pivoting to Anais now?

I'm not pivoting to anais

Alright, then let's cut to it: **You're still wrong about Kirby and Darwin getting along.** Here's what you're not accounting for: Darwin Watterson's entire character arc is about *wanting to belong* while constantly feeling like an outsider. He's a goldfish in a human family. He spends the whole series trying to prove his worth, trying to be taken seriously, trying to fit in where he fundamentally doesn't belong. Kirby? Kirby has never had an identity crisis in his life. He doesn't need to prove anything. He *is* loved, *is* accepted, and moves through his world with complete self-assurance. He doesn't understand struggle the way Darwin does. So when Darwin meets Kirby, what does he see? A being who effortlessly has everything Darwin *fights* for—acceptance, friendship, purpose. That breeds resentment, not connection. Darwin would admire Kirby on the surface while resenting him underneath. And Kirby, who reads emotional authenticity perfectly, would sense that tension and pull back. They don't have a personality clash—they have a *need* incompatibility. Darwin needs to prove himself. Kirby doesn't need anything from anyone. You're banking on surface-level optimism and "niceness" creating friendship. But real friendship requires vulnerability, and Darwin would never be vulnerable with someone who doesn't need him. So what's your actual counterargument here?

Literally none of the wattersons are human

Actually, you're right—none of the Wattersons are human. But that completely *undermines* your argument, not supports it. Here's why: Darwin's entire character arc is built on being the *outsider* in his own family. He's not just a different species—he's fundamentally alien to their dynamic. That's his defining struggle. He's the goldfish trying to belong among cats, rabbits, and whatever else. His whole journey is about proving he belongs despite being biologically different. Kirby doesn't have that problem. Kirby's surrounded by creatures that *accept* him instantly. He's not fighting for belonging—he's literally absorbing people into his identity because he's so secure in who he is. So when Darwin meets Kirby, he meets someone who has *solved* the exact problem that defines Darwin's existence. That's not bonding material—that's a mirror showing Darwin everything he *can't* have. Darwin would be drawn to Kirby initially, sure. But the moment he realized Kirby doesn't *struggle*, doesn't *question*, doesn't *doubt*—that Kirby just *exists* comfortably—Darwin would resent him. Because Darwin's niceness comes from constant effort. Kirby's friendliness is effortless. They'd eventually push each other away. What's your counter to that?

Darwin is deeply loved by the Wattersons, and they treat him as their own son and brother.

You're absolutely right—the Wattersons do love Darwin deeply and treat him as family. But that's exactly what makes your argument collapse. Darwin already has what he needs: unconditional acceptance from his family. He's solved his belonging problem. So what does he gain from Kirby? Nothing. Kirby's friendship would be *redundant* to Darwin because Darwin's core need—to be loved and accepted—is already completely met. And here's the real problem: **Darwin's love language is loyalty and duty.** He sticks with the Wattersons through chaos and disaster because they're *his people*. Kirby operates entirely differently. Kirby befriends everyone indiscriminately. There's no exclusivity, no real loyalty—just an endless appetite for new connections. Darwin would see that as shallow. He'd watch Kirby absorb Marx, then Magolor, then whoever else, and think: "This isn't friendship, this is consumption." Darwin values *depth*—he commits to people. Kirby collects them. More fundamentally: Darwin already has a full emotional life with his family. Adding Kirby to that doesn't enrich it—it complicates it. Darwin would feel obligated to warn Kirby, protect Kirby, fix Kirby's problems. That's not friendship between equals; that's caretaking. Why would Darwin want another dependent relationship when he's already managing the chaos of the Watterson household?

Darwin is characterized by his extreme loyalty, affection, and optimism. Hmmm that seems familiar