It's time to settle this debate once and for all.

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?

Now I'm leaning towards 24 but the pro 25 crowd have some solid arguments..

 

[Eddie the head]

361.9237001 cubic centimeters of wood a day if my phone is to be believed.(I wouldn't)

 

[Guffe]

24 is too much.
I'm leaning more towards 8.
The reasoning being that the Woodchuck is a damn lazy bastard, and my own fieldstudies show that every third time the Woodchuck mistakes a lightpost for a tree, which also means he's stupid!

 

[LongAndShort]

Hmmmm... solid question.

*furious scribbling and muttering*
... carry the two ... the square of the hypotonuse on a right angled triangle ... divide by Pi ... that is not how you spell 'hypotenuse' ...

If my calculations are correct the answer is 16. No more, no less.

And to be clear that is a metric measurement of course, since the metric system immediately adds scientific credibility.

 

[Colour Scientist]

That depends, is it armed?

What kind of equipment does it have or are we talking traditional old school wood chucking?

 

[Barbas]

Is it an African or European woodchuck?

[small][sub]What the hell am I doing with my life?[/sub][/small]

 

[Roofstone]

Anywhere between 14 or 17, depending on the wood, and woodchuck.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Is it an African or European woodchuck?

Good question.

Yes, what is the woodchuck's airspeed velocity?

These are the pertinent questions, there are so many variables.

 

[Caiphus]

This is a good question. And I don't want to ruffle any feathers. But those who answer 25 are the new Hitler.

25 is a square number. And there is nothing square about woodchucks.

 

[Colour Scientist]

25 is a square number. And there is nothing square about woodchucks.

What about this one?

Spoiler

This one is in a square, you don't see that out in the wild terribly often.

 

[Caiphus]

What about this one?

Spoiler

This one is in a square, you don't see that out in the wild terribly often.

A Neo-nazi ploy to spread their devastating ideology that groundhogs can come in square form.

I would thank you to never post that image ever again.

 

[TheSYLOH]

This is a good question. And I don't want to ruffle any feathers. But those who answer 25 are the new Hitler.

25 is a square number. And there is nothing square about woodchucks.

I say 64.

64 is a square number AND a cube number!

 

[Mr Fixit]

Taking into account all the variables the only real answer is a woodchuck would chuck all the wood that woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

I think I just hurt my brain.

 

[Caiphus]

I say 64.

64 is a square number AND a cube number!

I'd say you're going straight to hell, but I really don't want my pointless whimsy to get me a warning.

Edit: And I wouldn't want to offend you, or anyone else that wants to believe that a woodchuck could chuck wood in a quantity that would pertain to any sort of shape.

You're not Hitler.

You're a goddamn hero.

 

[GabeZhul]

It depends. Is the woodchuck in a groundhog-day loop?
Also, can the woodchuck whistle? Because then it is actually a whistle-pig and the entire premise is false.
I believe wood-chucking is best left to land-beavers.

Spoiler

For the record, all of the above is the same animal. Yes, that includes "whistle-pig" as well.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

That depends, is it armed?

What kind of equipment does it have or are we talking traditional old school wood chucking?

Considering we're only mentioning the woodchuck, I'd lean towards the interpretation that it's unequipped and only using whatever methods it can with just its physical body.

I actually calculated this once for a maths class. The final solution was in quite wide an area, but it's anything between 7175 to 80085. Another way of calculating it would suggest it could even be as much as 7177135.

 

[Revolutionary]

All these scrub answers fail to take so many variables into account. What is the national origin of the woodchuck, the relative velocity and density of the wood, the woodchucking methodology, and school of woodology applied in the geometric woodchuck modelling phase. With these variables unknown the answer could lie anywhere between wood*2.57991^23 and Chicken^pi^potato. Ridiculous, such scrubbery disgusts me.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Multiply 42 by pi, divided by 23 added to +-69 and square rooted. Then you'll find your answer. I don't know how much they could chuck because a wood chuck may not in fact chuck wood. The question is rooted in an "if" statement which implies said woodchuck possibly is not capable of chucking wood, so the answer could safely be 0 in a real world sense. In an "if" setting we're unable to determine just how much wood a wood chuck could chuck because we don't know the rate of chucking or how large the wood chuck in question is, what health its in. These are things I'd like to know. Is this a wood chuck in its prime? Or old, decrepit and facing death at every turn?