Which plague is worse: frogs or locusts?

Question

a plague of frogs would be gross, but a plague of locusts would be annoying, what's worse?

Answer 1

UMMMMMM Frog Legs!!! Much better then Chocolate Covered Locusts!!! UMMMMMM FROG LEGGSSSSSS AGGGAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Answer 2

Frogs have the potential to be cute. Even in large numbers. Locusts are not cute at all. They are the worst plague of the two.

Answer 3

on condition that they have been genetically engineered via Monsanto to be pesticide resistant or there exchange right into a unexpected mutation that gave an evolutionary earnings over insecticides. in the past the well-liked era it exchange right into a disaster because of the fact meals sources have been localized and not broadly disbursed. If a locust plague hit usa, meals could be imported from Canada and the Ukraine and vica versa. the fee could circulate up even with the undeniable fact that it does no longer be as devastating because it exchange into in historical cases.

Answer 4

Both but as the locusts eat our crops the frogs would eat them.

Answer 5

I like it when the locusts leave their skins on trees, but frogs are cute.

Tough call.

Answer 6

Locusts, frogs are cool

Answer 7

Locusts, they eat all our crops. Frogs eat all our bugs. Can you imagine a world without mosquitoes, bees, flies, wasps?! Plus we can all get high from licking all the frogs' backs!!!

Answer 8

both would be good because the frogs would eat the locusts and then die out from hunger

Answer 9

Speaking from personal experience during the past few years ... I definitely vote for frogs as the worst.

Answer 10

Locusts !!
Frogs are inconvenient, but benign, Locusts will starve you...