The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the contender in this debate is NOT an idiot.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,643 times Debate No: 1711
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (19)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

First, I'd like to present the definition of idiot which is provided by American Heritage dictionary:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This id�i�ot (ĭd'ē-ət) Pronunciation Key
n.
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that out of the way, the job of the contender will be to prove that he/she is an idiot according to either of these definitions provided in the American Heritage dictionary.

My argument: Because my opponent is capable of using debate.org, he/she cannot be labeled by either of these definitions.

I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Yraelz

Con

Logical-Master! Alright lets do this!

I will be using your first definition.

Idiot - A foolish or stupid person.

Notice the "or" sitting in there. Thus I will limit the definition to "foolish" and explain to you why my life has been foolish. Making me an idiot, under your definition.

Foolish -
1.resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech.
2.lacking forethought or caution.
3.trifling, insignificant, or paltry.

A. I spent 8th grade through Sophmore year of highschool playing an online MMORPG called Final Fantasy 11. This resulted in a horrific rift between me and real life friends. As well as an amazing distancing from everything that mattered to me. Not only that but the over 10,000 hours i played that game for did not help me in any way shape or form. Except maybe to reduce my eye sight to its now 20/80 status. Which leads me to my second point.

B. I have been driving since I was 14 years of age under Montana State law and for the majority of that I have had a vision of 20/80. This has been foolish in the sense that because I have not been wearing glasses I have put others lives in potential un-needed danger.

C. To my third point. I spent approximately 13 years of life in school. While I think school is very good I don't think it benefited by life as much as it could of. The wise choice in my opinion would have been to have advocated for some form of either home schooling or more advanced study. Thus over 13 years of life were spent in a foolish manner.

D. Under the definition of foolish I feel my entire life up to this point (a.k.a right before college) has been spent in a very "lacking forethought" manner. Thus my life has been spent up to this point in a foolish way. Therefor the majority of life has been spent in a foolish manner. Therefor I, am an idiot.

E. "My argument: Because my opponent is capable of using debate.org, he/she cannot be labeled by either of these definitions."

>> On the contrary. I am wasting my life at this point and not putting in possible forethought to what negative consequences this will have on my life. I am not sure what will happen in the future because of this debate and I have not thought about it! This makes me foolish. This makes me an idiot.

You my friend, are currently debating an idiot, under the American heritage dictionary.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed.

Keep in mind that the resolution states "According to the American Heritage dictionary." My opponent's definition cannot be found in the American Heritage, thus I will provide it right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dictionary.reference.com...

For those not familiar with the above website, it list the American Heritage Dictionary definition after its own definition

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

fool�ish (fōō'lĭsh) Pronunciation Key adj.
Lacking or exhibiting a lack of good sense or judgment; silly: foolish remarks.
Resulting from stupidity or misinformation; unwise: a foolish decision.
Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin.
Immoderate or stubborn; unreasonable: foolish pride; foolish love.
Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this.
Insignificant; trivial: spent all their money on foolish little knickknacks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, I would like to state that the information presented in A, B, and C cannot be confirmed unless my opponent provides evidence for each, thus they are dismissible. That said, I will still address two of them, but will insist that my opponent provide conclusive evidence for the other.

To quote Albert Einstein, ""Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." My opponents main reason for believing that he is an idiot is because he believes he has made mistakes throughout his life, but as Albert Einstein suggest, mistakes are very beneficial in helping one improve.

A: My opponent states that his action resulted in dismantling his friendship IN REAL LIFE. In any MMORPG, it is encouraged that one become friends with other members as other members can aid him in missions and give him a good understanding of the gameplay mechanics. Besides, I would submit that there is more potential in an online friendship than there is in an offline friendship as one isn't influenced by external factors (such as appearance) when socializing. There's also the fact that games can be beneficial as the following article suggest: http://discovermagazine.com... .

There's also the fact that video games are currently very hot on the market and a profession in such a field can potentially make one very successful in financial terms. Taking the 3 parts of the definition into account, they don't apply, as my opponent's reason for believing his action to be foolish was that his gaming could not have been beneficial (which is the point I just covered).

B. Provide valid evidence that this is the case.

C. Home schooling would have alienated my opponent from REAL LIFE friends (which my opponent speaks of valuing in A) and higher education would have been a burden on my opponent's parents/guardian in financial terms. With that said, my opponent would have to advocate that no matter what decision he ended up making, it would be foolish.

D. My opponent states that he has spent his entire life in a very "lacking forethought", but with the valid definitions acknowledged, we must replace "lacking forethought" with "lacking good sense or judgment." Previously, he makes it known that bad results = bad judgment, but I've pointed out the benefits in his choices, thus, by his own logic, his decisions did not "lack good sense or judgment."

E. Again, we can replace "forethought" with "good sense or judgment" An example of "good sense or judgment" would be in what my opponent is doing right now in that he has taken the time to articulate his arguments and using forms of reasoning to combat my case. Therefore, he is not foolish, but rather an intelligent individual.

Further evidence that my opponent is intelligent:

He has used "good sense/judgment" to win on this website.
For example, notice this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Notice he used good judgment of his opponent's case to win the round by a majority of 21-2. Surely someone who almost always employs bad judgment would have unlikely been the victor (especially not by such a large margin). He has also managed to win debates on his previous account, but since he deleted it, I cannot link you to these debates.

The main reason you must vote against my opponent is simply because voting for him would suggest that you simply came into this knowing who you would vote for in advance or that he managed to show good judgment in knowing how to persuade you into believing that he was an idiot. If it is due to the latter, this in itself would show that he truly does not live up to the definition of "Idiot." Thus, if he shows good judgment in the next round by using logically reasoning out my responses and rebutting them, he is providing some evidence that he is not an idiot. Needless to say, not being able to convince you that he is an idiot doesn't suggest that he is an idiot. In fact, it just suggest that he is unable to convince you of what clearly isn't the truth.

Now, I understand that my opponent may attempt to present an unintelligible response in the next round to convince you that he is foolish. If he does this, you may dismiss it, as evidence from how he presented himself in his first round would suggest that an unintelligible response was simply a clever artifice used to trick you into believing that he is an idiot.

Finally, I would like to remind you that well known people such as Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings have made mistakes (thus have shown poor judgment) in their lives. Making mistakes is something we all do. However, just because we all make mistakes, it does not automatically define us as idiots (or people who make poor judgment) especially if we have made numerous intelligent decisions in our lives. Thus, even if my opponent presents conclusive evidence for B (as he is supposed to since the burden of proof belongs to him), we could dismiss it as a mistake rather than present it as proof that he is an idiot.

Based on what I've stated, no matter what my opponent says in the next round, you should vote for my case as he has shown and/or will show that he is NOT an idiot.

Thank you.
Yraelz

Con

Thanks for debating yourself, I whole heartedly accept your definition.

"Next, I would like to state that the information presented in A, B, and C cannot be confirmed unless my opponent provides evidence for each, thus they are dismissible. That said, I will still address two of them, but will insist that my opponent provide conclusive evidence for the other."

>> I dismiss this claim. I, being myself, am the foremost authority on me until proven otherwise. Therefore we can accept all information that I presented in A, B, and C.

"To quote Albert Einstein, ""Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." My opponents main reason for believing that he is an idiot is because he believes he has made mistakes throughout his life, but as Albert Einstein suggest, mistakes are very beneficial in helping one improve."

>> I also agree. This does not change the fact that I am still and idiot, I am simply moving away from being an idiot.

"A: My opponent states that his action resulted in dismantling his friendship IN REAL LIFE. In any MMORPG, it is encouraged that one become friends with other members as other members can aid him in missions and give him a good understanding of the gameplay mechanics. Besides, I would submit that there is more potential in an online friendship than there is in an offline friendship as one isn't influenced by external factors (such as appearance) when socializing. There's also the fact that games can be beneficial as the following article suggest: http://discovermagazine.com...... .

There's also the fact that video games are currently very hot on the market and a profession in such a field can potentially make one very successful in financial terms. Taking the 3 parts of the definition into account, they don't apply, as my opponent's reason for believing his action to be foolish was that his gaming could not have been beneficial (which is the point I just covered)."

>>A: I very much agree with the first half of the first paragraph. However I disagree with idea of more potential in an online relationship, at least in my case. While the potential may exist it did not do so in my case, which in the end left me high and dry. I agree games can be beneficial, just not to me making real life friends that will last me a lifetime.

To contradict the 2nd paragraph I was obviously foolish, this can be seen through meeting over half of your definitions presented for foolish. (Keep in mind I only have to meet one to be foolish.

1. "Lacking or exhibiting a lack of good sense or judgment; silly: foolish remarks. " Obviously lacked good judgment on the making friends level.

2. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin." My parents laughed at my stupidity.

3. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this. " I was embarrassed they were laughing.

4. "Insignificant; trivial: spent all their money on foolish little knickknacks. " No significance on my life now.

"B. Provide valid evidence that this is the case."

>>B: Foremost authority on myself. You drop the point and concede it to me.

"C. Home schooling would have alienated my opponent from REAL LIFE friends (which my opponent speaks of valuing in A) and higher education would have been a burden on my opponent's parents/guardian in financial terms. With that said, my opponent would have to advocate that no matter what decision he ended up making, it would be foolish."

>>C: Good point, luckily I said home schooling or more advanced study. In light of this new info I will choose more advanced study. You concede my years of schooling were spent in a foolish manner. Under all definitions through point A and also "Resulting from stupidity or misinformation; unwise: a foolish decision." I thought it would help more than it did.

"D. My opponent states that he has spent his entire life in a very "lacking forethought", but with the valid definitions acknowledged, we must replace "lacking forethought" with "lacking good sense or judgment." Previously, he makes it known that bad results = bad judgment, but I've pointed out the benefits in his choices, thus, by his own logic, his decisions did not "lack good sense or judgment."

>>D: First off you choose arbitrarily one of your six definitions to replace with mine. Also I disagree, my life did lack a good sense of judgment (look to above 3 points) However for the sake of argument, I will cite two more of your definitions to counter your one.

1. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin. " My life has arisen much laughter.
2. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this. " And yes, I have often been embarrassed.

"E. Again, we can replace "forethought" with "good sense or judgment" An example of "good sense or judgment" would be in what my opponent is doing right now in that he has taken the time to articulate his arguments and using forms of reasoning to combat my case. Therefore, he is not foolish, but rather an intelligent individual."

>>E: Ah but once again I deny you. By writing this I am lacking a good sense of judgment, my judgment on the contrary has all been rather just simply a "sense of judgment" neither good nor bad. Once again I offer you two, actually three, of your own definitions to combat your one.

1. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin. " If this debate has not resulted in some laughter on someones part I will be very much surprised.

2. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this." I am publicly humiliating myself.

3. "Insignificant; trivial: spent all their money on foolish little knickknacks. " Who will honestly care about this debate 20 days from now? It is insignificant.

"Further evidence that my opponent is intelligent:

He has used "good sense/judgment" to win on this website.
For example, notice this debate: http://www.debate.org...;

>>http://www.debate.org...
Look at my opponents comment here. This shows the reason.

"The main reason you must vote against my opponent is simply because voting for him would suggest that you simply came into this knowing who you would vote for in advance or that he managed to show good judgment in knowing how to persuade you into believing that he was an idiot. If it is due to the latter, this in itself would show that he truly does not live up to the definition of "Idiot." Thus, if he shows good judgment in the next round by using logically reasoning out my responses and rebutting them, he is providing some evidence that he is not an idiot. Needless to say, not being able to convince you that he is an idiot doesn't suggest that he is an idiot. In fact, it just suggest that he is unable to convince you of what clearly isn't the truth."

>>On the contrary I have to convince you as the voter that this debate makes you laugh (mental laughter counts), humiliates me, or is insignificant. I have already done all three.

"Finally, I would like to remind you that well known people such as Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings have made mistakes (thus have shown poor judgment) in their lives. Making mistakes is something we all do. However, just because we all make mistakes, it does not automatically define us as idiots (or people who make poor judgment) especially if we have made numerous intelligent decisions in our lives. Thus, even if my opponent presents conclusive evidence for B (as he is supposed to since the burden of proof belongs to him), we could dismiss it as a mistake rather than present it as proof that he is an idiot."

>>Sure, but you haven't proven that they were always not idiots. Therefor I may become a genius at some point through my mistakes but for now I am an idiot under the American Heritage dictionary at least....

Thanks, vote for me.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mogget 6 years ago
Mogget
Yes, a true god won this debate!
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah yeah, I have a DS though, so maybe I will buy it. I found a sweet parody on it. I'm kind of thrilled.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Alright. :D

As for the system, it's only on Nintendo DS (although there are other means [which are illegal] of playing the game if you don't have a DS. *cough* emulator *cough*
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah good point. I'm glad you only used one dictionary for myself to prove me an idiot. =)
PS2?
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I believe you have a typing error due to my intention being to prove that you were not an idiot according to that dictionary.

As for the picture, it's from the game "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attourney." It's not an anime at the moment, but I'm sure it will be in the future.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
What is your picture from by the way? I love Anime, it looks sweet.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
I'm glad you only tried to prove me as an idiot under the American heritage dictionary. I may need to prove myself as intelligent under another dictionary now. Or just prove you as an idiot under some dictionary....... Hmmmm
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I look forward to it as I set up rebuttal through a means that you'd provide evidence for my case regardless of what you said.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Maybs! I will probably post tomorrow sometime. Apparently I have a day and something left. Doo dee doo.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
You know something I don't? ; )
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 months ago
9spaceking
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 6 years ago
WeaponE
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 6 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03