The Instigator
LogicalLunatic
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Aerogant is arrogant

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,244 times Debate No: 60889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (7)

 

LogicalLunatic

Pro

Burden of Proof is shared. Begin.
Aerogant

Con

I'm not arrogant.

The president is.

Prideful parents are.

Religious people are.

Politicians are.

Business dogs and top dogs are.

Me? Arrogant? I guess wise men are arrogant, since their "wise phrases recorded in history" contain their thoughts on stupidity and ignorance. Got to love Einstein's "arrogant" remarks on human stupidity. My! What arrogance! It's almost as if it wasn't arrogance at all! Just the T.R.U.T.H.
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalLunatic

Pro

1st Piece of Evidence:
During one debate Arrogant said "I'm a genius."
http://www.debate.org...
Definition of genius: someone who is much more intelligent than the average person.
Definition of arrogant:
"Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Being more intelligent is generally considered a thing that makes one superior. Therefore, if Aerogant believes that he is more intelligent than others then he is arrogant.
Now, setting aside for a moment the fact that this claim even if true is still arrogant, let's contest the claim that Aerogant is exceptionally intelligent, a "genius".
Aerogant has, at the time that I'm posting this, won less than 10% of all the debates that he has taken part in (with this account, at least).
http://www.debate.org...
This is not due to a lack of voters, as according to this source Aerogant has lost 83 out of 95 debates. He may claim that there is a bias against him, but I find this unlikely, as the voters have voted for him when he deserved victory (such as when his opponents forfeited) and have not voted at all on some debates that he deserved to lose.

2nd Piece of Evidence:
In this debate Aerogant and one of Debate.org member make more original debates than the other Debate.org members.
http://www.debate.org...
As originality is generally considered a good thing, Aerogant was stating (and this debate is still going on, so it is present tense), that there was a way in which he is superior to almost all other members. By the definition of arrogant provided earlier on in this debate, Aerogant has proven himself to be arrogant.

Rebuttals:
For his argument Aeorgant has presented people who he believes to be arrogant. He says that "Religious people are" (arrogant).
As the Christian Religion says that people must abandon their pride and their own plans for life in order to please God and there are Christians who have followed this criteria, there are Christians (who are religious people) who are not arrogant, thus disproving my opponent's claim, which presumably meant that all religious people are arrogant.
And even if all the people mentioned by Con in Round 1 of this debate were selfish, that still would not mean that Aerogant isn't selfish.

I await my opponent's rebuttals.
Aerogant

Con

They did not vote against me during the FF because they knew their bias would have nowhere to hide, numb skull. You beat your dictionary to come up with this logical fallacy?

Wise men called people stupid, therefore wise men are arrogant? No? THEN STFU AND STOP TWISTING CONTEXT, YOU PSYCHOPATHIC BABY.

The only thing left of your rebuttal is butt, BUTT, BUT, ARSE, BEHIND, REGRESSION, HOLE.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalLunatic

Pro

You claimed that to hide their alleged bias towards you, voters voted for you when your opponent forfeited.
This is perhaps my opponent's only sensible argument in that Round.
There has been no proof presented by Aerogant to back up this claim, and even if they were all biased towards you your debate arguments make it clear that you are not a "genius" (just being truthful). Only all this time you've been trolling and your true genius has not been shown, but of course such a claim would require evidence. Until then it is an invalid argument.
Of course, just saying that my opponent's arguments disprove his alleged genius does not make it so.
Here is a debate that my opponent engaged in recently:
http://www.debate.org...
And here was his opening statement:
"I masturbated while I was a guy. *sex change* I masturbated...Wait."
I think that all the spectators can agree such an argument is NOT the mark of a genius. Not by a long shot.

And yes, if "wise" people believe that other people are inferior then those "wise" people are arrogant (and probably not all that wise).
Besides, the arrogance of other people does not negate one's own arrogance.
I might be more arrogant and vain than Light Yagami (an anime reference) and I might consider myself "god of the new world". Now, my opponent probably isn't quite THAT arrogant. But even so, my own misguided megalomania would mean nothing whenever the resolution of this debate is "Aerogant is arrogant."

The rest was a rant about butts

Vote for Pro!
Aerogant

Con

I can tell you exactly what you want to know.

Most arguments were lost because apparently I have very bad "conduct" on a site infested with idiots compared to say, military conduct, catholic conduct - do I really have to say more?

Other arguments I lost because the people I debated with were friends with the people that are biased towards me.

Other arguments I lost because, well, I didn't take it seriously because the person was being a complete idiot.

Other arguments I lost because, well, I was arguing with myself (ALovingFlowerGirl).

Then I tied some, because why not.

Then I won every single debate due to two reason: 1) The person I debated with FF'd. 2) The person I debated with were so bad at debating that I somehow managed to win. But in the end, all the ones I won aren't even legit - I lost all my legit wins because they are, indeed, 100% biased.

Don't believe me? I don't care. In a few years from now, I'll be out in the real world becoming your next world renowned philosopher. Who cares what you muster from what I've written. There are people out there with far more "arrogance" that disown their own children for their pride, while all I do is call someone an... "idiot". Five letter. A very simple word for stupidity, and you're calling me arrogant because people are, indeed, idiots? The wise men said it, nobody cares. When I say it, it's suddenly a witch hunt? Okay people, there's a reason why humanity has a bad reputation on this planet; there's a reason why people give up their lives to sex, drugs and other dwelling issues; there's a reason why so many people run away from reality by reading books, playing games or some other outlet; there's a reason why our rulers destroy our country, while nobody in the population is taking the blame, after they voted the monkey into office. So I rest my case.

You are idiots. I'm going to lose this one because I call people idiots based on a well established reason, but because you guys are idiots, you can't reason, so despite of me making serious points, the children of this site will see the word idiot and be like "What a big fat meany head!" then vote for you in a world of much bigger issues... but you know, idiots.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Stop spamming.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
I'm not sure if you could detect the sarcasm, but I was trying to explain to you, the complete and total incoherence that sentence held.

"If you can't believe I'm not a troll, why think you would belive my wisdom? Exactly my point."

Let's ignore for a second, all of the grammar issues in that comment, and move on to the much bigger probelms:

I clearly do not think you have much wisdom, and I have been given no reason to think you do. It is so unbelievably obvious that I think all of the things you have said lacked wisdom. I am so completely stunned by the effort it must have taken in order to appear this dumb to others. I applaud you, if this foolish aura you have about you is purposeful. It takes a certain type of genius to concoct such idiocy.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
The sign of intelligence.
Posted by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
Smart Aleck...
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I cannot teach the primitive brain, for it is in a war zone - a professor must never teach in a war zone.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
My primitive brain is struggling to make out such an eloquent comment. I must request, with the modesty of a monk, for a clarification as to what the hell you meant.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
If you can't believe I'm not a troll, why think you would believe my wisdom? Exactly my point.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
I'm starting to think he might not be a troll
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands.
Posted by JacobDoe 2 years ago
JacobDoe
I think Aerogant might fit in with a variant of the Westboro Baptist Church.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In reference to one of the final arguments and the reason I have awarded Pro the points for arguments, arrogance comes in a variety of degrees. Whether it's in the form of disowning a child for pride or calling someone an idiot because you believe you are above them. It is still arrogance. Claiming to be the world's next great philosopher with no proof is another form of arrogance. Conduct goes to Pro for Aerogant's usage of insults in, what was supposed to be, a civilized debate. Sources go to Pro for citing sources for his arguments.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Umm, the tone of Aerogant's arguments basically proved pro's points.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: aerogant was mean and never rebutted
Vote Placed by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Aerogant was rather rude throughout the debate; conduct goes to Pro. Aerogant's grammar was off. I can not emphasize how superior Pro's arguments are. Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm biased.... Just joking. The sources that pro used were pretty good. Con probably could have recovered as they were not necessarily air tight but I had trouble following his reasoning and counterarguments.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Aerogant just got KO'ed. Sources arguments and conduct all to pro.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
LogicalLunaticAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In no way does Aerogant show an irrational sense of superiority. If I say I'm smarter than someone because I beat them in a debate does that make me arrogant? If so, then we need to change the definition of the word "arrogant," is that's bringing a negative thing to someone who not only is intelligent, but tells the truth. Unfortunately Aerogant doesn't like to stay on topic very much and doesn't really debate the topic at hand. Kind of unfortunate because I (in a way) side with him.