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

After/Assuming this debate concludes, the contender ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,660 times Debate No: 5346
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (5)

 

Logical-Master

Con

This debate was actually inspired by a recent (yet inactive) debate created by PoeJoe.

CLARIFICATION ON THE PARAMETERS OF THIS DEBATE:

1) I didn't have enough space to word the resolution properly so basically, my intent is to argue specifically on my opponent. In other words, I shall analyze my opponent and then provide reasons as to why the two of us should not go on a date. When the contender accepts the debate, the resolution should be understood as "After/If this debate concludes, "[insert Contender's name]" ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master." Thus, I will not start the debate until the second round. My opponent is free to provide arguments upon accepting this round (or can wait until R2).

2) I would suggest that my opponent only accept if a female. As a male, my opponent would have to prove that I was gay and quite frankly, I feel that this would not only be against my intentions of this debate, but would also be rather difficult to prove (especially online).

3) No going against the intent of the debate as well as providing ridiculous semantics. For you semantic lovers, I promise to create a debate specifically revolved around semantics in the near future. And no kritiks either. They are smelly.

If there are any questions, feel free to provide them in the comment section.
Yraelz

Pro

You know logical..... I was thinking about posting a ton of arguments this round on why it would be very beneficial for us going on a debate but I actually am feeling in a more Neg mood right now. So I'm going to go ahead and let you provide the arguments and then I'll do something.

And considering I can't forfeit now I have motivation to check this debate. Go for it.

Round 2, fight!
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Con

Alright, I'll go first.

CONTENTION #1: First, I'd like to point out that Yraelz is more likely than not heterosexual. My basis for this claim is rather clear and conclusive and doesn't simply rely on the fact that Yraelz classifies himself as someone who is interested in women in his debate.org profile

Exhibit A: http://www.debate.org...

Exhibit B: http://www.debate.org...

Exhibit C: http://www.debate.org...

Exhibit D: Facebook.

First, we must note that in the Exhibit A, Yraelz presents clear and concise reasons for why he isn't gay in spite of the fact that this wasn't necessary to win the aforementioned debate. In Exhibit B, Yraelz informs the user known as "solo" that he deleted his previous account which went by the name "Yrael" because it was involved in an impossible to win debate. In Exhibit C, we find out that the "impossible to win" debate topic concerned whether or not he was gay (why would a topic that was simply confirming his so-called "homosexuality" be impossible for him to win? I'll elaborate more on this in the next round if necessary). Finally, there is the matter of Yraelz's facebook. Recently, I decided to send a friend request to Yraelz on facebook so that I could confirm whether or not he was heterosexual on his facebook page. Yraelz promptly accepted me on his list and I was quickly able to determine for myself that he is involved with a women in a romantic relationship (coincidentally, his sexual preferences here match his sexual preferences listed on facebook as well) through simple observation. Ergo, given all of these facts, it is quite clear that Yraelz is more likely than not heterosexual.

CONTENTION #2: Neither of us know enough about the other. The most mostly anyone on this site knows about me is that I like to debate, am a nerd, can please a woman, play video games, and that I . . . like anime. However, even with this knowledge, there is not enough to get a good grasp of my personality. Thus, I challenge my opponent to prove he has a good grasp of my personality as well as why mine would mesh would his. If he does not do this, then you have little reason to vote PRO, ladies and gentleman.

CONTENTION #3: Yraelz lives in Montana whereas I live in Tennessee. Simply driving that far just to meet up with some random sophist nut case from debate.org is highly injudicious as he certainly doesn't have enough information to know the kind of person he'd be dating. This could in turn lead to a very pathetic date.

CONTENTION #4: I could very well be 30 year old child molester or a serial killer. This speaks for itself and shall be elaborated on later depending on what PRO says.

CONTENTION: #5. I don't like mudkipz. ;)

CONTENTION 6: Yraelz makes it quite clear that I am dead to him, as noted on this wall: http://www.debate.org...

"Music is dead to you.......? You're dead to me!"

Does this sound like the kind of attitude someone has against someone who'd they be willing to go on a date with? My thoughts exactly.

CONTENTION 7: As noted in this debate, I am annoying and obnoxious: http://www.debate.org...

Sure, 2/3 of that guys argument doesn't hold water, but the one about me making THIS debate is right on the money as it is indeed most annoying and obnoxious to make a debate concerning whether or not anyone will go on a date with me while using a serious debate site such as this. Hell, it's bordenline spamming. Surely one shouldn't date someone who is annoying and obnoxious (which I'll explain moreso in the next round and will also provide more evidence that I am annoying and obnoxious).

Finally, I have a suspicion about what tactics my opponent intends to employ in this debate, thus, I'll place two cards face down and end my turn.

END OF CON R2
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

Ha! With no arguments on the field, your life points are completely unprotected.! My seven contentions, ATTACK HIS LIFE POINTS DIRECTLY!

(extend)
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Con

Kentucky Fired Forfeits = No fun.

Extend all arguments.
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Well Yraelz, that "yraelz has forfeited the round" argument was rather impressive. I'll need to devise a means of dealing with that argument in the future. :D
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Wonder how much hope there is for me winning this debate now..... o.o A lot I think!!!!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I mean, it's fried not friend or fired.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
whoops, it's friend not fired.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
WHoops. Oh yeah, I used card destruction, so you gotta get rid of your entire hand and draw a new one. No magic hammer for you. :D
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I thought Dark Hole was a banned card.

I remember the good old days of Yugioh.
For some reason, the card in my deck that pissed people off most was Emperor's Holiday.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Shiot! I bet one of those face down cards is Dark Hole! *Luckily I have drawn Magic Jammer!* Mwahaha!
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
God is BACK.

More KFF? :o
Posted by spinnerclotho 8 years ago
spinnerclotho
Hahahahahaha, you have to debate a male. This'll be fun. *looks forward to it*
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
I think we should go out LM, and can work out the gender differences later
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
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:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
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 Zero 8 years ago
Zero
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 Logical-Master 8 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