The Instigator
TorqueDork
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Am I suave as hell?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,139 times Debate No: 42309
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

TorqueDork

Pro

Pro, me, takes the position I am suave as hell.
Con also takes this position. BEGIN!

Suave- (esp. of a man) charming, confident, and elegant.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

By Con "takes" this position, I interpret that as "takes on" this position, and not as "accepts" this position. This is because, well, I am Con. It wouldn't be a debate if we argued for the same position. Therefore, my interpretation is more than charitable and reasonable.

---

Pro defines Suave as:

Suave- (esp. of a man) charming, confident, and elegant.

While Pro's willingness to debate how suave he is does show confidence, it is extremely arrogant and narcissistic. Therefore, "charming" and "elegant" are not words I would use to describe Con, as there is nothing charming about arguing for three rounds about how great you are.

Since Con only meets 1 of his 3 requirements for being suave; he cannot win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TorqueDork

Pro

Certainly we could sit here and argue like barbarians, but I think we would both enjoy sitting around a fire place accompanied by the test of tea and the serenade of the harp.

92828-3134-mv9vg-a.jpg

92828-3134-r5nsh-a.jpg

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

In my last round I said "Since Con only meets 1 of his 3 requirements for being suave; he cannot win this debate.", but I obviously meant "Pro". My apologies for the mishap.
---
Now, to further my case, how should we define elegant?
:el·e·gant adjective \G2;e-li-gənt\

"simple and clever"[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]
---
I think the above definition is the most comprehensive. Well, is my opponent simple and clever? Unfortunately, we have evidence against his cleverness in his last round. He posts two links to pictures, and they don't even work. How suave is that?

Posting broken links is not charming or elegant; just clumsy. Thus, Pro's last round counts against his case.
Debate Round No. 2
TorqueDork

Pro

Who are you to assume that they are broken links? How do you know I didn't just post pictures of what a broken link would look like! I thought that was awfully clever of me (ahem) and the reason I posted them you ask? Well the reason I posted them was to demonstrate the simplicity in my life (ahem)

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent seems to have contradicted himself. In his round previous to his last, he implied that he didn't want to debate and argue, just sit around a fire and listen to music. In his last round however, he clearly starts challenging me and arguing. This is what we call "all over the place"; not suave.


---


"Who are you to assume that they are broken links?" - Pro


It it pretty obvious. If my opponent can't realize that he posted broken links (or at least, broken pictures), then this, once more, counts against his cleverness.


"How do you know I didn't just post pictures of what a broken link would look like!" - Pro


How does my opponent know that we weren't created 5 minutes ago, with all of our memories of the past? Many things are possible, that doesn't make them plausible, or worthy of serious consideration.


"I thought that was awfully clever of me (ahem)" - Pro


As I showed earlier in this round, it was not clever. Additionally, as I said, it is arrogant and not charming for one to go on about how great they are. All my opponent is doing here is talking about how "awfully clever" he is. Most people roll their eyes when people talk about how great they are like this; the last thing that comes to mind is how charming that person is. My opponent has shown confidence, but not charm, and not elegance.


"And the reason I posted them you ask? Well the reason I posted them was to demonstrate the simplicity in my life (ahem)" - Pro


Actually, posting links or pictures that are clearly broken, and attempting to weasel out of that conclusion is extremely complicated (not simple). Therefore, my opponent's argument above fails. Regardless, it is literally impossible for my opponent to win the debate. The only way for him to defend the resolution is to argue with regards to how suave he is; which is not charming. However, that is part of the definition of suave. Thus, an ugly paradox shows its face.


---


Con has proven he has confidence, but he has also proven he doesn't have charm or elegance. Since all three are required for Pro to win the debate; the resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 3
TorqueDork

Pro

The only reason I argued is because you showed no interest in the tea drinking. Im arrogant: pehaps, however under the definition of suave it no where says that the said person cant be arrogant, you can be both arrogant and elegant and arogant and charming. Furthermore, heyayayayayaya whats goin' on.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

In my last round I mixed up Con and Pro again by accident (it is good thing my elegance is not up for debate lol). I apologize.

---

"The only reason I argued is because you showed no interest in the tea drinking." - Pro

Of course I showed no interest in tea drinking. This is a debate; I showed interest in pointing out the contradictions in my opponent's general form of argument, and the illogic used in hiscase.

"I'm arrogant: perhaps, however under the definition of suave it no where says that the said person cant be arrogant." - Pro

The point is that arrogant and charming contradict each other. Thus, a person arguing about how suave they are only proves that person is not charming! Thus, even if "not arrogant" isn't specifically in the definition of suave; "charming" is. Since an arrogant person is not a charming person; my argument still goes through unscathed.

"You can be both arrogant and elegant and arrogant and charming." - Pro

No you cannot. Because to be arrogant, is to not be charming (obviously); that is a contradiction. Either way, even if Pro could be suave with all those qualities; that wouldn't mean Pro was suave as hell. Remember, the debate isn't about whether or not he is merely suave, but whether or not he is suave as hell; which entails a standard higher above just that of being suave. Pro hasn't presented a single case for the actual resolution.

"Furthermore, heyayayayayaya whats goin' on." - Pro

Me winning this debate is what going on. Sorry (your spelling is atrocious by the way, not very suave, let alone suave "as hell").

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
"Also, just so you know, there are two r's in "irrational"
Oh thanks, sorry my bad.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Also, just so you know, there are two r's in "irrational"
Posted by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
"Because I knew you couldn't establish the resolution."
So it was just like an easy-win to you?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"With all do respect, Irational_Thinker, why did you accept it then?"

Because I knew you couldn't establish the resolution.

"Also, when I said Con also takes this position I meant it :P"

Well, you didn't challenge my interpretation in the debate.
Posted by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
Also, when I said Con also takes this position I meant it :P
Posted by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
With all do respect, Irational_Thinker, why did you accept it then?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I didn't find it funny.
Posted by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
This debate was intended to be funny...hence the funny category.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I said "Since Con only meets 1 of his 3 requirements for being suave; he cannot win this debate.", but I obviously meant "Pro" lol
Posted by ScrinTech 3 years ago
ScrinTech
heh overkill
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
TorqueDorkRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I am actually voting for pro on this debate. He had better conduct, as con accused him of many things. However, con won s&g by a landslide. Now when we get to arguments, it becomes interesting. "Hell" is not suave. So when CON proved that pro only met one of the three requirements, he proved he was not suave. So he was literally "as suave as hell." Since I have no way of knowing what the title really meant, I am taking it literal as I should on all titles. I think pro wins this one.
Vote Placed by The_Tom 3 years ago
The_Tom
TorqueDorkRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think pro had any chance of winning this argument
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
TorqueDorkRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins all the arguments, was dignified and quite suave.