The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

America, the essence.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 82022
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am innocent until proven guilty.


Debate accepted.

Firstly, Pro has failed to define *exactly* what his debate is about--however, if one is to base their argument exclusively on his resolution and additional statement, it can easily be negated.

For example, Pro's resolution is: 'America, the essence.'

He then asserts: 'I am innocent until proven guilty'.

As Pro is not America, this is a fallacy.
Debate Round No. 1


Have you proven me guilty? It only takes one vote, here. Well have you? I do not think so.


Once again, as Pro is *not* America--I am in no way obliged to prove him 'guilty'.

If this is the case that Pro chose a resolution that bares no relation to what he wanted to argue, then he is still technically the loser of this debate; as the instigator it's on him to make his case as clear as possible and stick to exactly what the resolution is implying.
Debate Round No. 2


I may not be America, however I was born in America, to AMERICAN CITIZENS. That is an undeniable fact.

As far as defining exactly what my debate is about, if you didn't know, then what made you attracted to slaying my words? You are guilty of taking a debate that was unclear, in order to give yourself a win, I believe.

Not that it matters, but one must wonder if you are a second generation American, or just another murderer of America, in order to give an anti Jesus countries zealots power by destroying Americans freedom.

You took the debate, prove me wrong, get your vote in the win column, that's how it works.

I could care less about winning, but Allah? Nope, not so much. Whatever.


Pro has still yet to make a valid argument.

To outline some rebuttals however, I'd start off by addressing the lack of clarity in the debate. On the contrary to exploiting that, I view it as useful for Pro to be *told* that when choosing a resolution and a debate topic--it's important to make it as a clear as possible for the opponent.

What was *not* clear is that Pro was referring to America (I.E the United States) in his resolution yet himself in his round one, which for obvious reasons automatically makes it perplexing.

Pro states that on the basis that he's from America, his initial argument (which is rather more just one small sentence) is logically justified, when clearly it isn't and this once more a fallacy.

Pros questioning as to myself being a 'second generation American' are also irrelevant, especially as I am absolutely not American and have never even visited the country.

Again, it bares no relation to the resolution or indeed the topic that Pro is supposedly debating.

As for Pros last sentence, evidently it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.
Debate Round No. 3


please, Con lady, define the logical sense of your participation in this debate. I dare ye. You will most likely dance around, as a PC puppet. So be it, or retort, capitalist.


Hm, as expected Pro has still failed to provide any real arguments.

In addition he still continues to make accusations like 'PC puppet' when I have given absolutely no indication of being 'politically correct', in fact that particular term bares no relation to this debate at all.

As does me being a allegedly being a 'capitalist', which is actually incorrect.
Debate Round No. 4


Nice debate, you win due to your acceptance of the format dictated by the politics of this site. You have proven nothing outside of the sovereign state of DDO. And still you wish to slay my opinion and declare yourself not PC? Well fine, so be it, Cheers!
In the end, we will all lose, I believe.



Due the complete lack of coherent arguments/rebuttals from the debate instigator, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: UtherPenguin// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the burden of proof.

[*Reason for non-removal*] On most debates, I'd be quite a bit harsher on a vote like this. However, after reading over the debate, it seems the voter had little to nothing to draw from to explain his decision, and the decision itself is obvious. The report was... interesting, but invalid.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
I win spelling and grammar, she spelled Con, CON. A clear loss for the negativity.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Sorry, maybe for being such a cruel bastard, to such a tart. Hang me now.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Got yer panties all in a bunch over this? Beware, I will properly retort to your inadvertant acceptance, with no fear of losing. So be it then, eh?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UtherPenguin 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the burden of proof.