The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Noumena
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then.....

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Noumena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,768 times Debate No: 34647
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

The full resolution is "Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then having unprotected sex with someone riddled with STD's

First round acceptance only.

3 rounds, 3000 characters.

Good luck
Noumena

Con

I dutifully accept.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

The resolution is: Arguing for the liberal side of an argument on DDO is more dangerous then having unprotected sex with someone riddled with STD's

So why is that ^ true?

DDO is absolutely SATURATED with conservatives and moderates who lean to the right. If you dont believe me just look at some of the topics in the politics section....

"Eurocentrism"
"How Communism really works"
"NSA scandal"
"Operation Troll the NSA"
"Wealth redistribution: Just or Unjust?"
"How Capitalism really works"
"Democrats are awful"
"Biden: GOP is scared of of Paul and Cruz"

Now yes, some of those were created by Geo and Jimtimmy who are pretty racist and/or complete idiots (feel free to guess which is which), but the point is that politics wise, there are a vast majority of right leaning conservatives and libertarians who despise Obama compared to left leaning liberals.....

So if you argue for the liberal argument on a debate, then you will always get f*cked in the a** by the voters since there are more conservative voters then liberal ones.

But how does that make a debate more dangerous then having unprotected sex with someone riddled with STD's?

Because having sex with someone riddled with STD's doesnt guarantee that you will catch an STD. Sure youll get it after 5 or 6 tries, but there is a possibility you wont get it after just one round....

So to summarize:

Argue for the liberal side: You WILL get f*cked
Sex with an STD prostitute: You MIGHT get f*cked

And thats my argument. Over to you con
Noumena

Con

After reading my opponent's well-researched and cogent case (and of course taking some time to finish rolling on the floor laughing-- my that Ima is a rather clever one isn't he?) I was at a loss of how to refute it. I mean, it's so air tight. Ima seems to have proven (with infinite wit) that arguing from the liberal side of an issue on DDO is worse than having sex with a diseased piece of trash of a person. Then I went outside, smoked a cigarette, and realized none of that was true. So I suppose this is me pointing out the obvious.


My argument will be along the lines of an abductive investigation. That is, using abduction, I will take various warranted observations and show how my own conclusion best explains them.


=Observations=


(1) Liberals aren't exactly rocket scientists.
(2) Liberals win a rather large number of debates on the site.


=Conclusion to explain observations=


(3) There must be a rather friendly environment towards liberals on DDO (because lord knows they don't win their debates on their own merit).


=Defense of Observations=


1) I see no reason to spend too much time on this. I think it's rather obvious and my opponent (as a liberal) can surely vouch for this. Any skeptics can just research Pro's list of previous debate topics.


2) Liberals actually win debates, and plenty of 'em (somehow). My own opponent is rather high up there on the all time wins list; number two actually right behind a (uniquely coherent) leftist. Now don't ask me how liberals are even cognitively capable of writing out (or defending) a case for anything. I genuinely do not know. But the fact remains that the liberal side of various arguments come out ahead quite a lot. Take gay marriage and gay adoption for example. Contradiction put out a wholly non-prejudiced and obviously coherent (even by non-third grade standards of logic and reasoning) case against gay marriage. Some straggly haired liberal came in and whined about rights and crap and somehow won (http://www.debate.org...).


Or how about the (obviously correct) theory that Democrats are anti-American and communist. (http://www.debate.org...) While no one would rationally deny this, the Con on a debate tackling this pressing issue miraculously won hard.

Instances following the same pattern abound on this site.


(Conclusion)


But getting to the crux of my point... if liberals (who aren't exactly known for their intelligence) can win debates which the mythical right-wing majority is powerless to stop, what does that say about getting fccked? It obviously means that DDO is unduly receptive to the views of these idiotic heathens. Since this is the case, one may coherently affirm that having sex with a disease-ridden (probably) atheist is more dangerous than debating on a site that freely throws you votes for the heck of it.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"But getting to the crux of my point... if liberals can win debates which the mythical right-wing majority is powerless to stop, what does that say about getting fccked? It obviously means that DDO is unduly receptive to the views of these idiotic heathens"

Thats not true at all, the reason why liberals occasionally win a debate is because conservatives have the tendency to not cast enough votes before the voting period ends (Evidenced by the recent election where Obama beat Romney since some of the conservative voters slept through all of election day since the average republican voter is about 90 years old)

And also, some of the debates that liberals win are simple forfeits or debates that dont involve political positions at all! The last time I debated something political I think Jefferson was president!

Debating the liberal side of an argument is more dangerous then unprotected sex with someone crawling with STD's.... And you know im right because when was the last time YOU debated the liberal side of an argument? EXACTLY

Noumena

Con

Note that Pro has not taken issue with either of my observations. For those who don't remember, here were my observations in need of explanation:

(1) Liberals aren't exactly rocket scientists. (Liberal translation: intellectually challenged)
(2) Liberals win a rather large number of debates on the site.

Pro does add some mitigating factors though (weaseling around like the [probably Jewish] liberal he is). For instance, he argues that liberals win on forfeits. Impossible. If anyone forfeits a debate it would most likely be a liberal since they have no work ethic and typically spend most of their time trying to find either (a) good weed or (b) some gay bi-racial liberal arts professor to idolize. Pro showed zero examples of liberals being forfeited on by conservatives (such a thing is an impossibility given their strong Protestant work ethic and belief in meritocratic capitalism).

In another instance my opponent argues that conservatives miss voting deadlines. Like I said, impossible. Contrary to my opponent's smug Northeastern stereotyping of conservatives, we all know that these patriots would never slack on their duties. It is more likely that the good ol' Christian compassion that conservatives possess is what motivates them to vote for their intellectually inferiors.

To voters, be a patriot and not a pinhead. Liberals are treated with great care on this site. Whether that has anything to do with our Jewish (therefore probably liberal) President (and his sodomite predecessor) is something I can't be sure of. What I do know though is that having sexual intercourse with a disease-ridden excuse for a human being is certainly more dangerous than getting free votes from compassionate, God-fearing patriots. Pro has attempted to confuse you with his Orwellian double-speak, using complicated terminology like "f*cked" and "idiots". But don't be fooled. His liberals arts major in theater studies doesn't make him better than us and his linguistic trickery should not be tolerated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Started: 6/9/2013
Updated: 9 months ago
Viewed: 999 times

Rare.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
imabenchNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: "I agree with Pro, ergo it seems only right that I fvck him over." I'll also add that I learned that there is such a thing as a liberal conservative **from DanT**. So via abductive reasoning, bench is quite possibly arguing CON here, which means he deserves to lose.
Vote Placed by Gaurdian_Rock 3 years ago
Gaurdian_Rock
imabenchNoumenaTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Very funny, however I found that pro proved that DDO is a dangerous place for all members of the left wing. And countering VB
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
imabenchNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I agree with Pro, ergo it seems only right that I fvck him over.
Vote Placed by Skynet 3 years ago
Skynet
imabenchNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used sources. Both were hilariously insulting.