Bryan Mullins: The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  11/23/2017  Category:  Education  
Updated:  1 week ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  408 times  Debate No:  105155 
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (53)
Votes (0)
The forensic math decimal is pretty simple.
Phillip Alan David, 7, 5622 Basic Lane, Manning, ND (The first kid that was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) First you start with 18,568,322 (The number of children who were slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) Then you divide it by 19 (years since 1998, not calendar wise) then divide it by 365 (The number of days in a year) then you get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as "Phillip" then divide the decimal by the middle number of the decimal, then use that number to translate to his middle name, which would translate to "Alan" then last but not least, divide that by its middle number than multiply it to the second power than divide by 2, which you get the last name "David" then if you want his age, add the main numbers before the dot of the decimal, then divide by 3, in this case of "Phillip Alan David" you get the number 7. Then you take that same process to find his home (legitimate address) then you found it which is 5622 Basic Lane Manning, ND. Same with Michelle Shawn Isaac, 9, 47 Leo Street, San Francisco, CA (The last kid who was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) With the whole process to find the last kid who was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas. Then you calculate the same way to find her home address which is 47 Leo Street San Francisco, CA.
First of all, give me a reliable source that 18,568,322 kids have been eaten for not believing in Christmas. Not one of your videos, I want an actual, legitimate source. If you fail to provide it, it derails your whole math equation. How do you "get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as 'Phillip?'" Please explain. How do you translate numbers into names and addresses? You are being ridiculous. I know you are a troll, but thank you for challenging me to this debate, I enjoy easy elo. Please respond to my problems with your argument, as burden of proof is completely on your shoulders. 

Thank you for your argument, but you don't even understand that we're only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works not to reprove something that was already proven in another debate.
Without further ado, here are my first rebuttals. 1 "First of all, give me a reliable source that 18,568,322 kids have been eaten for not believing in Christmas. Not one of your videos, I want an actual, legitimate source. If you fail to provide it, it derails your whole math equation." Like I stated before, we were only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and not something I already proven in another debate. 2. "How do you "get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as 'Phillip?'" Please explain. How do you translate numbers into names and addresses? You are being ridiculous." This is how you get the first decimal number, you take the number 18,568,322 and divide it by 365 (Days in a year), then divide it by 19 (the number of years it has happened). Numbers can be translated into letters that can spell out addresses and names, Phillip Alan David was just an example. It is not ridiculous, it is plain mathematical logic. After you translate Phillip you divide that decimal by the middle number of that decimal, then translate to Alan, then times that decimal to the second power, and divide it by 2, then you can translate to David. That's how you get the names. 3. "I know you are a troll, but thank you for challenging me to this debate, I enjoy easy elo. Please respond to my problems with your argument, as burden of proof is completely on your shoulders." This is completely unnecessary, also is very unprofessional for calling me a "troll." Also, there is no burden of proof. You didn't explain what "elo" means. Source of translated addresses: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... Conclusion: 1. The Forensic Math Decimal works when it comes to names and addresses. 2. There is no burden of proof. 3. Calling people trolls is unprofessional and will not make you win any arguments. I made rebuttals, gave sources for those 2 addresses, and made my conclusion. So everybody vote Pro! "Thank you for your argument, but you don't even understand that we're only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works not to reprove something that was already proven in another debate."
OK, so we about the forensic math decimal. Got it. "Like I stated before, we were only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and not something I already proven in another debate." I understand that this is not the primary subject of the debate, but it IS a supporting detail. It is very important that you explain where you got the number from because that is the number that you first start out with in your equation. If no source is given as to its actual credibility, how will we know if your equation works? You may have proven it in another debate, but this debate requires you to prove it again.
"This is how you get the first decimal number, you take the number 18,568,322 and divide it by 365 (Days in a year), then divide it by 19 (the number of years it has happened). Numbers can be translated into letters that can spell out addresses and names, Phillip Alan David was just an example. It is not ridiculous, it is plain mathematical logic." If I divided correctly, I get approximately 2677.48. I am still wondering what system you are using to get the name Philip from that number. I asked how you do it, and you simply replied with "Numbers can be translated into numbers... it is plain mathmatical logic." It is not plain to me, and thus you must explain it further. This is completely unnecessary, also is very unprofessional for calling me a "troll." Also, there is no burden of proof. You didn't explain what "elo" means. While it isn't necessary to call you a troll, it is still the truth. Either that or you suffer from delusion. You have offered nothing substantive, so these can be the only two possibilites. Also, there is burden of proof. You are the onle making the oustanding claims, thus it is up to you to prove them. You have not done so. And "elo" are points awarded for winning debates.
Your adress sources are nothing but random locations on Google Maps. They do not correclate to your forensic math decimal whatsoever.
Conclusion: 1. Burden of proof falls completely on Pro, and he has proven nothing. Also, since there were no provisions that he could argue in comments, he should not be allowed to, and it should be considered against him for conduct if he so chooses to do so. 2. I Googled Forensic Math Decimal, and absolutely nothing comes up about it. It is a figment of his imagination. 3. While calling people trolls or delusional is unproffesional, it is in this case the obvious truth and thus does not help NOR hurt my argument.
Do not vote pro, vote con! 
No votes have been placed for this debate.
Also, I'm 11. I am cam't and will not drink. The only person here who is delusional is you.
Worshiped by an actual cult.
Calm down!
Says the person who debates for figments of his imagination. DO YOU WANT THE FVCKING DEBATE OR NOT? It's not that hard to say yes or no.