The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Minddagger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 107119
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (75)
Votes (0)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

The Roast Game is fact!

The Roast Game is pretty simple First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast?" The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special?"

The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it.

It makes logical sense because when you ask a family member these questions, you get the sense that the family member is assuming that I don't know what they were eating, making excuses like guessing average roast meats like "ham", " turkey", or "chicken" Then he faces your sudden answer "no" which gives him a sign that he is just making excuses to escape the question and to carry on with life.The roast game is just a psychological mind tester. It tests the human will to tell the truth.

Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing.

Sources:
[1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...

[2] http://www.debate.org...
Minddagger

Con

Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory.

And have you ever heard of savaging? its where the momma or father animal eats their own children, ALIVE, we eat them when their DEAD, here's some evidence:

http://www.nadis.org.uk...

"It makes logical sense because when you ask a family member these questions, you get the sense that the family member is assuming that I don't know what they were eating, making excuses like guessing average roast meats like "ham", " turkey", or "chicken" Then he faces your sudden answer "no" which gives him a sign that he is just making excuses to escape the question and to carry on with life. The roast game is just a psychological mind tester. It tests the human will to tell the truth."

except that the meaty that they are eating DOESNT CONCERN THEM, and no means rejection, not denial, no one even has heard of this "roast game" so obviously a lot of people would be confused.

Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young

And your sources make no sense as well, one is your past debates and the other is from a wikias, which is a bad source.

Sorry, but you have no evidence saying that humans eat their own children.
Sources:

http://www.nadis.org.uk...

https://io9.gizmodo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here are my first rebuttals.

1. "Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory."

Savaging piglets have nothing to do with The Roast Game. Breathing and living is not special for children. Except that parents slaughter their own children in a secretive place, like for example, the woods. Children don't get killed in the factory, you misrepresented The Roast Game in general by assuming that other meats taste good, and the children get killed in factories (which is false). They only get killed in a secluded place like the woods, where there is no house around. Animals get killed in factories, not children. The last segment of this quote made no sense. You mention "poison, quicksand, and many other ways" but that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. This is a misrepresentation of The Roast Game.

2. "except that the meaty that they are eating DOESNT CONCERN THEM, and no means rejection, not denial, no one even has heard of this "roast game" so obviously a lot of people would be confused.
Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young. And your sources make no sense as well, one is your past debates and the other is from a wikias, which is a bad source. Sorry, but you have no evidence saying that humans eat their own children."

I'm sorry, but you completely misrepresented The Roast Game again. Of course meats don't concern them because they are the people that slaughter the child. People have heard of it, the debate got really popular. The topic and proven fact is popular when you search it on Google. [1] Wikia is not a bad source, just because it is a fan page, doesn't make necessarily make it a bad source. You have no real representation of The Roast Game, I do. The burden of proof argument is most common for this misunderstood fact. You have no evidence that the sources you linked had any real representation. They reject inedible parts, like the fecal matter, I don't see you arguing that. All you're arguing is that there is no evidence that families ate children (which is a lie), and also, that they get slaughtered in the cage (which is also a lie as well). You made a punctuation error in your argument, that would be an instant loss of S+G points.

Sources:
[1] http://www.google.com...

Next argument, please.
Minddagger

Con

First off, where is the punctuation error? I would like to see it if you would not mind. Otherwise, it could mean that you are trying to throw me as a debater with bad grammar, which is poor conduct.

you cannot misrepresent something that has no proof of existing, I looked up the roast game, not one search popped up about it, plus, I told multiple people about it and no one has heard of it. it also does not show In history books, and not one scientist has found any corpses of eaten children.

Savaging piglets? Its killing and eating your own child, your so called "roast game"? Killing and eating your own child, I see no difference in such, and I never said that children were killed in the factories,

"The Roast Game in general by assuming that other meats taste good, and the children get killed in factories (which is false)."

you went a little off topic here, first, you say that I assume other meats taste good for no reason at all, then you continue on with your statement.

you also have no proof that the roast game is real, and wikia is a bad source, because anyone could edit the pages, creating a bias.

Sources:

https://www.bing.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here is the quote with the punctuation error. "Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young"

Here are some more rebuttals.

1. "you cannot misrepresent something that has no proof of existing, I looked up the roast game, not one search popped up about it, plus, I told multiple people about it and no one has heard of it. it also does not show In history books, and not one scientist has found any corpses of eaten children."

You did not click the cited link from my previous round. I also meant as in DDO friends, and other friends, not what you stated. You misrepresented what I said again, but this time, you misrepresented the link I've given in my previous argument, and you lied saying that you "told multiple people about it." Also, the same argument I debunked before, use a different argument, instead of the burden of proof argument. You assume that just because it is fact, it means that it automatically has to be in books. You committed another fallacy which is called "Confirmation Bias" meaning that just because I attacked and debunked your argument, it meant that you are correct (which is false).

2. "Savaging piglets? Its killing and eating your own child, your so called "roast game"? Killing and eating your own child, I see no difference in such, and I never said that children were killed in the factories"

Did you not? Here let me quote you. "Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory.

And have you ever heard of savaging? its where the momma or father animal eats their own children, ALIVE, we eat them when their DEAD, here's some evidence"

You said it like it was children, though I debunked this argument you made. You're essentially comparing children with other meats like ham and turkey, saying that both are special, then saying just like children, baby piglets get eaten by their own parents.

3. "you went a little off topic here, first, you say that I assume other meats taste good for no reason at all, then you continue on with your statement."

Where did I say that? I never said that, that quote you made, was a lie. I never went off topic, you did.

4. "you also have no proof that the roast game is real, and wikia is a bad source, because anyone could edit the pages, creating a bias."

First off, I am the only manager of the website, nobody else can edit the website.

Let me reinstate the link I need you to click:
http://www.google.com...

Click it, then make a new argument. Don't make another regurgitation of the old burden of proof argument, Con.
Minddagger

Con

I don't see how that sentence could take points off, either way, I say we drop it and continue the debate.

I did indeed click the incited link, and it is you who also didn't click MY link, as you can see, if you look up the roast game, with out typing Bryan mullins, you just get nothing about your theory. because it is no longer noticed by the public, which means it is unproven and forgotten, people notice proved theories,

You want a new argument? answer me this, if children got eaten, where are their bodies?, you see, you misunderstood me when I said "is there any proof" instead, you thought I said "does anyone else believe it" because just a few more people believing the theory does not mean it is proved true,

and that's what I want, evidence. real proof that parents eat their kids, are their any skeletons? dead bodies? arrested parents who have consumed said child? I have asked you this throughout this debate, and you still haven't given me an answer.

it would seem that you are using the word "misrepresent" to try and twist my arguments, and adding new "facts" to your theory to make me think I got it all wrong.

In the wikia, it says that "if they freak out, they are guilty"

no, they are freaking out because some random dude is asking if they are eating their own child,

"Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing."

Except the person who typed this, showed no proof in this paragraph, he/she was just spouting some theory with no physical evidence to back it up.

in the end, your not going anywhere in this debate, your just repeating the same thing over and over, and you just confessed you used website you made as a source, making it false.

Finally, it would seem that in the wikia, your the only one who made the pages, this is reason to believe you have few, if not zero, fellow members, this contradicts your "everyone is talking about it" statement.

Sources:

http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com... (as you can see, He's the only one who made the pages)
Debate Round No. 3
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here are some more rebuttals.

1. "I did indeed click the incited link, and it is you who also didn't click MY link, as you can see, if you look up the roast game, with out typing Bryan mullins, you just get nothing about your theory. because it is no longer noticed by the public, which means it is unproven and forgotten, people notice proved theories,

You want a new argument? answer me this, if children got eaten, where are their bodies?, you see, you misunderstood me when I said "is there any proof" instead, you thought I said "does anyone else believe it" because just a few more people believing the theory does not mean it is proved true"

Your link is irrelevant, without spelling my name is completely ignoring the fact, which you made an irrelevant argument. You are completely missing the point. My name has to be searched in with it, in order to see it. If you purposely chose not to put my name with it, you are just missing the point. You still didn't make a new argument. You still go by the old burden of proof argument. You made an irrelevant argument at the end of the quote saying something I never said. You can't claim I said something when I clearly didn't say that. The question seems irrelevant, because first of all, you did not give me a new argument, it still abides by the old burden of proof argument you're trying to push; Second, they get rid of the evidence of the bodies, if they haven't, they would've linked the entire family to the crime, then arrest the family. I'm not saying that they leave dead bodies behind. All in all, this was just another desperate attempt to push the old burden of proof argument again.

2. "and that's what I want, evidence. real proof that parents eat their kids, are their any skeletons? dead bodies? arrested parents who have consumed said child? I have asked you this throughout this debate, and you still haven't given me an answer. it would seem that you are using the word "misrepresent" to try and twist my arguments, and adding new "facts" to your theory to make me think I got it all wrong. In the wikia, it says that "if they freak out, they are guilty" no, they are freaking out because some random dude is asking if they are eating their own child"

They get rid of the evidence, as explained in this video:
https://m.youtube.com...

This is a poor argument, asking all these pointless questions, and using the same old burden of proof argument that doesn't work anymore. They freak out because they don't want to be caught or arrested by police. Where does it say that if they freak out, they are guilty? You misrepresented the wikia page. Now you misrepresented three things now, my first argument, my link to the google search (includes my name), and now, the wikia page. If you can't seem to make a legit argument, give me a reason not to give me a legit argument. I'm not twisting any of your arguments, you're twisting mine, trying to make my arguments seem false and wrong by using the same old debunked burden of proof argument, and completely ignoring my link (by hypocritically made your own link). Your arguments are useless now.

3. "Except the person who typed this, showed no proof in this paragraph, he/she was just spouting some theory with no physical evidence to back it up. in the end, your not going anywhere in this debate, your just repeating the same thing over and over, and you just confessed you used website you made as a source, making it false. Finally, it would seem that in the wikia, your the only one who made the pages, this is reason to believe you have few, if not zero, fellow members, this contradicts your "everyone is talking about it" statement."

You are completely missing the point, as I mentioned before, the burden of proof argument you're desperately trying to push has been debunked. If you can't seem to use something else, give up.
You can't just basically repeat yourself, and not prove anything wrong.

Next argument, Con.
Minddagger

Con

so let me get this straight, they get rid of their evidence? then how do you know if the theory is real or not? if their is no evidence, then you don't know if the children are actually eaten am I right? their is one point where your entire argument falls apart, how would they get rid of all the evidence, when the government could realize the children are missing, and mark them such as?

You are acting hypocritical by stating I need new arguments, your entire debates have been rebutting mine, why don't you practice what you preach and give me some new info?

by spelling your name, it is not looking up the "roasting game" it is looking up YOU, and your wikia, and everything else you made, because by confessing that your name is needed to show the evidence, it is now prove that, every video, every site, supporting this is just stuff made by him, making it false evidence, in order to get some legit evidence, get an outside source. that you DIDNT make. like that youtube video, from a channel that has your name

"this is a poor argument, asking all these pointless questions, and using the same old burden of proof argument that doesn't work anymore"

how are my questions pointless, I'm asking how can you explain a theory that has no evidence, that question pretty much has a point if you ask me. and how in the world is proof arguments pointless? it is one of the most basic factors in debates.

"They freak out because they don't want to be caught or arrested by police. Where does it say that if they freak out, they are guilty? You misrepresented the wikia page. Now you misrepresented three things now, my first argument, my link to the Google search (includes my name), and now, the wikia page. If you can't seem to make a legit argument, give me a reason not to give me a legit argument. I'm not twisting any of your arguments, you're twisting mine, trying to make my arguments seem false and wrong by using the same old debunked burden of proof argument, and completely ignoring my link (by hypocritically made your own link). Your arguments are useless now."

you literally say in the wikia "if they say no, they are guilty" in the second paragraph, how is that misrepresenting? everytime I hit you with something, you say I misrepresent it, with nothing else to say, and in this paragraphs,in fact, you say I make your arguments seem false and wrong when it is you who is actually doing it, you cant bat away real proof by saying I "misrepresent" your wikia, (which is not a source of evidence since YOU made it), finally, you call my arguments useless, which is not true, and poor conduct in your part.

"You are completely missing the point, as I mentioned before, the burden of proof argument you're desperately trying to push has been debunked. If you can't seem to use something else, give up.
You can't just basically repeat yourself, and not prove anything wrong."

Unlike you, I have been hitting with new things, you cant say I'm debunked when you haven't debunked me with anything, and if you cant do anything else than saying a misrepresent your evidence, give up.

finally, you have shown no facts, no witnesses, no evidence, nothing, you have shown me nothing but pages and videos you made, and if you cant show me any of that, than you can consider the roast game debunked.
Debate Round No. 4
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

To conclude this debate, here are my final rebuttals.

1. "so let me get this straight, they get rid of their evidence? then how do you know if the theory is real or not? if their is no evidence, then you don't know if the children are actually eaten am I right? their is one point where your entire argument falls apart, how would they get rid of all the evidence, when the government could realize the children are missing, and mark them such as?

You are acting hypocritical by stating I need new arguments, your entire debates have been rebutting mine, why don't you practice what you preach and give me some new info?"

First off, it's "there" not "their." Second, you're wrong, again. That is the worst new argument I have ever heard, because first off, it makes no sense, secondly, how would the Government know, what does it have to do with the Government? Nothing. They get rid of the evidence by throwing it all away in the garbage, then it gets taken to the dump truck, then the trash bag gets crushed, and the rest is history. That is not the point where my argument falls apart, it's where you misrepresent all my arguments, only to prove nothing wrong. The burden of proof argument is officially dead.

2. "by spelling your name, it is not looking up the "roasting game" it is looking up YOU, and your wikia, and everything else you made, because by confessing that your name is needed to show the evidence, it is now prove that, every video, every site, supporting this is just stuff made by him, making it false evidence, in order to get some legit evidence, get an outside source. that you DIDNT make. like that youtube video, from a channel that has your name"

Again, you misrepresented the google link, you keep on misrepresenting any link I cite (only to ignore it). You should've looked at the link, you'll go through a lot of stuff with the search terms "the roast game bryan mullins" not "roasting game." You are misleading because you mistook my link and ignored everything I provided as a source. Also, punctuation error, "DIDNT," you had no apostrophe, you already lost S+G points with the sentence with no period, now it's a word without the apostrophe.

3. "how are my questions pointless, I'm asking how can you explain a theory that has no evidence, that question pretty much has a point if you ask me. and how in the world is proof arguments pointless? it is one of the most basic factors in debates."

Another punctuation error, question mark is missing after the word "pointless." Also, I'm saying your arguments are pointless because I've already debunked them. Why are you complaining that your questions have been debunked? You shouldn't be.

4. "you literally say in the wikia "if they say no, they are guilty" in the second paragraph. " Again, another punctuation error, the quotation mark is not needed at the beginning of this sentence.

Conclusion: The Roast Game is the proven fact that families literally ate their own children, the burden of proof argument has been debunked. Con keeps repeating himself, and bringing back the burden of proof argument relentlessly, though all his arguments have been debunked before. Con keeps making punctuation errors and keeps failing at making a real and legit argument. Con misrepresented pretty much everything I argued, whether it was what I said at the beginning of the debate, or he just outright claimed that I lost conduct points when I'm only correcting him.

Sources:
[1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.google.com...

Vote pro!
Minddagger

Con

you have proved my point, you haven't gave me anything new, you are just rebutting my arguments, no new info whatsoever, which I can easily counter, and now you say I have to say "there" and not "their" which proves your grasping at straws to make me look bad.

Proof argument cant be dead by saying the government throws the evidence away with no proof, how do you even know that in the first place, if you cant, my argument still stands.

how am I misrepresenting the Google link? all the stuff about the "roast game" is something you made, that's why your name is on there, that's why I am ignoring everything else, because you made it, making the "roast game" unproven.

Throughout this entire debate, you keep saying stuff about my grammar and spelling, stuff that are completely false,

"that you DIDNT make."

as you can see, the "didn't" is in the middle of the sentence, why would it need an apostrophe in the middle of a sentence?

you are acting hypocritical for saying my points will be taken off for grammar, when you have showed poor conduct throughout this debate

Let me show you how many times you showed bad conduct:

"you're wrong, again. That is the worst new argument I have ever heard"

"your link is irrelevant, without spelling my name is completely ignoring the fact, which you made an irrelevant argument."

"this is a poor argument"

and these are just examples. I also believe that saying you "misrepresent" something with no proof should not be looked over.

Here's something new, if they really eat children, shouldn't there be witnesses? shouldn't someone notice a child be missing? its quite impossible to get rid of every person knowing that child to cover it up, so what's the deal?

everyone, my opponent has not gotten anywhere with his argument, he has given me no new information, all the evidence he showed me is something HE MADE, his only rebuttals is saying I misrepresent his "roast game", or saying that my grammar sucks when I have proved otherwise, and with that in your mind, vote for con.
Debate Round No. 5
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Minddagger It's not fake.

Don't judge evidence by it's author.

Just like don't judge a book by it's cover.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
its fake unless you show me EVIDENCE, I'm talking witnesses, pictures, anything!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
So, what?

It is The Roast Game. It's not anything else.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
the only thing in your "evidence" is what is roast game is supposed to be
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Minddagger you are wrong.

But it still counts as evidence, you can't count that out.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
All of these were made by you, half of these links have nothing to do with the roast game!
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
and what did I forget?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Minddagger You forget everything so often. Look how blind you are.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
There are zero pictures zero links, and zero evidence, you just wrote a paragraph explaining something.
No votes have been placed for this debate.