The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Bryan Mullins's The Roast Game: Trump should order his Air Force to bomb and burn The Vatican

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 104555
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (44)
Votes (2)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

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.

The pope and all the Christians there do the same thing.
So, there is no reason why not
Vote Pro!
Mharman

Con

First off, you're assuming that the family will say "the children". Not all Christian families will say that, and each individual member may have a different answer.

Second, you assume Christian families do that, but you have yet to back it up. Their reaction is not proof, they could be shocked for a number of reasons, as in, they maybe be shocked that you think something so incorrect. Even so, most families will just look at you weirdly or laugh, and say no.

At the end of the day, you have no proof; you have not fulfilled your BoP. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 month ago
NDECD1441
I can be a chameleon of all sorts on DDO. If you are a debater, in your view, I will make myself a debater. If you are a GODDAMN TROLL, then in your mind, I will be a goddamn troll. Hell I can even be the eleven year old destroying a man on some flipping roast game. You never proved anything so the GAME cant be deemed true. Trust me, this is not just my opinion, this is the opinion of others as well. If more than 10 people believe something is true, you may have to go back to your FVCKING drawing board.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 month ago
NDECD1441
@Bryan
I facepalmed at the goddamn logic of your stupid roast game. I actually aprecciated it when you first introduced it as the christmas parent interview game but then you went on to explain (and fail) how it is a fact.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 month ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@NDECD1441 Introducing the goddamn troll, who made a facepalmed at the poll, which was true.
This debate only proves that you don't attack The Roast Game, it never debunks The Roast Game.

The goddamn troll is NDECD1441!
Posted by NDECD1441 1 month ago
NDECD1441
I have to say, Bryan is really good at contradicting himself even in the comments. He told Mharman to not feel mad at people for voting for him yet he went and reported every vote against him. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the logic of the genius inventor of the Roast Game....
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 months ago
KostasT.1526
@BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Not at all. You made a claim and supported it with the mentioned "game", and Mharman merely showed how your scenario does not in any way prove that the American air force should attack the Vatican. Simple as that. If you wanted to win, you should have presented arguments. If you wanted us to simply discuss the "game", you should have posted it in a forum.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Mharman is a cheater anyway, if he didn't p!ay the game, he should've never accepted it anyway.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Masterful
I doubt they told you not to vote for him. If you make a proper vote, it will not get removed.
Posted by Masterful 2 months ago
Masterful
Sorry Brian, but I've basically been told i'm not allowed to vote for you. The threat was if I kept getting my vote removed then they'd take away my voting privilege.
The system is corrupt.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Con. Pro didn't make an argument. He merely created a fictional scenario.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to give some specific assessment of each side"s argument. While the assessment of Pro"s point is sufficient, the voter must still assess Con"s argument to at least show how he negates the resolution.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Masterful// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: -FULL VOTE IN COMMENTS- Not only did Con insult pro with his presence, but he dared to believe he had any right to debate someone of a higher birth status than himself. Not with a baker for a father and a whore for a mother. No sir. -FULL VOTE IN COMMENTS-

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess the arguments given by each side in the debate. While the voter does this for Pro, the voter simply dismisses Con"s arguments as distractions without explaining why they were insufficient. Acknowledging an attack on Pro"s main point and then refusing to consider it is not enough. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Unless one of the debaters violated the rules, forfeited or was clearly insulting, this point may not be awarded. It"s not clear that the debater in question violated the rules, and the choice to engage in the debate from a different perspective is not reason enough to award conduct to the other side.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2MharmanTied
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: Rfd attempt number 2... Since our voting rights moderator said my assessment of Pro was sufficient, I will repeat it: "Pro didn't make an argument. He merely created a fictional scenario." Now I will assess Con's arguments and explain why they deserve three points for "Most convincing argument": As Con pointed out, Pro had the burden of proof, but didn't offer any evidence to support his claims. Also, as Con pointed out, we have no reason to believe that all Christian families will say what Pro asserted they would say.
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 2 months ago
KostasT.1526
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2MharmanTied
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: Beginning with a game, Pro attempted to show Christian families eat their kids, and therefore that the Vatican should be obliterated by the American air force. The above contains a lot of logical fallacies, with a few but enough of which pointed out by Con, such as the assumption that the family members will follow the scenario (whilst reality can vary in numerous ways), or that specifically Christian families will do that. Further mistakes made by Pro are 1. the political problems an attack to the Vatican will bring forth 2. the fact no Christian family does that anyway 3. the cost of lives of innocent people and the destruction of historical objects 4. that even if that was so, the Vatican being responsible is jumping to conclusions, as this is not an official Christian habit, and 5. that Donald Trump probably won't bother to deal with this. As Con showed, the BoP was on Pro and was not fulfilled.