The Instigator
MassiveDump
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
MrVan
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Con Will Win This Debate

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 3 votes the winner is...
MrVan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,848 times Debate No: 31282
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

MassiveDump

Pro

I stand in favor of the resolution that Con will win this debate.

1. My Grammar is Sucks

First off all my grammer is sucks becuase i dont school. Second off all their is alot wrong with my word choice here and they're, and wut i know off the voters there not a fan of that kind of thing.

Bottom Line: Would it be cool if a man were are to jump from a to be rock to at a the jetpack? Think abot it.

2. My Sources are Irrelevant

(http://tinyurl.com...)

According to statistics seen here, Con wins debate rounds regardless of topic nearly 78% of the time.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Con will likely win this debate as well.

3. My Conduct is Intolerable

...AND SO'S YOUR MOM.

...FATFACE.

4. My Arguments Have No Persuasive Value

wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow

5. It Looks Like I just Learned How To Change Font


AND I LIKE IT VERY MUCH.


If you have a prblem, I really don't care....
MrVan

Con

In this debate, I shall refuse Pro's assertion that Con (that's me) will win this debate.

1. Con's grammar doesn't suck.

The following is a list of debates where my opponent is clearly shown to possess a decent understanding of proper grammar.
-http://www.debate.org...
-http://www.debate.org...
-http://www.debate.org...

It's obvious that he's purposely making gramatical errors so that I will win this debate. It's very witty and deceptive, and illustrates why he's more deserving of victory than I am.

2. Con's source is very relevant.

Con's source illustrates his assertion that his sources are irrelevant.

3. My opponent conduct isn't bad.

Con obviously wants me to win this debate, and what better way to do so then to behave in such a disrespectful manner? If anything, he deserves conduct points for making this debate more winnable for me.

4. My opponent already knew how to change font.

My opponent was able to change font in the end of the debate "Humans Do Not Have the Right to Water" (http://www.debate.org...). This proves that he was capable of changing font before writing this debate.


Furthermore...
The very fact that my opponent was able to present a paradoxal situation for the voters proves just how intelligent my opponent is in itself. You see, if I win, then my opponent was correct, and therefor the voters are wrong because he was right. However, the voters are still wrong even if he wins, because they prove him wrong by voting for him. His whole first debate is a testament to just how great a grasp he has on logic.
Debate Round No. 1
MassiveDump

Pro

I wish my opponent best of luck and thank him for accepting this challenge.

1. Grammar

A. My argument was that my grammar is sucks. notice that "is" is a present tense verb, meaning I am referring to the current state of my grammar, not my grammar in previous debates.

My opponent wants to refer to previous debates as an example of why I should win this one. The problem with that is obvious. The voters will be voting on my ability to present proper grammar in this debate and this debate only.

If a voter were to vote based on my grammar in previous debates, they would show bias and be voting unfairly.

B. At no point in his argument did my opponent make a boldly noticeable grammatical error, therefore he continues to carry better grammar than me in this debate, therefore my grammar is sucks.

2. Sources

A. My link does not illustrate my assertion that my sources are irrelevant. It just makes me look like a moron.

B. I'm afraid I have no assertion as to whether my sources are relevant or not. I just like pasting links. Links always make you look more sophisticated.

-http://tinyurl.com...
-http://tinyurl.com...
-http://tinyurl.com...

3. Conduct

My opponent admits that I behaved in a disrespectful manner in the first round. But he suggests that I deserve the conduct point for doing so. In any debate throughout this site, there is occasionally a debater who shows intolerable conduct. How do we prove that they are simply showing courtesy by allowing the opponent a free conduct point?

Obviously, we can't prove that intention, so we must assume that the debater with poor conduct is a jackass. Therefore, we must assume that I'm a jackass and give the conduct point to Con.

4. My Arguments Have No Persuasive Value

This argument remained untouched therefore you must carry it in favor of Pro.

5. Font

Ah, the water debate... good memories...

Anyway, my opponent seems to think I said, "I just learned how to change font", but this is paraphrasing. You'll actually find that I said, "It looks like I just learned how to change font."

I did already know how to change the fonts in my case, but the intent of this argument is that I handle my ability to change font quite immaturely.


UNNECESSARY ENLARGEMENT

6. My Opponent's Logic Has Proven Superior to Mine

As you can see in all of my opponent's arguments, he managed to counter what I said with only using the very words I said and throwing them back in my face. The fact that my opponent can fight off a paradox with another paradox proves that while I may have a firm grasp on logic, his grasp is much tighter, as if he wears the pants in this relationship and I require him to open the pickle jar of logic.

It was ingenious, really, winning an argument entirely based on the words I said as evidence. This man is the Chuck Norris of the debate community, and therefore wins this debate.

Conclusion

Con made my brain hurt. Con wins.




MrVan

Con

1. Grammar

A. My opponent intentionally used poor grammar, it's impossible to assume whether or not he was speaking in past or present tense.

Whether or not voters have bias is totally irrelevant in this case, because they're wrong no matter who they vote for in this debate.

B. My opponent is incorrect, during the first round I had made at least two grammatical errors. Those errors are as follows:
-"I shall refuse Pro's assertion that Con (that's me) will win this debate." (Refuse was supposed to be written as Refute.)
-"3. My opponent conduct isn't bad. " (opponent should be written as opponent's.)

Voters should take into account that, unlike Pro's grammatical errors, mine were totally unintentional.

2. Sources

A. My opponent clearly states that his sources are irrelevant, and uses this to further his case that I will win this debate. That said, his use of irrelevant sources are very relevant.

B. In his first debate, my opponent presents his irrelevant sources as a reason why he won't win this debate. Also, my opponent is incorrect, posting random links does not make you seem more sophisticated.

C. I never even acknowledged the point Pro made about this site's statistics. Voters should definitely take my total disregard of some of Pro's arguments into consideration when deciding on who to vote for.

3. Conduct

A. My opponent is correct, there's no way that I could possibly prove his intentions in acting so weird. However, at the beginning of his argument on the second round, my opponent clearly states that he wished me the best of luck;

"I wish my opponent best of luck and thank him for accepting this challenge."

While this doesn't prove his intent to make it more easier for me to win, it clearly shows my opponent wants fortune to be in my favor while debating with him.

B. My opponent's conduct isn't any worst than his taste in music, judging from what his profile says.

4. No Persuasive Value

I'd like to apologize to my opponent for not responding to this argument, it was totally unintentional. My own incompetence was the reason this argument wasn't touched on, so the points should go to Pro. However, I'd argue that his initial arguments had a lot of persuasive value, because he intentionally presented it in a way that's in my favor.

5. Font

My opponent is correct, and I concede to his argument about his use of fonts. I apologize for my paraphrasing. Again, readers should take my oponent besting me in this particular argument into account while voting.

6. My Logic

My opponent was able to counter my counters, and will probably repeat this cycle again in round 3. This shows that he has a solid understanding of how my own thought process works, and that I am his intellectual inferior.

I never countered his paradox, I just pointed it out. It hardly even effects me, just the voters, and there's no real way for me to counter it. That said, pro's a total genius.

Conclusion:

Pro rules, Con drools. Pro wins!
Debate Round No. 2
MassiveDump

Pro

Here's something to listen to while I present my argument:

As it were:

1. Gammer

A. My opponent has no proof that I didn't suddenly have a TIA while writing my initial argument. But, "is" does represent present tense. So there was a way of knowing what tense I was speaking in.

And no, you, the voters will not be wrong if you vote that Con will win this, because he will. It's pretty simple: Vote for Pro because Con will win.

At this time I'd like to politely ask my opponent not to bring his silly logical fallacies into this.

B. Two errs made by my opponent does'nt outweigh all of mine. Therefore, I have worse gammer, therefore he will win, therefore I am right and you should vote pro.

2. Souces (AKA: Bibliology)

A. If my sources are relevant to my case as he says they are, then they support me. If they support me, then I am allowing Con's statement to be true. If I am allowing Con's statement to be true, then my sources aren't relevant to my point. In plain English: If my sources are relevant, then they are irrelevant. If they are irrelevant then I am correct. If I am correct, Con will win this debate. It's just that simple.

B. If posting links didn't make you look sophisticated, you couldn't score by posting links if your opponent didn't, but you can, therefore posting links make you look more sophisticated.

C. He just acknowledged it. Just now. You should take his keen skills of observation into consideration when voting on this debate.

3. Conduct is for Weiners.

A. I apologize for my round two argument as I paraphrased in my opening statement. I meant to say:

"I wish my opponent best of luck [because he'll need it] and thank him for accepting this challenge [because if anyone else had accepted it, I might have lost]."

B. Now that's just silly.

C. My opponent is correct. I have failed to carry this argument in the same way his mother failed his abortion.

4. Weiners are for Persuasive Arguments

My opponent isn't incompetent, he made a very good observation of this point. He's absolutely right. And because of that, Con should win this debate.

And I'm not saying I'm Batman, I'm just saying have you ever seen Me and Batman in the same room together??


5. I'm Becoming Quite Font of This Debate

Con's concession implies that I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins therefore I win therefore he wins so vote Con to prove me right.

6. It's Only Logical

My opponent just countered my counter to his counter. Now that's just silly.

Conclusion:

Vote for me... because he's right... so he will win... so I'm right... so I will win... so he's right... so will win.

I just wanna go home.
MrVan

Con

MrVan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MassiveDump

Pro

I see you are speechless. Only proving that you have run out of reasons why I should win.

Therefore, I'm right.
MrVan

Con

My opponent is correct, I was indeed speechless! He's also correct, he is right, and therefore will win this debate, thus making him wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
MassiveDump

Pro

I just crapped my pants.
MrVan

Con

MrVan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
This debate needs to be in the Hall of Fame
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
I'm sorry, I guess I should have lost more graciously.
Posted by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
GRAAAAAH! Well... it's a good thing I'm not a sore winner.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
CALLED IT BRO. I CALLED IT. (insert lowercase here)
Posted by MaqicDan 3 years ago
MaqicDan
sounds like a plan
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
I'll get to that. But for now I should probably go to bed :|
Posted by MaqicDan 3 years ago
MaqicDan
Dude me and you, we have to debate something
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
That's what I love to hear :D
Posted by MaqicDan 3 years ago
MaqicDan
This debate made my day..
Posted by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
Well... not the first round, the third one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
MassiveDumpMrVanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Archangel35 3 years ago
Archangel35
MassiveDumpMrVanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con forfeited 2 rounds. Con used better sources (even though they were debate.org's). Spelling and grammar - definitely Con for obvious reasons. Pro had many many spelling errrors. And this debate didn't make any sense to me. Why are you both trying to make each other win? Isn't the point to win a debate? Anyways, this was pointless. =_=
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
MassiveDumpMrVanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO made an incredibly persuasive case for why he should loose. CON however forfeited. Sources to pro because he cited the almighty Youtube.