The Instigator
dylancatlow
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Con accepted this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-12
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...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,124 times Debate No: 30203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (90)
Votes (3)

 

dylancatlow

Pro

In the resolution, 'this debate' means the debate that you are currently reading, and no others. Any arguments based on :
1) The uncertainty of which debate is being discussed
2) The uncertainty of Con being conscious, or fully aware of his or her actions while accepting the debate.
3) Argument over what 'accepted means'

Will result in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).

Any thing I missed will be decided in my favor of winning this debate.

BOP is shared ONLY by con. I share none of it.

If you accept the debate, you are Herby bound to everything stated above. Failure to comply with the above rules means automatic loss for my opponent (con), and said loss will be resolved by voting all 7 points to Pro (me, dylancatlow).


emospongebob527

Con

I do not accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dylancatlow

Pro



While my opponent's remark is cute, it is an invalid attemt to not accept the debate. If con wins this debate or loses, he or she must have accepted by definition. I have no BOP, so con must prove he or she didn't accept the debate while at the same time debating. Also, per the rules :

" Argument over what 'accepted means' will result in :in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).

I just realized that all the rules are invalid unless Con accepts the debate. But Con must prove that he or she didn't accept the debate. Con must have 'accepted' the debate in at least some form, because to write the above comment requires pressing a button called "accept the debate" or something along the lines of that. Con must prove that 'con didn't accept this debate' while all I have to do is provide one exmaple of 'con accepting this debate'.
emospongebob527

Con

Let us examine Pro's rules again....


In the resolution, 'this debate' means the debate that you are currently reading, and no others. Any arguments based on :
1) The uncertainty of which debate is being discussed
2) The uncertainty of Con being conscious, or fully aware of his or her actions while accepting the debate.
3) Argument over what 'accepted means'

Will result in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).

Any thing I missed will be decided in my favor of winning this debate.

BOP is shared ONLY by con. I share none of it.

If you accept the debate, you are Herby bound to everything stated above. Failure to comply with the above rules means automatic loss for my opponent (con), and said loss will be resolved by voting all 7 points to Pro (me, dylancatlow).

Pro remarks that making an argument over what 'accepted means' is against the rules but then goes on in R1 [See bolded words below] to say, "Con must have 'accepted' the debate in at least some form, because to write the above comment requires pressing a button called "accept the debate" or something along the lines of that." Which then puts him in the quandry of breaking his own rules by arguing over what 'accepted means'.

Cross-Examination of Round 1-

While my opponent's remark is cute, it is an invalid attemt to not accept the debate.

How so?

If con wins this debate or loses, he or she must have accepted by definition.

That is an argument from 'The Definition of Accepted' which violates your definition rule.

I have no BOP, so con must prove he or she didn't accept the debate while at the same time debating. Also, per the rules


" Argument over what 'accepted means' will result in :in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).

Since you make an argument over the definition of accepted, the rules would have it that I automatically lose the debate. -----------------------> But wait there's more....

Here's More-

Since Pro said that not accepting makes you unbound from the rules, he can't contend that his making an 'argument from acceptance' results in a win for him because;

Pro said only accepting the debate makes you bound to the rules, since he is Pro he couldn't have accepted the debate making him unbound to the rules therefore his making the automatic loss argument remains invalid because, neither of us are bound to the rules.

I just realized that all the rules are invalid unless Con accepts the debate.

Indeed.

But Con must prove that he or she didn't accept the debate.

Yes, but under the rules, which I am not bound to follow, you claim that I have the BOP, but since I didn't accept the debate I am not obligated to carry a BOP.

Con must have 'accepted' the debate in at least some form, because to write the above comment requires pressing a button called "accept the debate" or something along the lines of that.

This is an argument from 'what accepted means', this has been addressed in my article, "Here's More" [See Above].

Con must prove that 'con didn't accept this debate' while all I have to do is provide one exmaple of 'con accepting this debate'.

See the counterargument that is two above this.
Debate Round No. 2
dylancatlow

Pro

1) "Which then puts him in the quandry of breaking his own rules by arguing over what 'accepted means."

Read the rules more closley, only you are punished for doing that.



2) "While my opponent's remark is cute, it is an invalid attemt to not accept the debate.


How so?"

It is invalid because you are asking that question.

3) |" Argument over what 'accepted means' will result in :in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).

Since you make an argument over the definition of accepted, the rules would have it that I automatically lose the debate. -----------------------> But wait there's more....

Thanks for helping me



While con claims he did not accept the debate as a reason to not be bound by the rules that only apply to people that have accepted the debate, he fails to see that this is circular logic. Also, he has accepted the debate because he is arguing with me. I'm kinda done with this debate. It's exhausting, because I'm trying to prove the obvious that everyone has decided not to see.


In conclusion, con accepted this debate. That is my argument. Dylan out.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
90 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
wWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
"Would you agree that CON only has to prove the possibility of not having accepted the debate? If so, it's an easy semantic victory."

No, con has the burden of proof per the rules of the debate. If he accepted the debate, and I claim every action he took concludes he did, he is bound to them. He can claim he didn't accept the debate, he can claim he is not con in this debate, but he will have to face the consequences --should voters be rational-- that a vote for him is invalid.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
The key to a troll debate is to make it funny.
Though I do realize you've denied this to be a troll debate.
Driving yourself into a corner. *v*
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
RFD's are based on arguments proposed in the comments, not the actual debate rounds..
(Yes I'm a stickler)
Not only did emo not make ANY of the arguments by which some of the voters voted for him, he even forfeited the last round.
Dylan, you just have to stop making enemies, that attitude of yours will kill you some day.
Would you agree that CON only has to prove the possibility of not having accepted the debate? If so, it's an easy semantic victory.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Imabench, why does it have to be the username? How is that any less contextual than 'con.'
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, you gave sources to Con even though he had no sources, nor did I.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
I understand the arguments against me. They have all been refuted and rejected, but you will go on believing them because you want to.
Posted by famer 4 years ago
famer
You refuse to see how obvious our reasons for voting for Emo in this debate.

They are crystal clear, but you are refusing to see them, simply because want to win this debate.

And yea, I know, you're going to call me irrational or something, because you will never accept defeat.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, if you vote for 'emo,' let's examine what the means :that means you are voting for someone who either is not Con in this debate, and thus not a participant; or you're voting for someone who says they are not debating, and thus a vote for them would be nonsensical ... or both.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
"How do I know he becomes Con? Because when he accepts a debate as Pro he's Pro, not Con. In this instance, he became Con. He was never con before. At what point does this happen? After accepting the debate."

He becomes Con AS he accepts it, because one does not accept a debate and then decide they are pro or con. This is because accepting a debate means taking the position that hasn't been taken already, and in this case, it was Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
dylancatlowemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Im going to counter 4 points from famer since he was not in an unbiased, voting mood required by the TOS for voting.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
dylancatlowemospongebob527Tied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: It appears that someone named 'emospongebob527' accepted this debate, not a user named con. (Con wasnt defined so I assume pro was referring to con as a person) Arguments to Emo since Pro didnt meet his BoP. Also very poor conduct for creating a debate meant to be an easy win, but I will counter Emo's source vote.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
dylancatlowemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for creating this debate, calling his opponent a bitch, calling me an idiot (this severely outweighs a single FF in such a stupid debate). My RFD for arguments are sufficient from my comments (as well as ishallnnoyo's). 1. Emo is not called CON (by name) 2. The resolution of the debate was invalid before the acceptance period (thus, it reads "accepted this debate", meaning it was wrong). 3. Emo says "I do not accept this debate". I have unfavourited this debate. I AM SO SICK OF READING THOSE COMMENTS. WE ARE TELLING YOU THE SAME THINGS WHICH ARE SO CRYSTAL CLEAR YET YOU NEVER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEAN. My S&G along with sources are, indeed, a VB. Go get someone to counter it. I really couldn't care less.