Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom
Debate Rounds (5)
R1: Acceptance only
R2: Opening arguments/Con's rebuttal(s)
Trollface has violated scientific laws.
1.1: In this video, he violates Newton's laws of motion by pushing the earth out of orbit.
1.2: Mr. Face does this again with a According to Newton's second law of motion, F=M X A. There is only a flashlight at the end of the car to make it go the speed of light. An activated flashlight adds absolutely no real acceleration in real life, so the acceleration is 0. Anything times zero is zero, therefore the real force on Mr. Face's flashlight-powered car is zero. However, it still goes, so it violates Newton's second law of motion.
2.1: In this video, defendant Face is shown stealing and lying.
2.2: lying is a crime . In the online game Trollface Launch, Mr. Face promises the player a supposed "Super-Upgrade" if they rack up 1,000,000 dollars. What he really does, however, is he denies the player any Super-Upgrade, raises the price by $500 time the player checks the shop, and says things such as "Stop dreaming!" and "Trololololol!" Therefore, he is breaking his promise, which is lying.
You stated that My client violated Newton's law by pushing the Earth out of orbit. Well, as you can see in the video, he only pushed Earth a couple hundred Meters. And, since it was no where near Mars, and since Mars is around the edge of the Goldilocks Zone, (the zone around the sun where it is possible to hold liquid water), my client didn't push the Earth out of the Goldilocks zone, so it is still able to support life. He also eliminated some of the warmth due to Global warming.
You also stated that he is breaking Newton's theory by driving a light speed car that runs on a flashlight. Light, and heat from the light source can produce electricity if done correctly. Just take a look at Solar Panels. Mr. Face could have an engine POWERED by the light/heat of the flashlight. But you probably wouldn't know.
You state that my lint, Trollface, lies to a gamer about the "Super Upgrade". Well, maybe the player can stop BEING SUCH AN IDIOT and don't check the shop until he has enough money for it to be raised by $500. Just because mr. Face wants a fair deal on a product doesn't mean he's lying.
I will concede on the earth part. The speed of light, however, is at least 299792.458 km/sec . That would be impossible to travel at in a car, and would obviously defy Newton's second law of gravity, no matter what you did that involved a flashlight.
2.1: "Well, maybe the player can stop BEING SUCH AN IDIOT and don't check the shop until he has enough money for it to be raised by $500."
I tried that, but it did not work.
"Just because mr. Face wants a fair deal on a product doesn't mean he's lying."
Mr. Face does not want a fair deal. He never gives you the super-upgrade at all. Because he promises you the super-upgrade, even if you do not believe him, he is still lying.
My opponent has agreed with me on one of the topics.
Although he conceded on the Earth part, I do concede on the Speed of Light.
"I tried that, but it did not work."
What do you mean by this?
"Mr. Face does not want a fair deal. He never gives you the super-upgrade at all. Because he promises you the super-upgrade, even if you do not believe him, he is still lying."
Trolls are all around the world in anything you can think of, Hell, some are even on this site! But nothing in the world will ever stop them. Not even a court case.
1.1: "My opponent has agreed with me on one of the topics,"
That does not mean that I give up. Let me remind you that this is a court case, which means that if I prove defendant Face guilty of anything, I win.
1.2: "...I do concede on the speed of light"
That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty.
2.1: "What do you mean by this?"
I mean that I tried getting enough money for it to be raise d by $500, but I still could not get the super-upgrade.
2.2: "Trolls are all around the world... But nothing.. will stop them. Not even a court case."
That argument is about how we should not try to stop trolls, not about why defendant Face is innocent. Therefore, it does not help you.
It means you give up on ONE of the topics.
"That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty"
Like you said, it doesn't mean you win.
"That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty"
I do not agree with such, besides, if I did, then you would agree that Mr. Trollface is INNOCENT based on you conceding with the Earth argument. So we are all tied up. Besides, it's up to the voters to decide.
"That argument is about how we should not try to stop trolls, not about why defendant Face is innocent. Therefore, it does not help you"
Actually, yes it does. Mostly because it shows that there are many people like Mr. Trollfact that do stuff like this, and they don't get punished, do they? Why does Mr. Trollface get singled out?
Thank you, and I encourage the voters to vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.