The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points should promote debtors to insult each other.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,331 times Debate No: 27593
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)




Insulting each other in a moderate way was always at the core of a debate.

Most of viva voice debates I attend as soon as my opposition realize they can't win the argument in a clean way turn into a dirty way, and they declare me a stupid guy which is not worth listening.

Declaring your opposition stupid is part or the art of debating, and we should be able to do it online as well.

There are no rule in this debate, but to present your self (age, sex, and geografical location)




I cordially accept my learned opponent's brilliant challenge. In this fine debate I shall humbly advocate that one ought to address one's opponent with nothing but pleasantries, insofar as they are able to do so. In fact, I will argue that one ought to get bonus points for being really pretentious. Furthermore, saying an opponent's argument is wrong should be banned because it implies your opponent is stupid.

My wise opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. Once they have presented their no-doubt excellent case, I shall respond responsibly.
Debate Round No. 1


The great professor Arthur Schopenhauer already explain in “the art of being right” how important is to insult/provoke the opponent, when your opponent feels insulted, start to behave in an irresponsible way looking bad in the eyes of the audience, plus when you feel insulted you lose capacity to think properly.

It is true that you will not convince anyone by calling that person idiotic retard, but this forum is not, it is, here we don't talk to convince each other, here to talk convince the audience to vote in our favor.

People should to understand dirty strategies to win a debate, not only for using it, but in order to live in earth and don't full themselves with dirty arguments.

To end my answer I want to publicly applause you, for arguing against insulting though using an insult. Here is your last sentence:

My wise opponent has the burden of proof in this debate.

As we are debating you can't really admit that I'm a wise person. Therefore the word wise should be a sarcasm, consequently you are calling me stupid in front of the audience.

This is something that I honestly welcome, because I though we can't debate at this web site before meting you.



My magnificent opponent is absolutely right and correct in all his arguments. Obviously he is the greatest debater who ever lived. We clearly are in the presence of complete amazingness.

There were two arguments that I saw in my opponent's excellent case. The first is that opponents in debates will sometimes take pleasantries sarcastically. Who could possibly disagree with such a compelling argument? I guess if my opponent says so it must be true. We agree in this debate that you can insult people without meaning to do so. So by my opponent's infallible logic, any benefits he can give you of insulting also accrue from being nice. Recall that my fine opponent also has the burden of proof in this debate. He needs to demonstrate the harm of not using insults to win this debate. I thank him for graciously conceding there is no benefit to his model.

Secondly, my opponent said voters are more likely to vote for you if you insult your opponents, because the great professor Arthur Schopenhauer said that your opponent will become mentally retarded as a result. But of course! It's so obviously true! All hail Arthur Schopenhauer, who knoweth all about how everyone reacts to insults! This presents an epic paradox though. I was the first to insult my opponent in this debate according to my opponent, and therefore my opponent should be making stupid arguments and losing by his own logic. This is, however, self-evidently false because my opponent is obviously demonstrating a most elevated degree of erudition in his points, so either my opponent is making this point as a show of humility or stupidity. However, if I win by insulting, doesn't that prove my opponent's assertion? So the statement is, in light of the context of this debate, apparently both self-defeating and self-proving. My meagre brain is unfortunately not up to my opponent's standard, so I wonder if he would generously resolve this paradox that is puzzling me.

The question in this debate is what we should promote. Sure, it may be possible to win over voters by turning your opponent into a dumb idiot, as all moderate insults self-evidently do because Arthur Schopenhauer obviously is right about everything and worthy of our worship. This is also possible without insults as my opponent has also proven in the first argument, so it doesn't prove the harm. I can only assume my opponent is saving the meat of his great case for us as a surprise in later rounds, so I'll do likewise (it's obviously a good strategy because my omniscient opponent is using it). Even if the argument is true that insulting helps you win (which it no doubt is), my opponent has not said that the purpose of all debates is to emerge victorious. That's because it isn't - sometimes, people debate just to get more experience, or just for the thrill of it.

My opponent, blessed be his name, did mention moderate insults being useful for real life. He did not tell us how they are useful for real life, so I'll wait for this argument to be completed. I have a feeling it will be true though. With that, I wish my opponent good luck for the next round, not that he needs it.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm proud of you! You learn faster than any the students I ever had ;-), and I really mean this.

In this round I just want to re-capitulate:

  1. The title of the debate mentions “insulting” and not just “provoking”, because the rules of forbid to insult each other but also because insulting makes the debate more funny.

  2. Not all kind of insults are adequate, but just to provoke the opponent to make him/her to make mistakes.

  3. Answering your paradox, yes, you can win a debate even defending the wrong position. I think is more challenging to argue in favor of something you don't agree with, because then is when you show intellectual strength.

  4. It is useful for life to understand dialectics and how to make logical fallacies because people usually argue against themselves and usually convince themselves using logical fallacies, which is very sat. In a debate is not sat, it is nice to win a debate playing dirty, but between relatives or thinking in your own is very sat. That is why it is good to train debating. Insulting is not a logical fallacy, but is part of debating in a dirty way, and that is why it is worth learning. By the way, when I attend a viva-voice debate at the university I can see that politicians provoke each other with great glee, and islamist even make hate speech agains us. So why we use a different set of moral rules in a debate?

OK, I know what are you thinking, maybe your opposition will hate you so much after the debate that after a while you may have no one to debate with. Maybe I was too rude in my previous debate on “kids looking up porn should be illegal” by suggesting that the guy at the preposition is probably a teenager who just masturbate himself for first time, ok I can apologies publicly for that, but I still think it was a funny provocation, and humor is a key issue in a debate, the important thing is not to be right but to look right by showing confidence, humor, etc.

I'm enjoying this debate. :-)



I'd like to thank my erudite opponent for continuing his incredible case. My opponent did wisely drop a few points, but who needs them? They're obviously not really worthy of being in this debate if the fountain of all knowledge (aka my opponent) didn't want to talk about them in this round. Did I mention how awesome my opponent is?

Behold! He has even begun his latest round by bringing up the insightful reasoning behind the second-to-none wording of the motion. Topics like this should be considered poetry, although of course no other topics are as good as those set by my opponent. Being of very little brain myself, I fail to understand the relevance of the point to the debate, so perhaps if my generous opponent would kindly explain, elaborate and pontificate on this it would help lesser folk such as me understand his divine wisdom.

But wait, there's more. My masterful opponent didn't just stop there - in fact, we've barely begun the scratch the surface of his groundbreaking analysis, for he claims that insults are humorous. Wow, I'd never thought about it like that before. What a great advantage it would be to debates if only they were funnier. And what a great way to be funny - teasing, bullying, hurting the feelings of others - sounds like a great way to have fun. But I have an even better idea. You can be funny - and be nice at the same time! That way, you get all the benefits of humor, without it being at the expense of somebody else. Remember how my opponent already admitted to us that his model has no benefit? Even if debates today are not humorous enough, there are plenty of ways to be funny without insults, so it's a very good thing my hellacious opponent didn't claim causation here. He would have been wrong if he did, but he admirably never meant for this to prove the resolution true, only provide some general context. He goes on to extend the contextual analysis by using an example from his previous debate - kindly sharing a small portion of his vast experience. And who could argue with that?

Next my unselfish opponent, who's so clearly winning already that he might as well give me every advantage, concedes that not all insults ought even be promoted under his model. So at this point he's arguing for advocating an improvement in both quality AND quantity of insults, going above and beyond what he is required to prove. I can't wait for him to actually do that proving.

Turning to my paradox. Here it is again - if insulting causes you to lose, then my opponent should lose. But since the insulter is not my opponent, I should not win. My opponent resolves this by arguing that I can win despite being wrong. So taking the original paradox and this statement to their logical conclusion then ... my opponent can't win despite being right. This seems a bit absurd to me, despite which it seems counter-intuitive to the purpose of a debate, which I've always understood to be convincing your audience that you are right. My guess is that my distinguished opponent has not explained this to the depth required for my menial comprehension. Or perhaps he is claiming that it is impossible for him to win, which would be alright since my opponent can self-evidently do the impossible.

Finally, my fine opponent uses a neologism - "sat" (as in "using logical fallacies ... is very sat"). I'll be writing to all the major dictionaries shortly to teach their editors of this new discovery. Don't worry, I'll include a voucher for the counselling sessions they will need to go to after their exposure to this magnanimous gift. I have no idea what it means, though, so I'll have a team of expert linguists, etymologists and other researchers get on that shortly.

This neologism is used to explain how in real life, most people argue against themselves and use logical fallacies. This is true - most people (unlike, presumably, my opponent) having nothing better to do than argue against themselves. In fact, I'll bet most of the people on DDO have two accounts just so they can have debates against themselves all the time. But as insults are apparently never logical fallacies, and it is thus impossible to commit a logical fallacy while insulting, it is worth learning insulting so you can be right. How true! We should be more correct if we tell ourselves we are never right! I guess this means all those Islamists who insult you must be right as well. The politicians must all be right ... somehow. The world would be all alright if we were all right, right? You wouldn't need to worry about who to vote for in an election, for example, because all the politicians would be truthful and besides that you wouldn't have elections because you'd live in a strict theocracy. But hang on - would it not also be possible to not commit a logical fallacy and not insult someone? This terrific argument is against the fallacy, not the insult. To prove my point, let me tentatively assert that I have committed no logical fallacies in my non-insults in this debate. It is up to my able opponent now to show that every insult I have made is true and every non-insult is false. It may be a Herculean task that even Chuck Norris would have to think for a moment about, but I'm sure for my out-of-this-world opponent this is no mean feat.

So we see my great opponent has still not met their burden of proof, nor it seems has he attempted to. Brace yourselves, voters. I think that when it comes to my opponent's arguments, we haven't seen anything yet! The best must be yet to come.
Debate Round No. 3


Wait a second, this debate is loosing its high status.... I'm getting disappointed.

What are you talking about when you said that I drop a few points? I didn't realize that you answer any of my points. Who are you trying to full? Are you making fun of the audience? You should keep that kind of cards for the fifth round, maybe you didn't notices, but you have a huge advantage over me. YOU HAVE THE LAST WORD of the debate.

It is true that you can be funny and nice at the same time, but you can also be funny and arrogant at the same time, (dear audience please do not try this with your relatives or close friends), there are too many nice people in the world. It is nice to be nice, but when it comes to debates, jerks do it better. You know what I meant ;-)

I'm not really advocating fro quantity of insults, just for quality.

A good insult, should be very personal.

Let me show an example:

Last month I was having a regular conversation with a close friend in which we talk about Israel, when my friend got intellectually bank-corrupt he turn the conversation to the personal level. My friend say in spanish: “you defend Israel like a christian creationist” , it is an insult because we both agree that Christianity is an insane ideology and it does more harm than good, probably if you live in USA the equivalent would be to call you a communist. The insult is even bigger because science do not accept that the world is 6000 years old. A very good insult have to offend very much your opponent but it should sound like a non insult to the audience, so you make your opponent to behave like a full and at the same time you don't look like a bastard.

So in reality what my friend mean to say is “You are stupid, shut up!, there is no point to listen your arguments, I don't want to spend my time arguing with someone as stupid as you”.

This is just one example of high quality insults. It is also a fallacy because it assumes that whatever Christians do it have to be wrong: you can't do something good on a wrong reason, to make this fallacy you need to insult your opponent, without an insult it doesn’t work. Imagine something like: “you argue like a kiwi”, if your opponent don't feel insulted by being called wiki, the argument is non sensical.

Another example: Pro-life groups usually call their opposition “murders” or “owners of the dead industry” (not sure if it is well translated),

What makes the situation tragic or “sat” as I mention before, is when the people who make those insult/fallacy start thinking they really made an argument and they think they are right.

I realize that my friend conclude that Israel should be destroy because some Christians think it should exist. “Pro-life” people really think abortion = murder. In some occasions you see a religious guy murdering a doctor in order to prevent that doctor to keep practicing abortions.

Islamists do far more than insulting, they send dead threat to anyone who don't agree with them. And judging by the results it works, because here in Europe we have many labour party supporters who claim that the word “islamofobia” is a genuine term. Like if being afraid of islam would be something irrational, there is anything wrong about islam? Well, they did the 9/11, organize celebrations for it and blame the jews for it, and 10 years later open a mosque at the ground zero named “cordoba” just to make it clear that they are working to conquer USA, they keep saying sharia is the only law and advocating death to every one who disagrees with them...

Let me repeat the same I said in the last round: “You don't need to be right to win a debate”

When I'm talking with my boss and I said I think X, and then he saids “if you do X you should be fire”, then I accept Y and I lose the debate. Does it mean that he is right? Maybe yes, or maybe he just know to do better bulling.

Fundamental islamists are very good at bulling, they are moral monsters, they may win the support of so many people but they are not right in the true sense of the word, they are only right in the sense that abusing works.

Last time I argue in public with an islamist about the morality of islam I ask him very politely what is moral in modern time about dead penalty for apostasy. He just yell on me saying that I don't understand the Qur’an. (he win the argument)

Debating is like boxing, you can't play proper boxing with your friends without their consent. You can't punch you friend just for fun, and you can't insult your friend just for fun.

Debating without provoking each others anger is like boxing without touching/harming each other.

It is not the same.

Can you imagine boxing without touching each other?

I can imagine that, but it is not the same.

I saw may debates in which the organizer says you can't make semantic tricks, is it fear?

Come on, are we in a kinder garden? I even meet users in this web site pretending they are female children, they are not happy enough hiding their identity, who are they trying to fool? Are they saying “please don't be hard with me, I'm a little girl?”

We should be brave and don't get intimidated by others, and here is a place where you can get use to be insulted without any further consequences.

Everyone asking for a debate is looking for trouble.

Here is a video of Nigel Farage telling Van Rompuy (president of the european council) that he has the carisma of a “damp rag”, do you think it was adecuate for Farage to provoke Rompuy in such way? I don't like the politicial agenda of Farage, but I think he is great when it comes to debating.

Finally I have a very disapointing confession to make. I'M NOT GOD. I know it can feel shocking, reality sucks. I'm not the one recommending to chop off the end of a penis. If god had an account in I would ask him lots of scientific questions a lots of questions about why he did such things in the old testament. I'm sorry if I disappointed you. But i'm not god, so we will have to remain atheist for a while and keep searchinf for him.

I'm sure no one in the audience had that delusion, so no need to apologies to them, except for my bad spelling and poor vocabulary.



My divine opponent has revealed unto us a great revelation - he is not merely "God". I mean, seriously, who does this God person think he is? How could anyone even compare God to the incredible miracles performed by my opponent in this debate, such as bending the rules of logic to his will and making Spanish look exactly like English (even speaking Spanish could be rightly considered a superpower, as proven on the Powerpuff Girls). The arguments we have witnessed already, the drama - this debate is clearly a lot better than any religious text out there today, and it's all thanks to my opponent.

Let us now return to the debate.

My opponent begins by asking what points he wisely dropped. Not that they were important to the debate, or worth talking about again, of course, nor that my opponent needs to ask me, for his knowledge is boundless. The points dropped in round three were the lack of a benefit to my opponent's model, and the increased quantity of votes argument of Arthur Schopenhauer the all-knowing. Not that he knows as much as my opponent though. That's in addition to the points he dropped in this round. As part of this, by some means that I cannot quite fathom, my wonderful opponent pointed out that I have the last word in this debate, which is apparently a huge advantage. Concessions are obviously not enough advantages for me to overcome my opponent's incredible arguments, so my gracious opponent saw fit to give me a structural advantage too.

My opponent then asserts that jerks are better debaters than nice people. This argument is so good, I humbly concede it. Jerks are better than nice people at debating. Remember, though, that it is possible for a non-insulting person to be a jerk - therefore a jerk is not necessarily somebody who insults people. So while being a jerk may improve your argument, being insulting still provides no benefit.

The arguments continue with my opponent saying he's no longer arguing that we should insult each other more. In other words, my magnificent opponent feels he has already won this debate because the motion is that Debate.Org should promote insults. Since insults are banned in the status quo, that means my opponent first needed to show some reason why they should be unbanned. His argument for why we should have better quality insults is, as we have come to expect, absolutely perfect and flawless in every respect. I completely agree that where there are insults, they should be of the highest quality. However, recall that my position in this debate is that there should be no insults at all. In fact, niceness and pleasantries, including lumping exorbitant amounts of praise on your opponent, should be rewarded in debates. Again my highly experienced opponent graces us with some examples, which puts his point beyond any doubt. I'm going to continue with the present debate that's actually what the topic is about, and concede the other one.

But winning this debate, which apparently he has already done, and winning the argument that higher quality insults are superior to lower quality insults, is not enough for my opponent - he is now ALSO arguing about whether "Islamofobia" is a genuine term. So my opponent has not only won this debate, but two others as well. It's like killing three birds with one stone. As part of this he states that insulters start thinking they are right, and that they win debates with this extreme mental power, which is tragic. Apparently the same can be done with fallacies. I completely agree - insults are tragic. Since tragedy is something we should avoid, my opponent has in fact made an argument for me, another noble gift of charity from my high-minded opponent. Did I mention my exceptional opponent has also just made a fourth debate within this one on the use of semantics in debating and won that too? And a fifth debate about whether Farage is a good debater?

Finally my opponent says debating without insults is not the same as debating with insults. I agree. Debating is much better with no insults. Why promote insults when it makes debates worse? We're not talking about whether we should USE insults, only whether we should PROMOTE their use. As part of this my opponent explains that kids in kindergartens have secret identities and never use insults. I knew it! "Spy Kids" is real folks! Then he says he asks if we act like the kids on Spy Kids. I can't speak for everyone else, but I do have a collection of cool gadgets and go on quests and stuff. Again the purpose of this point is a little beyond me, so I hope my opponent can explain further.
The advantage my opponent sees of debating with insults here, it seems, is that it prepares us for real life debates with insults. Again, this is true, and it would prove the resolution true if we make the presumption that everyone on here is a real-life debater. Thankfully my opponent didn't make that presumption, or else he'd have been wrong again. Not every real-life debate allows insults, and not every user on this site is a real-life debater. Some are internet loners with serious mental health issues, for whom even the slightest insult could push them over the edge to suicide. Nobody wants to see these people die, right? They may be asking for trouble, as my opponent rightly points out, but that doesn't mean you have to give it to them.

With that, I yield back to my grand opponent, who is about to post the greatest round ever.
Debate Round No. 4


We don't agree in homosexual = bisexual.

If yo never have a heterosexual sex, then you can't reproduce, but if you do both, then you can reproduce, and that is very well observed in nature.

Bi sexuality is natural and we can argue about if it is as frecuent as heterosexuality, pure homosexuality is not that common and it doen't make sense from a biological prespective.

Finally I just want to recomend to read:

Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections On Being Human
by Jesse Bering

It bring lots of interesting details about how homosexual relations work and why it is that frencuent.
It also mention that canimalism is natural and it is reproducible in laboratory conditions, aparently a Japanesse lab manage to get permission from the etics commity to put monkeys in conditions in which they start eating the dead bodies of the othrers.

I don't think I have anythink else to say for this debate.


I was right. My widely-read opponent did post the greatest round ever. I think there remains nothing more to be said on that topic.

Once again, back to the debate. My humble soul cannot comprehend how my brilliant opponent met their burden of proof. They've definitely won a lot of side debates, for instance with their brilliant proof that the terrorists are right earlier in this debate (and then humbly admitting to all in the comments that a vote for me is a vote for terrorism, logically meaning that I must be right, although he has already humbly shown that I could win even if I'm wrong). His case is clearly beyond comprehension of us mere mortals, and he should clearly win.

As if to demonstrate that he is a greater jerk than I am, already having proven that better jerks are better debaters, he has posted the incorrect argument in the final round.

Anyway, I have dealt with all of the remaining points in my case. Please judge me not too harshly for even daring to stand up to the pure radicalness that my opponent represents. The time has now come to stop, cease, desist and refrain from continuing this rather silly debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Azul145 3 years ago
When you allow insults it is not a debate because you will focus on insulting versus what the debate is really about. I could beat David if we debated this topic.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
Sorry every one, it seems I post somethink in the wrong debate :-(

What I wanted to say is:

As you already notice, we are not allow to post obscenities, in, the system do not allow us.

As you know islamist are the one asking to forbith to insult their religion or profet, if we start reducing out freedom of speach just because it is politically incorrect, for instance by not insulting each other. Soon we will reduce our freedom of speeach in many other ways and we will try to hide our identify even more. One day we will woke up and we will realize that we are living in north corea. Is that what we want?

Insulting is not tragic, what is tragic is to belife that person X is right because the insults to Y made Y to sut up, or to be coerced.

A vote against this motion is a vote in favour of terrorism.
Posted by StreetLogician 3 years ago
I am interested in debating an opponent as a means to testing whether or not my beliefs hold up to rational skepticism. If the debates are interesting because they are insightful great. But, Cheap tactics are just that. We can due without that here. If someone is being sarcastic or nasty have at it, but not because you have no counter to an argument.
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
Lol @ larz's argument. Thats awesome.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
You are welcome to pust your argument in the comments section.
Posted by Wishing4Winter 3 years ago
I love this debate.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
I consider myself a Spanish Troll, but thanks for the comment anyway
Posted by MouthWash 3 years ago
He misspelled "debator" because he's either Spanish as he claims to be or a troll.

Either way, epic debate.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
by the way, feel free to post your opinion, we will try to write back to you on the debate
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
Correct, I think insulting is a fine tool in a debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sarcasm qualifies as insult, so Con actually made the best case for Pro's resolution. However, he also made the best arguments. You can be funny without insult, although Con didn't actually set this example. I agree with Pro's inadvertant point, " if your opponent don't feel insulted by being called wiki, the argument is non sensical." On that note, speeling and gramer to Con.
Vote Placed by baggins 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Awesome argument from larztheloser. I don't think Pro had a clue to what was going on. Pro also loses conduct due to anti-Islamic rants.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a few spelling mistakes, so Con gets the S/G. Con's argument was the more humorous, so he gets the arguments. I tie the rest.