The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

ELO means nothing when it's replaced by YOLO

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,366 times Debate No: 60504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Too many trolls and kids on this site that vote for reasons like this "aerogant misunderstood, pi =/= pie", therefore ELO means nothing in a society that is so pointless and fruitless, that people have to troll and deconstruct everything to amuse themselves.

I did not misunderstand pie and pi, which can be demonstrated by my witty word play on pie and pi while arguing against someone that was simply resorting to devil's advocate for the fun of it.

Therefore I conclude that ELO means nothing on this site - those who have high ELO are equivalent to the politicians that are in high position - they did not earn it. Hence why nothing gets done - but don't worry, there are people in a high position because... they just are!

Especially when your ELO is determined by kids that vote like this: "Well, Con was not converted by Pro, so arguments to Con. Conduct to Con because of Pro's rudeness." Keep in mind that I could not have possibly been rude here, so it's proof everyone is voting out of bias and angst.

Then you have other votes that say nothing except: "did nothing". More childish remarks that my ELO depends on.

Then finally, you have people that would rather vote for someone who said they were wrong, knew they were wrong, but wanted to debate for fun, over someone they are biased towards because they are little kids with no sense of self-discipline.


There actually is a correltation between ELO and having a huge d1ck. [1]. Having a huge d1ck gets you points irl. We can form our argument like a the so

1. If having a huge d1ck means you get swag points irl and it's proportioal to ELO, then ELO means something.
2. Having a huge d1ck DOES get you swag points and its proporital to ELO. [1]
C. ELO f*cking matters

AN elo is a society thing with DDO meaing it does matter to the ones with it. Like a Fruedian ethic correlate tack.

Also the Shtako votes matter. Without the shtak votes, we wouldn't have people competeing to be better. The reason why we have the shtako votes is because we have good votes. [2]

Youre just a butthurt guy with no jedi powers who thinks hes an intellectual dude. Youre just a big head. In romaneai thats what we call people who think theyre awesome as and smart as fucck. But really you just have a big head.

As shown with your pi pie Bullshtak. Shtako. Pie doesn't equal pi, maybe people wont thin your such a shtaking Jekket Boshtet if you wouldn't joke around so much and actually debate.

420 blaze it fgit

[1] Bench, Ima. D1cks and ELO 2013l

In 1918, a year after the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Nabokov and his four siblings posed for a photograph as a present for their mother. The children were in Yalta, in exile from their native St. Petersburg. In the photo, the air of the fabulous wealth and privilege they grew up in still clings to them. The girls are wearing matching sailor suits. Little Elena, Vladimir’s younger sister, holds a patient pet dachshund in her lap.

In the background looms a serious and rather beautiful young man dressed entirely in black. His intense gaze meets the camera’s through an exquisite pince-nez. He is not Vladimir, who is wearing a bow tie and looking hilariously full of himself. He is Sergei Nabokov, born 11 months after his famous brother and with a very different fate ahead of him.

Vladimir Nabokov, of course, would go on to become one of the most important writers of the 20th century, earning not only critical acclaim but international fame and financial success as well. Sergei would never be famous — in fact, his existence has been all but covered up by his family — but in its own way his life would be just as remarkable. Shy, awkward and foppish, the opposite of his gregarious brother, Sergei had a secret: He was gay.

Sergei’s homosexuality would cast a long shadow over his strange and heroic life, and it would also, ultimately, be the cause of his horrifying and untimely death. It cast a shadow over Vladimir’s life as well: He loved his brother, but whatever else he may have been — a brilliant writer, a loving father — Vladimir was a confirmed homophobe, and his gay brother was a constant source of shame, confusion and regret to him.

Vladimir’s tortured relationship with Sergei is one of the secret stories of an otherwise very public life, and Nabokov scholars are only now slowly coming to terms with the depths of Nabokov’s prejudice. They’re also becoming increasingly aware that Sergei is a crucially important figure in his brother’s work, a presence with whom Nabokov grappled, in different ways and with different degrees of success, throughout his lengthy oeuvre. Meanwhile, the facts of Sergei’s life are still obscure — forgotten or concealed behind euphemisms or confined to the dusty realm of footnotes and archives.

It’s a question worthy of a Nabokov novel: How could the lives of two brothers, both brilliant and talented, both rich and handsome, have led to two such different places: one to literary immortality, the other to the hell of a Nazi concentration camp?

Sergei Vladimirovich Nabokov was born in St. Petersburg on March 12, 1900. The Nabokovs were members of imperial Russia’s most exclusive social circles, and the children grew up in a glamorous whirl of country estates, liveried servants, balls, boating parties and annual vacations in Biarritz, France, and on the Riviera. The family was extraordinarily wealthy; their lineage included princes and generals and government ministers, and even their faithful dog, Box II, was descended from a pair that belonged to Anton Chekhov. Nabokov once told an interviewer, “I probably had the happiest childhood imaginable.”

But Sergei did not. While Vladimir was the eldest and the center of attention, Sergei grew up out of the limelight, shy and unhappy and somewhat odd. Elena Sikorski, nie Nabokov, the girl with the dachshund in her lap, is now 93 and the last surviving Nabokov sibling, but she remembers her aristocratic Russian youth with absolute clarity. When I telephoned her at her home in Geneva to ask about Sergei, she spoke of him fondly, but not without regret. Her voice is surprisingly deep, with an elegant, stateless European accent and just a hint of a quaver. “He was not the favorite of the family,” she recalls. “I think that he was rather miserable during his childhood.”

Nabokov was fascinated by doubles, and his work is full of them — mirrors, twins, reflections, chance resemblances. Sergei was his brother’s double, a “shadow in the background,” as Nabokov put it. All his life Vladimir would be the golden wordsmith, the master of language; Sergei was afflicted with an atrocious stutter that would only get worse as he got older. He idolized Napoleon and slept with a bronze bust of him in his bed. He also loved music, particularly Richard Wagner, and he studied the piano seriously. Vladimir, by contrast, was almost pathologically insensitive to music, which he once described as “an arbitrary succession of more or less irritating sounds.” He would creep up behind Sergei while he was practicing and poke him in the ribs — something he remembered with bitter remorse in later life. “They were never friends when they were children,” says Sikorski. “There was always a sort of aversion.”

Nabokov said that he hardly remembered Sergei as a boy. He once wrote, “I could describe my whole youth in detail without recalling him once.” But Sergei lurks in every corner of “Speak, Memory,” Nabokov’s 1951 memoir, “quiet and listless,” peering at his older brother “like a little owl,” or stumbling around a roller rink in Berlin as his indefatigable brother repeatedly laps him. In a photo of the two boys taken in 1909 in front of their grandmother’s mansion, 10-year-old Vladimir stands with his hands on his hips, legs apart, imperiously staring down the camera. Sergei hides under the brim of his sun hat, one arm held protectively across his midsection, the other stroking his cheek in a strikingly girlish gesture. In retrospect it seems surprising that it took the rest of the family as long as it did to discover what Sergei probably already knew.

When he was 15 and Vladimir 16, Vladimir found Sergei’s diary open on his desk and read it. He showed it to their tutor, who showed it to the children’s father. In retelling the incident Nabokov writes, with uncharacteristic dryness, that Sergei’s journal “abruptly provided a retroactive clarification of certain oddities of behavior on his part.”

Among those oddities was Sergei’s withdrawal from the famously progressive Tenishev school, an all-boy private school also attended by Nabokov and by poet Osip Mandelstam. According to Nabokov’s principal biographer, Brian Boyd, Sergei left because of a series of “unhappy romances.” It’s unlikely that he found much sympathy within his immediate family. According to Sikorski, who quaintly refers to Sergei’s homosexuality as his “attitude,” the family instituted a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. They took Sergei’s revelation “absolutely quietly. Nobody ever spoke about it to him, and he was left to do as he wished.” Marina Ledkovsky, Sergei’s second cousin and a professor emerita at Barnard College, remembers that her own mother “pitied him quite a bit … He adored his mother, and adored his father. He was so affectionate — that’s why it was so very hard for him.”

When the revolution came in 1917, the Nabokov family fled Russia, barely escaping with a fraction of their fortune on a Greek cargo boat loaded with dried fruit. Neither Vladimir nor Sergei would ever return to his motherland. After brief stops in Athens and Paris, Vladimir wound up enrolled at Cambridge University; Sergei started at Oxford but joined his brother at Cambridge a semester later. There they played tennis together — Sergei lacked a backhand but never double-faulted — and hung around with the same set of displaced Russians. In Sergei’s letters from the period, which have never been translated or published, most of his worries are about money and about his parents, who settled in Berlin.

The two brothers went on to earn identical degrees, seconds in Russian and French, but in all other respects Vladimir and Sergei were utterly different. “No two brothers could have been less alike,” wrote Lucie Lion Nohl, another imigri, in a memoir of her acquaintance with Nabokov:

Vladimir was the young homme du monde— handsome, romantic in looks, something of a snob and a gay charmer — Serge was the dandy, an aesthete and balletomane … [He] was tall and very thin. He was very blond and his tow-colored hair usually fell in a lock over his left eye. He suffered from a serious speech impediment, a terrible stutter. Help would only confuse him, so one had to wait until he could say what was on his mind, and it was usually worth hearing … He attended all the Diaghilev premieres wearing a flowing black theater cape and carrying a pommeled cane.

Composer Nicolas Nabokov, cousin to Vladimir and Sergei, paints much the same double portrait:

Rarely have I seen two brothers as different as Volodya and Seryozha. The older one, the writer and poet, was lean, dark, handsome, a sportsman, with a face resembling his mother’s. Seryozha … was not a sportsman. White-blond with a reddish tint to his face, he had an incurable stutter. But he was gay, a bit indolent, and highly sensitive (and therefore an
Debate Round No. 1


Let me ask you question, sir. Why does dick size matter, when our entire existence is dependent on the genitalia of bacteria? And why does perception and preference play such a big part in what's big / what's too big?

From all the experience of observing humanity... it seems to me that the world is backwards because of compensation. What makes a dick big? Why does it matter if it's big or not? What if a dick is perfect, but... cannot spread like due to its imperfect blue balls? Then what? Are we going to argue that a big dick with blue balls is better than an average dick with warm balls?

You're joking around, therefore you have resorted to hypocrisy yourself. I'm not sure I can further read your copy and pasting skills because I'm afraid I may lead myself into typographical hypocrisy - it's an internet disease that's not for the faint of heart, I assure you!


Let me ask you question, sir. Why does dick size matter

LOL good one. Ohhhh, you were being serious. FFs, it looks like I have to explain basic swagmetaphysics

Look, having a big dick equates into having more swag points (by definition). Swag is about having swag.

Those guys have swag. What can you do with SWAg points?Well you can cash them out and get Euphoria. Can you feel the euphoria coming from your computer? What's so important abut euphoria, good skywalker thats a dumb question. Everything we do is for euphoria. Euphoria is love, euphoria is life. We kill to get it, we can prostitiute ourselves out to get it, we can sell our children to get it we fap to get it. It is life. It is power, it is knowlege it is life. As proven by neil degresse tyson, in the beggining there was euphoria.

Euphoria caused the big bang, euphoria caused the universe. God is euphoria and euhpria is god. As John Locke said, we can never know the relation between secondary properties (Our senses) and primary properties (actual things). This is because of the subsutence of euphoria. Euphoria is the sort of neutral substance. The fundamental substance that makes up all of reality it is divied into substances like matter and mind, and god. But in reality there is only one thing, euphoria.

<a href=; />feveryone needs the euphoria. we need the euphoria to live, we need the euphoria to exist. Without euphoria life is meaningless. Without euphoria life is but an essense of its existence. Euphoria is the perfect drug, we all love euphoria. This is why ELO matters, as ELO is euphoria

You're joking around, therefore you have resorted to hypocrisy yourself.

Bullshtok. You think this is some sort of mother flipping joke? You think im debating your sorry flipping non-euphoric azz because of some flipping joke. I need to teach the euphoria. Flip off mother flipper I a not a hypocrit because I am serious 100%.

What makes a dick big?

The Lorentz invarient combined with the biological potental.

What if a dick is perfect, but... cannot spread like due to its imperfect blue balls?

Thats a contradiction in terms. If a dick is perfect, then it can spread. Balls are a part of the dick via the Staneold-Malliven penis measure algorithim.

You fail, try some euphoria and youll see the light

Debate Round No. 2


Euphoria lasts temporarily and is an internet meme.

What I do lasts a life time and cannot be turned into an internet meme because it's beyond a word that people do not even know the history of.

I have the Universe and the human psyche all broken down. Saying euphoria and swag a thousand times doesn't mean anything. Just shows that you're desperate and deprived of actual life.


"Euphoria lasts temporarily and is an internet meme."

Bild in Originalgröße anzeigen

<a href=; width="985" height="657" />

<a href=; />

<a href=; />

Do I really have to explain? *sigh*

Euphoria only lasts temporarily in humans, but it's substance survives eternally. It may be something called an "meme"

<a href=; />

But thats irrelevent because many things are memes that doesnt mean its true. For example, that guy who says "F*ck her r*ght in the *ussy" may be a meme but its true and is how reporduction works

"What I do lasts a life time and cannot be turned into an internet meme because it's beyond a word that people do not even know the history of."

Youre full of shtoko. It cannot last forever becuase that entaisl an actual infinite which has absurdities as shown by hilbert's hotel.

I have the Universe and the human psyche all broken down.

Bullshtak. If you have it all broken down, youve broken yourself down, if youve broken yourself down you have created an infinite self- causated loop in which you break it down further.

Saying euphoria and swag a thousand times doesn't mean anything.

Straw man. I demonstrated ELO=swag and swag=euphoria and then euphoria matters.

Just shows that you're desperate and deprived of actual life.

Says the person who is b1ching about elo and about pie equaling pi.

Debate Round No. 3


Well, while you're arguing for the internet shaped by primates wearing monocles, I'll be further breaking down the ontological complex that is the Universe aspect by aspect! While you resort to further red herrings; I'll be demonstrating the sole nature of human psyche and its mirror-like properties towards the Universe's behavioral patterns. While you can just repeat primate school 101, I'll be demonstrating to people what consciousness is (yes, I am the only one on this planet that knows what consciousness is). I have experienced the Universe's enlightenments in the same way Einstein and Tesla experienced their own enlightenments - our brains are designed to shape this world with ideas beyond mankind. We did not settle with primate potential - we ascended beyond the red sound wave and broke through yellow, orange, green, light blue, dark blue to reach purple. Our brain waves are on gamma, rather than theta (the waves you're on). I have the whole entire existence analyzed and assessed inside of this brain of mine - I know the internet far more than you do by its psychological design and I can use it to induce shame within you and everyone that treats it like some sort of toy, as it truly is the reflection of our collective information and experiences all in one place - the fact that it's consisted of children repeating tautological cess pools in gifs, in psychopathic stasis and refusal to accept such regressing traits to be just that, just goes to show that the internet's potential was destroyed along with human potential because people like you don't know how to grow up and stop resorting to the lowest form of wit: "sarcasm". What is sarcasm, really? Sarcasm is that moment in someone's life where people do not care, but do care at the same time - however, they only care so much to reluctantly care, by not caring, to hide the fact they can can, but do not have the mental integrity to do anything remotely responsible, as being sarcastic is the sign of being lazy - that's why the obese are very, very sarcastic. It's nice to know that your entire lifestyle is built on psychopathy and the lowest form of humanity as explained above, though! Keep on kicking the dead horse, mate. See what it does for you.


After intense psychoanalysis I confirm that Pro suffers from seven known forms of sociopathia and 3 forms of unknown sociopathia. He also suffers from several forms of reperessed sexuality. I have also confirmed he has down syndrome and many other autisms.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4


Well, the only thing you contributed in was proving the difference between a genius and a troll.

Everything else, you monumentally flunked.


Yes I have. I have shown that I am a genius whereas you were a troll.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
LOL, i like how his opening called out my vote against his debate.

Can't believe I'm being notified by the great Aero!
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
It's only weird because despite being absolutely insane it's actually true.

The ELO system does have a place but it does not have a place here. :p
Posted by Vexorator 3 years ago

Posted by superbowl9 3 years ago
This debate is too intellectual for a simpleton of my caliber.

I'm afraid Aerogant is too much of a mastermind for me to debate and I will be crushed by his impervious arguments the instant I rear my ugly debating head.

Clearly Aerogant is the most superior DDO member and deserving of the title of president; whoever accepts this debate will be demolished.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 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 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: pro not doing anything
Vote Placed by CodyLTJames 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Better conduct. Pro seemed a bit harsh in his words. Cons arguements made more sense to me.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 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 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: Conduct: Neither debater gets conduct because they both used ad hominem arguments. S&G: Both debaters had reasonably similar spelling and grammar. Arguments: Pro completely dropped his unproven claim from round one. Points go to Con because Pro did not meet his burden of proof. Sources: Neither debater used sources.