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

FREEDO would make a bad DDO president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,394 times Debate No: 13759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




To begin I would like to say that this debate was not started or endorsed by FREEDO, his campaign committe, or any other canadites campaign committe.
This debate was put together for challenge by the...

I challenge any of those campaigning against him to accept this debate and argue there cases specifically against FREEDO as DDO president and NOT FOR THEIR OWN CANADITE.
The order of the debate will be as follows
Round 1:
my opponent can present up to 5 questions about FREEDO being a poor choice for DDO president, to wich in round 2 I defend him from those questions to show FREEDO at the very least Okay as a DDO president as well present a case of my own independent of you questions.

Round 2:
my opponent can rebutte my case and response to their first 5 questions, and if up for it, present a new case as well.

Round 3 (final round):
no new arguments, only rebuttal's.

Good luck to whoever accepts this challenge!


I'd like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to have this fun and frivolous debate :P

I like the acronym for your organization... very clever. Before we begin, I'd like to clarify first and foremost that this is not an attack on the user known as FREEDO by any means, and that the Pro position advocates the idea that *none* of the presidential candidates (Cody, Freedo, Lwerd, Innomen and/or whomever else might be running) would make a good president. Freedo would therefore by extension make a bad president by Pro's standard, hence the debate.

As I understand it, in Round 1 I should be presenting 5 questions essentially describing a framework for my case. I'll start by noting my opponent's decision to not include specific details or requirements about the DDO presidency. As such, the most appropriate thing to do would be recognize how a standard dictionary defines the term president. A president is an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons [1]. To preside means to exercise authority or control [2].

I'd also like to note that my opponent has the burden of proof. The instigator of a debate has the burden of proof if they make a positive or negative (non-agnostic) assertion [3]. In this case, my opponent makes the assertion that the user known as FREEDO would not make a bad president, which is what he must prove in this debate. I doubt semantics will be an issue here; bad is defined as unqualified, inferior quality, inaccurate, inadequate, deficient, etc.

My first five questions for Con are as follows:

1. What authority or power was Freedo given by the owner/moderator of the site (Phil)?

2. To what extent does Freedo know HTML, Java, C++ (etc. programs) and to what degree of access does he have to physically alter or supplement DDO's content?

3. What can Freedo in particular do as president that none of the other candidates (or members of the site, for that matter) can do, have done, are capable of doing, etc.?

4. Why is it presumed that other members and/or new members will revere Freedo in any capacity?

5. Was Freedo appointed to this position? If so, by whom? If not, why is the democratic majority a fair way to determine a "leader" of any proportion?

I believe those are the only questions I'm allowed to ask for now. I expect my opponent will answer these questions and make a case for Freedo in the next round, where I will refute his arguments and then make some final statements of my own. The final round will be a re-cap/rebuttal. I look forward to a fun exchange! Thanks again to my opponent and good luck :)

[3] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969. p 370.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

To address the overall point of the obvious argument coming from all these questions at once, yes the voting of DDO president is a pointless process where title is given to whoever the DDO members that vote happen to vote for, in witch they have no real agreed upon power that comes with the title.
If your overall case though is to argue from that stand-point, then I'd like to point out that in fact that's very similar to a forfeit to the resolution to this debate. Why? Because logically if it's truly a pointless and powerless position than you cannot under any twist of reasoning say FREEDO would make a bad DDO President. The standard of average president is automatically met by all who hold the title because there are absolutely no expectiations we hold them to. In order to argue your case that all the candidates, including yourself, will make a bad DDO president you must accept that in some degree you will have unique power with the title to be ‘bad' with.

However simply accepting that fact would make this to be a very boring debate and for a very boring election to participate in and bother voting in it's end. Like the Mafia games here at DDO the DDO election's have become a yearly popular game to participate in which various members have all the fun of mocking real politics and presidential campaigns by copying all the traditional mud-slinging, attack-ad's, attacking the cannadites for having attack ad's, ect, ect, ect… (the DDO election season even follows the heels of the real election season)
So though the term president may mean by standard dictionaries: "A president is an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons [1]. To preside means to exercise authority or control [2]." ; In the context of this website it's just a title that is competed for in witch during the game of the campaigning itself we are to judge the candidates for being ‘good' or ‘bad' for the role based on them hypothetically getting power from it so that the criteria for what one looks for in their own cannadite is the same as with real elections.
And of course the game is on. Even in this very debate it is not on hold as I started it not as the DDO member Marauder, but as the spokesperson for a PAC group ROFLMFAO.

So just what criteria does often come up in real elections that we should expect to be mirrored in this one? Well among the first we are quick to think of always being but in attack ad's or even pro-ad's is character.
So seeing as the resolution only concerns if FREEDO would be ‘bad' for me to support my case I need only show he does not qualify as that, if not particularly ‘good'.

So can we say FREEDO has good character in our president if the DDO president position was one that mattered. I think so. FREEDO is a member of outstanding morals and would never harm a fly. To prove this just consider this quote from FREEDO himself, "real anarchist would never support bloodshed". I think this show's this anarchist is as violent as a butterfly is.

There are a few contentions though toward his character that I think need addressed, even though Lwerd did not make them or shows any sign's that she will, the rumors spreading among the PM's have reached me so I assume some of them may have reached our viewing audience.

Rumor 1) FREEDO is stress inducing boss:
People do not be fooled by the nay sayers who will nay say to you that FREEDO is the reason Koopin cannot eat KFC. Yes, FREEDO did very quickly jump on his right hand man's case when he suspected a traitor among his campaign team. And yes, news has got out that Koopin has acquired a ulcer that is going to keep him from eating heavy foods including his beloved KFC for about 6 months. But can we really say Koopin received his ulcer from the stress one expects comes from being a loyal party member who has been called out by his valiant leader? Think about it cause I haven't.
Also, even if the rumor is true, It's just 6 months what's the big deal, Koopin knew the dangers when he decided to campaign for FREEDO, and stepped up to the line of duty anyway. So what if FREEDO's…. what shall we call it, ‘trigger-happiness' maybe, has now caused Koopin to go without what must be heaven on earth for him, the Double-Down, the proverbial ‘basket he keeps his eggs in' and Koopin now has to be content with lighter foods like a veggie-taco from the Taco-bell on the other side of the food court while Christmas shopping? So what? This is not a big deal, in these hard times a leader like FREEDO has to suspiciously eye even his loyal members cause we all know the one thing that will keep us from getting out of this ditch is more trust.
Besides that, why should we believe this reflects his leadership abilities once given the title of DDO president? He is probably just venting off his suspicious tendencies now on his Party Party members so that there is none left in him by the time he is elected. So you see he is probably just thinking about us by not thinking about Koopin.

Rumor 2) FREEDO cannot stand up for your beliefs:
Another rumor that was PM to me was also related to a character concern and the general desire to have the president you elect represent your beliefs in someway so that they can stand up for them with more authority than you can stand up for them. But the case that was argued to me in a PM was that FREEDO, even assuming his stated beliefs are in synch with your own, that he wont be able to stand up for them. To quote exactly how it was put to me, "how can he stand up for your views when he cannot even stand up for his own", a reference to how he is an atheist and is too afraid to tell his mom so goes to bible studies and pretends to be a Christian. But consider this, we all know that the most understanding person to not be judgmental of your beliefs is not a parent and worst of all parents a mom, but rather we should turn to strangers on a debate website to reveal that we our beliefs to, debates are not likely to say negative things to us about our beliefs, except when they debate them of course, but what of our moms who went through hours of labor to deliver us, there would clearly be biased to hate us for thinking different from they since we are the center of their world in most mom-son/daughter cases.
But don't you see, this means you can bet on FREEDO sticking up for your beliefs, because he is all too willing to pretend to have them, it just means he wont stick up for those who believe what he himself believes. And those beliefs are obviously unimportant anyway or this great leader would be sticking up for them. It's a Win-Win, not counting the actual members of the Party Party that is.

Rumor 3) FREEDO will change his beliefs and what he represents 2 days after elected:

The argument behind this rumor is fairly self explanatory, saying that FREEDO changes his beliefs every 2 days. But this is simply not true, he only changes NAME of his beliefs every 2 days, he waits at least 5 to change the beliefs itself. What more could you ask for, that's an incredibly long to stick to your guns, that's more days than most marriages last these days.


Thanks, Con! Let's jump right into this...

A president is supposed to exercise control over an organized body of persons. In the last round, I questioned the extent of authority FREEDO would be able to exonerate if he were elected DDO's president. It was explained that the owner/moderator of this site has given FREEDO absolutely no authority over site governance. Then I asked what extent of knowledge FREEDO had regarding computer programming. I was wondering what literal physical improvements FREEDO could make to the site even if Phil had given him permission to do so. As far as I can tell, FREEDO lacks any technical capacity to do anything that would improve or even change the face of DDO's content at all. In that case, his contribution is greatly inhibited, meaning his ability to exercise authority or control is non-existent. In that case, he would be an insufficient (bad) president.

Still, let's consider for a moment that these elections are simply for fun, and essentially a representation of who and/or what ideas are popular on DDO at any given time. For instance, in previous elections the parties were divided based primarily on political sentiments: libertarians vs. liberals, for example. Well, it might very well be that FREEDO or a particular ideology he holds happens to be pertinent to most members on the site. As such, I asked my opponent what about FREEDO in particular would make him the best candidate for president; in other words what about him made him the best representation for the members of DDO. Con has chosen to ignore this question, leaving us to assume that there is nothing about FREEDO that would make him a particularly good leader or even figurehead.

However, my opponent does take the time to acknowledge several alleged rumors about FREEDO, which I will respond to later on in this round. For now, I'd like to bring up my fourth question - why it is presumed that other members and/or new members will revere FREEDO in any capacity. This too was ignored, except for Con's note that FREEDO is apparently harmless because he is an anarchist. First, FREEDO does not consider himself an anarchist [1] making this entirely irrelevant. Second, physical harm is also irrelevant considering this is the internet where violence isn't necessarily an issue. Finally, whether or not FREEDO would "harm" anyone does not answer the question of why anyone should respect or revere him particularly.

Further, my final question asked why a leader should be democratically elected to represent DDO in any capacity to begin with. In other words, what is the real purpose of this election? My opponent reveals, "In the context of this website, [president] is just a title... the game [is] campaigning... [and] we are to judge the candidates for being ‘good' or ‘bad' for the role based on them hypothetically getting power... so the criteria for what one looks for in their own cannadite is the same as with real elections." Well, ignoring the fact that my question wasn't answered at all, let's consider how FREEDO would fare in the context of this role description...

Let's suppose FREEDO was given authority by Phil to serve as a moderator of sorts to the site. First and foremost he wouldn't actually have the technical know-how to do anything, so he couldn't exercise any control thereby making him an insufficient or defective leader. As you recall, these are synonyms for bad. Another thing to consider is that leaders who are inconsistent, flakey or careless are often considered bad. By his own admission, FREEDO is generally apathetic [1] meaning he shows no interest or concern [2] in matters of principle or policy. As the saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything -- a quality that would make a bad president indeed.

Moreover, FREEDO lacks the highly coveted and important quality of stability. It was the highly respected leader Thomas Jefferson who said, "In matters of fashion, swim with the current. In matters of conscience, stand like a rock." FREEDO's inability to commit to particular principles for even a very short amount of time proves he is probably just as frenetic in other areas of critical thinking and decision making. Considering people's ideas about what's good probably would not change as often, the beliefs of those who elect him will probably no longer align with FREEDO's in a short amount of time. As such, he could not possibly be a good representation as DDO president. My opponent mentioned this in regard to people's concern that his stance on things is volatile at best.

Some other things to consider are how FREEDO conducts or even views himself. In his profile, his 'About Me' section notes "I'm quite insane" [3]. Of course considering insane means not of sound mind, then indeed I think this is a trait that would make FREEDO a bad president. Additionally, he describes his beliefs as absurd (obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to reason or common sense; foolish or false - 4) and references an appreciation for nonsense. A nonsensical president would be a bad one for obvious reasons. I also contend that holding illogical or senseless beliefs is another quality that would contribute to being a bad president.

In response to Con's contentions, I'll first address the rumor that FREEDO is responsible for prohibiting Koopin from consuming his beloved KFC, on the basis that FREEDO is an intolerable boss who's paranoid about a potential traitor amongst his ranks. We cannot ignore a similar fate bestowed upon their subordinates by none other than the likes of former leaders such as Hitler and Pol Pot, infamous for a plethora of atrocities included but not limited to accusations of treason that ultimately led to the tragic downfall of their minions [5]. Clearly the similarities between FREEDO and these evil dictators is already apparent, proving he's on the path to being a bad president.

Next, Con mentions that people have concerns about FREEDO's ability to stand up for the beliefs of others when he cannot stand up for his own. Indeed this would be a contention I'd extend, as one quality you'd assume is important about the president of a DEBATE site is their ability to successfully debate and persuade others of their convictions. However, the example my opponent mentioned is just one of many where FREEDO's proven too unsure of himself or his abilities to successfully defend his point of view. Moreover, after over a year on the site (he was formerly known as the user Freedomaniac), he has only participated in about 3 debates per month. A president is expected to lead by example with heavy participation in the forums and/or debate content, which my opponent has not provided. Not leading by example of positive advocation makes a bad (lazy/ incompetent/ hypocritical) president.

I'll conclude by noting that a good president would generally make good on their campaign promises and party platforms. However despite candidates from the other parties making public all information that was pertinent to their campaign weeks ago, nowhere could FREEDO's promises be ascertained. Even when I asked him to provide information about his platform, he responded that it would be made available on November 29 - just 2 days before the scheduled election [6]! Ladies and gentlemen, it is clearly very presumptuous, arrogant and irresponsible to assume it's acceptable or likely that you'd win a debate without even giving people a reason to vote for you. Clearly a candidate that so careless and/or distracted that he could not even bother to tell you about himself or his goals would make a bad president on the basis that they're capricious and careless. A shady president would be a bad president.

Debate Round No. 2


I supposed I generalized all 5 of my opponents questions to be the same too quickly when I thought I responded to them all by just out right admitting the DDO president is a logistically powerless position because my opponent pressed on about some of them being ignored so lets address those fist.

1) what would make him the best president or canadite? (this was actually not asked by Pro so I suppose Pro meant a paraphrasing of question 3 by saying she asked this and I ignored it)
For this resolution I do not have to show FREEDO would be good. In fact my PAC group is all about trying to show him as OK, simply not bad would be a good enough agenda for us to accomplish, and its quite the up hill battle right now for us to do just this so it's best I not waist my focus on supporting him as making a good and even the best choice.

2) Why would the other members Revere him?
well by old members who elected him that's kind of a given. by new members that are not yet aware of what the president position dose they will simply be intimidated by the fact that he holds the title. Just consider how he has Koopin under him right now and remember when Koopin had convinced a new member that he owned the website and might soon shut it down? (I think the tread he showed us this was called 'successful koopin is successful') with a member helping him out who has that kind of power to manipulate gullible newbs how could FREEDO not gain the fear of the new members?

3) why should our leaders be democratically elected in the first place here at DDO?
You obviously wish to press this question to argue that the majority is not always right so neither is a majority chosen leader. Well I'm not going to try and prove that the majority is always right because it's not, but it's not always wrong by default either. The reason that DDO should democratically elect there officials is not to hope the victory inherently proves the choice was the right one but rather that it is the most peaceful transfer of power (or prestigious title in this case). And on a site full of argumentative people, isn't the most peaceful way the best way of avoiding tons of protest spam towards the result?

Pro has argued a few cases though for FREEDO being bad even hypothetically if being president gave him power and I will address those cases now.

1) He has no technical know-how to do anything, making him a defective leader thus bad.
actually, if Phil hypothetically gave authority to the winner of the election, they would need tech smarts to do anything themselves, just PM there decisions to Phil, who we already are considering as having given the president authority will listen and carry out the decisions.
2) FREEDO is inconsistent and flakey, his beliefs are volatile at best.
but dont you see, this is what makes him such a good canidate. FREEDO may not represent my beliefs in any respect right now, but for at least one day during the year he probably will change for a brief time to something that I believe in, and then turn back around against them the next week. This means he will represent all DDO'ers of diverse beliefs for what will possibly be an even amount of time during the year. and the beautiful thing is its not on purpose as a political tactic. He sincerely is going to change his beliefs and every other day at such a rate he should cover all the ones people ever argue for on this sight by the end of the year, or at least name his new beliefs after them. the only one he has been consistent in since I have been here is that he does not believe in god, but even the theist will be represented by him as he goes to bible study classes pretending to be a christian. The one thing you could say is always part of his beliefs he pretends to not have in public. does he do it for us? probably not but do we really need to tell ourselves that he only does this because his spine is missing? I see no reason too.
3) FREEDO even say's he is insane and his views are absurd.
when FREEDO say's his views are absurd, I'm pretty sure he is referring to this philosophy or at least he was last week. As for his being insane by is own admission to quote John Lock on LOST 'crazy people don't think there crazy they think there sane' so by default we can assume he is sane if he can say he isn't. a person who proudly declares themselves insane often means to say they can easily 'go against the grain' or 'stand inside the fire' rejecting the social impositions that keep most of us from doing things that theirs nothing really all that wrong with. And FREEDO does an excellent job at going against the grain when he is in bible study class in the back corner being quite taking notes. most atheist would find themselves inclined to speak up against all the things they find illogical being said by the pastor or the lay leader teaching the class, but not FREEDO, he chooses to really live his life standing inside the fire by making himself as obscure as possible, not allowing anything that might bring up conflict between him and the people he disagrees with.

now for Pro's responses to my defenses from the rumors...

rumor 1: FREEDO's paranoia is keeping Koopin from eating KFC.
my opponent actually compared FREEDO to Hitler. It seems pro is the sort who spends too much time at Tea Party Rallys. to that I have little else to say but Hitler is Hitler.

rumor 2: FREEDO cant stand up for his own beliefs.
Pro did little to argue against my actual defense that it's a good thing that FREEDO cannot stand up for his beliefs because it means he is willing to pretend to have them. Instead Pro pushed the issue to bring up how this relates to a president needing to be an example, being active in the forums and the debates. But we all know FREEDO is very active in the forums, always starting very intellectual discussion threads like 'the banning game' or 'your subway sandwich' ' throw it hear' 'the game' and all the boxxy stuff and these are simply to name the most recent of his unique trademark contributions to the site.

these are simply other points my opponent made that were not part of the rumor responses or opening round questions

FREEDO will not tell his platform until 2 days before the election!
this shows FREEDO a good politician as he is taking a page from national scene politicians like Sharan Angle who has been so successful already doing what FREEDO has been doing

FREEDO does not consider himself an anarchist.
well he did at the time at the quote, and in all likely hood will start calling himself that again around april next year.

He cannot harm anyone here anyway so his violent nature would not be relevant.
It is relevant because if your president does embarrassing things like lame dancing in his non duty related life it brings shame upon his people. So though FREEDO cannot hurt us if he were violent he could attack the people where he lives and tarnish the name of the DDO people. If a violent kid makes the news its not unlikely they for the media to report facts about their online status with things like blogs, or sites there named president of… In his everyday life we know he will not bring shame upon us by committing bloodshed. He's not even going to commit confronting words with his own kinfolk much less do physical violence.

I think after all this we can conclude that FREEDO would not be bad, negating the resolution. for more information on our defenses visit us he our upcoming website ROFLMFAO@feedoforpresident


Thank you very much, Con.

My opponent begins by saying I never asked him what about Freedo would make him the best presidential candidate. Indeed in R1, my exact third question asked, "What can Freedo in particular do as president that none of the other candidates (or members of the site, for that matter) can do, have done, are capable of doing, etc.?" As you can see, my opponent's assertion that I never asked this is not in fact true. However Con is correct - he doesn't have to prove that Freedo will be a good president, but merely that he would not make a bad president. My reason for asking this question was pertinent, but it STILL has not been answered, meaning this dropped argument (bad conduct) has inhibited me from making a relevant point: that if Freedo lacks leadership abilities or other qualities typically attributed to a competent president, then he would not be fulfilling his obligations by either technical or even DDO standards.

Regarding why other members should look up to or respect Freedo, Con's said that the title of president alone would be enough to scare new members. First, fearing and respecting are two different things. If my opponent expects a good president to inflict fear, then he's already negated his own argument by proclaiming Freedo is non-threatening in the last round. By his own standards, he's pointed out why Freedo would be a bad (insufficient) president.

Additionally Con did not give any reason why older members - many of whom have been around longer than Freedo - would respect his authority. Without people respecting or acknowledging one's authority or control, then clearly one does not have a good grasp on authority or control. So far we see Con's been unable to give sufficient reasoning as to why anyone (including Phil) would support Freedo being in a position of power. In that case, we can assume that members have no real reason to revere his authority and therefore will probably not accept it.

Let me clarify further: my opponent is basing his argument on a double standard. In the first round I brought up the fact that what constitutes a DDO president was not clearly defined, thus I presented the standard definition and expectations of any president. Con responded by saying that the qualifications of a DDO president in particular were not typical, and were in fact not based on real authority but essentially a "pointless and powerless" position primarily created for fun purposes where a figurehead leader is elected to represent the site. In the last round, I pointed out why Freedo would make a bad president by both traditional and DDO standards.

To re-cap, Freedo's complete inability to physically alter the site's content means he cannot exercise actual authority or control (making him a bad president by traditional standards). My opponent's responded by saying theoretically the owner/moderator of the site, Phil, would exercise any advised changes made by my Freedo. However by Con's own acknowledgement, Phil would not recognize any of Freedo's authority meaning this is all hypothetical. As such, technically speaking, Freedo would make a bad DDO president.

So far Con's convinced us though that the expectations for a DDO president are different, and are based mostly on member's satisfaction with the candidate. Well, in the last round I explained exactly why Freedo would be a bad president by THESE standards as well. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." In other words people have to believe that it actually makes sense for a figurehead to be revered. However as you can see, Con was unable to explain exactly why any members should vote for Freedo in the first place. To re-cap some of my arguments, Freedo is considered inconsistent and flakey; he considers himself insane with absurd views; he's exercised some tyrannical behavior noteworthy of concern; he hasn't participated in an impressive amount of debates on a debating website; people are concerned about his ability to defend various positions; and Freedo has proven careless, irresponsible and arrogant in not providing the Party Party's platform -- and perhaps STILL would not have done so, had my opponent not reminded him publicly after my noting it in this very debate.

As you can see, then even in theory, members on this site would probably agree that Freedo would make a bad president. Why? The inability to be an adequate president (let alone good) makes one incompetent or bad for the position. To be remotely average, Freedo must be able to execute any of the expectations of him as leader. However my points have shown where he would fall short, and my opponent has not been able to defend that Freedo would not fall short.

Indeed many of my opponent's arguments have been outright contrary. For instance, in the last round Con defended Freedo's versatility by saying it was a positive quality insofar as Freedo genuinely being able to understand various points of view. First, it should be noted that if you change your mind so often, then you're either completely flimsy with your values or you did not adequately understand that which you proclaimed yourself an ardent adherer to -- both of which would make for qualities of a bad president. Second, it's one thing to be sympathetic to an ideology; it's another to be able to defend it. By my opponent's logic that Freedo switches so often, it means he will perpetually be arguing with people and focusing more on justifying his new beliefs than serving as any kind of leader, role model or figurehead.

If you don't buy that, take a look at my opponent's presented alternative, that Freedo "chooses to really live his life standing inside the fire by making himself as obscure as possible, not allowing anything that might bring up conflict between him and the people he disagrees with." So, Freedo will be forced to make the choice either to man up and defend himself - which will create even more unnecessary hostility and friction far more often considering the frequency of his changes - OR, Freedo will make himself look weak, incompetent and spineless by shying away like a coward from adequately debating his point of view -- a trait that would make a bad president, or questionable at absolute best. You'll note that a questionable president is likely an insufficient or upsetting one.

Moreover Freedo's maturity comes into play when considering his hang-up (slight obsession?) with being portrayed as overly hyper, attention seeking, annoyingly optimistic and downright silly or nonsensical. You'll notice that Con never challenged the idea that Freedo would be a nonsensical president considering Freedo's acknowledged appreciation for nonsense. Further Con's defense against Freedo being insane is shoddy; he claims that because a fictional television character said crazy people don't know they're crazy, that by this logic this somehow constitutes a self-declaring crazy person to be sane. However this doesn't follow anyway; just because some crazy people don't know they're crazy doesn't necessarily mandate that every self-aware crazy person is indeed sane. Plus insane is synonymous with maniacal (pertaining to mania), and mania is excessive excitement or enthusiasm [2]. I've advocated these qualities to most definitely be associated with Freedo, and my opponent has cooperatively not denied this reality. In other words, Freedo might very well be literally insane. In the last round I explained why an insane president would be a bad one, which was rightfully not challenged either.

In conclusion, I've explained why Freedo would be a bad president either by technical or even theoretical DDO standards. My opponent has not successfully negated my claims, meaning my points stand and the resolution has been affirmed.

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
I wanted to put dot com on that last site reference but I wasn't allowed. the inside joke is kind of obvious without it though.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Haha, no
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
L, stop pretending like you don't seriously want to win this election.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago

Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Hehe Marauder I think you've made some good points... yes, Innomen is right - I am entirely poking fun at this too :P Obviously this is not a serious, cut throat debate lol. It should be fun :) I only read the first 1/4 of your round because I g2g for now but I'll try to respond by tonight fo sho.
Posted by innomen 7 years ago
Good attitude on Marauder. I think theL is also just poking fun at the whole thing too.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
seeing as you are a cannadite (apathy party right) you could make use of this debate for your own campaigning purposes you know Lwerd, You don't have to resort to pointing out the pointlessness of it. I made the debate to add to the fun of the whole process not mock it.

whatever arguments you choose though I'm sure I'm going to lose going against your level of debating skill, So for me the simple challenge of arguing against you is going to make this fun either way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Postup10101 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05