The Instigator
TheBigKK
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Fails are hilarious

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 4 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 885 times Debate No: 84915
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (40)
Votes (4)

 

TheBigKK

Pro

Fails, like the ones on FailArmy, are awesome. Trying to get past the 3-debates-to-vote. So let's get this over with.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept. PRO has the burden of proof to demonstrate that fails are objectively hilarious--note that in round 1 he switches this to "awesome," which is obviously far different.

Either way, he can't merely restate the resolution: he needs to provide a framework for objective hilariousness: otherwise, you default to the view whereby hilariousness--or awesomeness, if we're going that route--is subjective, and would default to a CON ballot.

Because he's provided no argument, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
I have won.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 11 months ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
lol
Posted by Death23 11 months ago
Death23
I'm gonna win
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con since Pro was unable to up hold his BOP. Spelling and Grammar also goes to Con as Pro makes grammatical errors in his first round argument. I thus have no choice, but to give this debate to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The presence of grammatical errors alone is not reason enough to award these points. (2) The RFD is non-specific to the debate, not directly assessing any points made by either of the debaters. If Pro was unable to uphold his BoP, the voter has to explain why.
************************************************************************
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Okay then.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
You're too late.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
I'm gonna take a dump. Wanna watch?
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Not in your wettest of wet dreams.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
You will concede.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
TheBigKKResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: This is straightforward. Pro has to demonstrate that fails are hilarious. Pro then baldly asserts that fails on failarmy are awesome. That's all Pro puts forth, and Con points out that Pro has made no argument. Because Pro never provides any argument beyond their assertion, and Con accurately points that out, arguments to Con. No sources, no grammar issues, and no conduct violations, though saying that you are just doing this debate to be able to vote, should be thought of as poor conduct, but it didn't really affect the debate.
Vote Placed by sunnyau 1 year ago
sunnyau
TheBigKKResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Hmm...I don't wan't to anti-votebomb,but anyway,here's my rfd Conduct:Pro just didn't post any arguments and just wanted to go past 3 debate limit. Goes to Con Arguments:Con has at least provided that why he should win, and made a logical stand while Pro did nothing.Goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
TheBigKKResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con states that Pro must show that fails are "objectively" hilarious. However, nothing in the resolution indicates that fails must be objectively hilarious. Rather, the resolution requires merely that Pro demonstrate that "fails are hilarious". This seems to be an attempt by Con to raise Pro's bar beyond what is required. Con states that Pro has not met his burden of proof, alleging that Pro merely restated the resolution. However, this is not true. Pro cited the fails from failarmy as a supporting example, and this was dropped by Pro. On balance, I must award points to Pro.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
TheBigKKResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Because Pro made this a round 1 debate, he was unable to fulfill his BOP to show us that all fails are hilarious. All Pro did was state an opinion. Therfor Con wins.