The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the "Jesus vs. Buuda..." debate with i-win-347.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,686 times Debate No: 3867
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (9)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Here is the debate:

http://www.debate.org...

I challenge someone here to show me why my opponent should win this debate. Offer me reasons and I will rebut them either by showing that i-win-347 didn't say the points you put forward or by showing why your analysis is contrary to ethical debate principles. (Or any other option I can think of.)

I stand in firm affirmation that I should win that debate.
beem0r

Con

My opponent believes, from a debate judging standpoint, he should have won the debate he linked in his R1.
I must disagree.

First and foremost, Yraelz did not show at any time in the debate any way in which Buuda could beat Jesus. His opponent stated many helpful powers Jesus had that would give him an advantage in a fight, but Yraelz thought it was enough to show that Buddha would be able to deal with all these advantages.

Buddha might be able to do it, Yraelz gave no reasons why Buuda should automatically be considered as good of a fighter as Buddha. He didn't explain who Buuda was or anything. The his arguments were just one big irrelevance. The resolution makes clear that CON, Yraelz, will be arguing for Buuda as the winner of the Jesus vs. Buuda fight.

Now I now this might sound confusing, since the words Buddha and Buuda are so similar. I will therefore give a summary of the debate replacing the word Buddha with cats and the word Buuda with dogs.

Topic: Jesus vs. Dogs who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Dogs"
Pro: Here are reasons why Jesus is good in a fight
Con: Here are reasons why cats are good in a fight, and would in fact win against Jesus

Clearly, Pro is the only one who has supported his side of the resolution. Con was supposed to argue that Dogs would beat Jesus, but he argued that Cats would instead. With this reasoning, an ethical judge would vote PRO.

Back to yeezy.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

My opponent has two main points as to why I should not win. I will refute them both.

=========
Point 1
=========
My opponent states that I give no reason why Buddha could beat Jesus. Let me quote a couple arguments from that round.

"Buddha can turn into a fireball and shoot fireballs, this owns Jesus."

"Buddha can split things when he commands it, Buddha would split any cross near Jesus on command. Jesus would never resurrect. "

"Plants come to the aid of Buddha, he controls the Ent army!"

"When the serpent shoots fire at Buddha he himself just turns into a fireball and shoots fire back. Thus Jesus not being able to turn himself into a fireball would render hims as dead as the Serpent."

"Thus Buddha can quite literally do anything, and if somehow he did manage to die he would just be reincarnated."

These as we can see are all compelling ways in which Buddha could beat Jesus and the last one is a way in which he could never lose. All of these were unrefuted by my opponent.

=========
Point 2
=========

This would be a compelling point by my opponent if it did indeed pertain to the resolution. However it does not. The resolution states from a debate judging standpoint, as this obviously was not a point within the round on either side it cannot be judged in the round. To judge such a point would simply be the judge bringing in his/her own opinion which is unethical for a judge to do and is outside of the ideal debate judging standpoint.

Furthermore in my opponent's (i-win-347) second round he quite clearly states,

"To refute Buddha's power of making things out of matter all you have to do is secure him in a nom-matter container."

Thus he himself in the debate realized his spelling mistake and agreed to the actual spelling.

Back to you Beemie!
beem0r

Con

My opponent seems to have conceded my entire case, which is that Buuda is not Buddha. Whereas the resolution referred to the former, my opponent solely referred to the latter. He likely just got confused, since the sound so similar when spoken [at least when I say them]. However, it is clear upon reading them that these two words are quite unequal - one does not refer to the other, and if they are somehow the same thing, my opponent never showed in his debate that they are indeed the same thing.

Here's a quote from my Round 1 to show that I did indeed make this argument:

"Buddha might be able to do it, Yraelz gave no reasons why Buuda should automatically be considered as good of a fighter as Buddha. He didn't explain who Buuda was or anything."

His only argument is that his opponent rebutted one of his points about Buddha, and thus he automatically must have agreed that he indeed meant Buddha in the resolution.

However, let us refit my Buddha = Cats, Budda = Dogs scenario, with this new information added.

Topic: Jesus vs. Dogs who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Dogs"
Pro: Here are reasons why Jesus is good in a fight and he would beat dogs
Con: Here are reasons why cats are good in a fight, and would in fact win against Jesus
Pro: Actually, cat's wouldn't necessarily win against Jesus, and here are some reasons for that.
Con: Actually, cats still would win against Jesus, and here's why.

ONCE AGAIN, we see that PRO is the only one who has argued for his side. Rebutting an irrelevant point does not concede that the point was relevant. Just as arguing that cats couldn't beat Jesus did not mean PRO was agreeing that cats now counted as dogs, arguing that Buddha could not beat Jesus does not constitute agreeing that Buddha counts as Buuda.

While responding to irrelevant points does not show well for PRO, it does not change the fact that PRO argued for his side of the resolution while CON did not. It is a judge's duty to decide who upheld their side of the resolution better, and the only viable answer here is PRO.

I shall allow my opponent one final act; he deserves as much. Full power to the showmanship cannons, let's see some flair!
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

My opponent, the esteemed Beem0r is once again, mistaken.

His interpretation is rather simple. He is advocating that everything should be examined exactly how it is written/spelled. This kind of logic however is rather faulty as it would simply lead to debates in which debaters nit picked at each other's arguments for grammatical mistakes.

In fact, my opponent doesn't even actually support what he is saying. If we look specifically to the following debate which he participated in we can see that his opponent made the resolution stating: Do High school councilors really care

http://www.debate.org...

Thus his opponent in the first round uses the wrong kind of counselor for the word councilors instead. Then in Beem0rs own first the third word he types is:
"councelors" a fictional word meaning nothing. However it is apparent through reading the round that both debaters take the misspelled words to mean what was intended in the first place: counselors.

This type of debate is much more feasible then what my opponent advocates for. Debate in which spelling errors is allowed makes for a far more honest debate.

Both debaters, and the audience, quickly understood what i-win-347's intention had been. In honest debate resolutional intent holds stock.

However I am going to briefly humor my opponent for fun. If we are to consider that I was being untopical throughout my debate with i-win-347 then we must also consider that i-win-347 is also being untopical by never mentioning buuda once in his 2nd and final round but by only using Buddha. Thus, i-win-347 in his final round proves no reason why Jesus would beat buuda and instead attempts to prove why Jesus would beat Buddha. Furthermore he drops all the points from his first round and fails to pull them through. Finally i-win-347 never takes issue with my claim that Jesus is a pacifist. Thus Jesus would be incapable of hurting anyone.

YO SOY EL FIN!
beem0r

Con

First, my opponent uses the argument "You know what he meant, and he meant Buddha."

He brings up the fact that I spelled something differently than the resolution in one of my older debates as evidence.

However, this is irrelevant, since it is not a fact of this debate that I was indeed being topical in that debate. Perhaps from a debate judging standpoint I should lose that debate.

My opponent claims that resolutional intent should have some meaning. However, the intent is not as clear as my opponent insists it is.

Also, the audience clearly did not understand as easily as my opponent suggests. If this was indeed a debate about Jesus vs. Buddha, then Yraelz would have a crushing victory. However, he does not. He is winning by 2 votes - 18 to 20 - as I type this. Clearly, it was not 'clear' to the audience that Buuda really means Buddha. Nor is there significant evidence to show that i-win-347 equated the two. He only uses the word Buddha once, and it's in response to a point about Buddha that Yraelz made. The reasons he did not bring up Buuda again in round 2 was because Yraelz never defended Buuda in R1, so there was nothing more to say.

And we cannot say Yraelz won based on the "Jesus is a pacifict" argument, since i-win-347 made a similar argument about Buuda which was never rebutted.
Those two points balance each other out, then we have the powers given about Jesus versus nothing about Buuda.

Even if not explicitly extending his round arguments equates to dropping them [which sounds kind of odd], his round 2 points still outweigh the lack of anything good about Buuda. And if we decide that one must explicitly extend points, we cannot count Yraelz's treasured point that Jesus is a pacifist, either.

In conclusion, words that are spelled similar are not always the same, and a judge should not simply 'assume' this point. Since the resolution gives Yraelz the task of defending Buuda's victory over Jesus, and Yraelz makes no points in Buuda's favor, Yraelz has not met his burden. He has failed to uphold his side of the resolution/break the opponent's side of the resolution.

GG
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll get OVER 9000 alright, but this one who calls himself Logical-Master chooses death sooner than expected. :(
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Yeah, I didn't notice that when I first took the debate. Then I saw it, and was quite afeared that you might use it.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
"Jesus will have to fight Buuda(excuse me for miss-spelling it)"

Hahaha, I didn't even notice. I think my case did well enough as is though. =)
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Note: Anyone reading this, don't count this as part of the debate. [You should only take into account what's in the debate itself]

I was surprised that you never brought up the fact that i-win-347 explicitly said Buuda was a misspelling. That would have made your side nearly undefeatable.

Did you not notice it?
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
You're never going to get 10,000 debates logical. -.-
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSANDDDDDDDD!
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Tempting, but I wanna get at least 10,000 debates on this account. If the webmaster caught me with more than one account, I'm pretty sure I'd get banned.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Better not keep the same identity, people will troll you.

Was 24 theLwerd?

She was losing her debate between her and I on and off before the 24 mark [that was her first debate]. Then it was a tie for a while after I got trolled, then when she got trolled it went in my favor.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Alas, my interesting debates will all be lost to the archives of this site, which may hurt a few students projects on why cats are better than dogs and other interesting topics. However making a new account and trying to maintain a 100% past 24 would be more interesting to me.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
And nothing of worth was lost. ;]
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Yraelzbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by sillycow 9 years ago
sillycow
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chisaku 9 years ago
Chisaku
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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