The Instigator
Link02
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
yahuaa
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Have you played Portal?

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 1 vote the winner is...
yahuaa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 73383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

Link02

Con

The computer Glados killed at least 100 people through the use of deadly neurotoxins. I believe (With the proof to back it up) that you are wrong. Therefore, I challenge you.
yahuaa

Pro

I'm going presume that we are debating GLaDOS benevolence, and not the existence of the cake.

GLaDOS is an A.I. with not only vast control of the Aperature facility, but with extensive knowledge as to their inner workings, deals, and agreements with Black Mesa. Considering the following;

https://www.youtube.com...

It's likely that GLaDOS was aware of what was going to occur, she's backed up scans of our brain, killed the bodies only to remake them later... in cores and cubes
Debate Round No. 1
Link02

Con

The forementioned connections were made by the previous human assets in Aperture laboratories not by Glados. There is also no reason to "kill" the bodies and shove them into the cubes. Most of the cubes in the game were even malfunction and/or broken.
yahuaa

Pro

As you stated in the comment section, Cave Johnson did have some connections with Black Mesa in that it was a rivalry. It's a small step for GLaDOS to know all that Cave Johnson knew of Black Mesa's inner workings.

https://www.youtube.com...

The reason she wanted to kill the bodies was to prevent THEM (zombies) from taking over the facility. Coinciding with the last vid, She is the only thing standing between them and Chell. Least until she perfects P-body and Atlas.
Debate Round No. 2
Link02

Con

Zombies? Really? That video is fake. Zombies were NEVER in the Portal Franchise. And repeatedly, Glados tries to forcefully kill Chell several times.
yahuaa

Pro

It's not a fake vid. It was a promotion for Portal 2's release.

http://kf-wiki.com...

Where you say kill, I say trail by fire (test). I think it's all interconnected. Horzine Biotech was overran by specimen.

http://kf-wiki.com...

When they finally came to Aperture, GLaDOS considered it a testing opportunity. Keeping them away from the facility major. GLaDOS quote's dabbling in bringing the dead back to life. She may have gotten the idea from 'em.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yahuaa 1 year ago
yahuaa
I'm not saying she didn't kill anyone. I'm saying she's killed them with the intention of bringing them back to life when THEY (zombies) are no longer an issue. What is life and death to an immortal when the people she's killed have their personalities profiles backed up? A way to think of it would be the cryogenic chambers.... just not consented to. Though if THEY were going to run amok in the testing chambers I'm sure consent would be a non-issue.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
I doubt it.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 1 year ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
All I have to say is that shes killed me at least 8 times with neurotoxin that I can remember ... so im certain she has killed at least 100 considering how many people have played this game. Did anyone really figure out how to defeat her the first play through without dying (and without watching a youtube video on how to do it)?
Posted by yahuaa 1 year ago
yahuaa
I was Magos looking at the debate settings.
Posted by Magos 1 year ago
Magos
I'm Yahuaa looking at the debate settings.
Posted by Magos 1 year ago
Magos
The debate being public is a defaulted feature. The voting is required. Whether I could change those settings I am caught unawares. As I stated earlier, the audience is not my primary concern. I'm more interested in my opponents thoughts because it is not the winning that matters to me. It's that the debate ended with each of us understanding the others point of view. That is what I'm fond about in debates.

What really irks me is your final statement, "This website is actually for debate. I recommend you both go look up what a debate actually is." That was unnecessary and rude. What I shouldn't be doing is continuing this conversation, but you need to understand being negatively puritanical does not teach well. Unless of course teaching is also not purely part of a debate, and thus we must both not be allowed within the debate dot org forums.

Just because you've been about many other debate sites doesn't mean you do know what is and isn't a debate. See how offensive that is? The 500 character limit was the settings made by the challenger, and I tried to be as clear and concise given those limits. Those settings I know can be changed.

Maybe you should ASK for an explanation if the subject matter interests you, as I've asked my opponent in the comments further below. I'm helping build skills through example while trying to have a little fun given the subject matter. For more important topics, I may understand your bout, but in this debate discussing fictional characters and their motives, it's just foolishly unnecessary.
Posted by Cryptidhunter13 1 year ago
Cryptidhunter13
But the point of the debate being in a public place with voting is so that other people can see the debate and so that a clear winner can be declared. If outsiders understanding isn't important, maybe you shouldn't put it in a public forum that is intended to give outsiders viewership over your debate.

Also, this site isn't the only source of debate in the universe. Just because I have only been a member for a small amount of time doesn't mean I don't know what is and isn't a debate. Furthermore, you should just make sure to more adequately explain the points being made in the debate rounds. I don't know what this 500 character limit is about, but many debates seem to have much larger arguments per round.

Also, it isn't about me 'not trying to understand'. I read over your 'debate' a number of times trying to make heads or tails of it. As you have said, the information needed to understand it was scattered. Maybe you should focus on trying to be understood instead of expecting onlookers to put in extra effort to understand your scattered arguments.
Posted by yahuaa 1 year ago
yahuaa
@Cryptidhuner13

This debate started from an Opinion post titled, "Is the cake a lie?" (You can find my argument in my profile page since the actual post is gone.) I offhandedly mentioned GLaDOS was benevolent, and that's what I believe Link02 challenged me on.

The title could have been better, but I understood that Link02 meant, "Have you played Portal?!" It was more of a rhetorical question with emphasis on the, "played." I understood it was rhetorical, because I've stated several facets of the game in the previous post. I've also have a reminder of how young minds tend to act. The actual question posed would be along the lines of, "Is GLaDOS benevolent?"

As for half the debate being over here in the comment section, It's not really a debate, but more elaboration of their argument. I would actually like to understand my opponent's point of view, consider it, and act accordingly so a mutual understanding is promoted. The 500 character limit does not do much justice.

In your whole five hours here, you justly get to state what is and isn't a debate? I believe you need to understand that a debate does not need an audience. If Link02 and I can understand the basis of the discussion and argue our point of views, then it's a debate. Whether or not YOU can understand it is superfluous.

@Link02

This is a major reason why I don't care too much about the votes. People like Crypt aren't willing to even try and understand the argument. They're perfectly content just looking at the labels. Any deeper than that is just not, "logical."
Posted by Cryptidhunter13 1 year ago
Cryptidhunter13
This debate was such a mess. I'm not even sure what was actually even being debated. The topic is listed as 'Have you played Portal' which isn't something that can be debated but rather yes/no question. Link02 said that he thinks "you're wrong", but about what? Yahuaa even can only assume what's actually being debated here. The 'arguments' in Round 1 aren't even arguments so much as discussion of something that may or may not be the 'debate'. Also, half the 'debate' was over here in the comments. There's just not a lot of logical thought going on here at all.

This website is actually for debate. I recommend you both go look up what a debate actually is.
Posted by yahuaa 1 year ago
yahuaa
If you like we can continue the discussion here. I don't really care about the votes, who wins, and loses. I just like the idea.... again IF you would like to continue.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Link02yahuaaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con was never able to successfully refute Pro's point that GLaDOS only temporarily killed people. Pro backed up their assertion with their sources with arguments about her previous information garnered from working with Cave Johnson and from evidence of zombies and Aperture existing in the same world, showing that (a) GLaDOS may have killed people to prevent a zombie takeover and (b) GLaDOS may have been protecting Chell the whole time. Con failed to substantially respond line-by-line to Pro arguments, which fulfilled Pro's (unclear) burden of proof and/or showed Pro to be the better debate, if a burden of proof is not established. Pro arguments Sources: Pro had 4 sources. 2 were YT vidoes that backed up their point, and 2 videoes supported the authenticity of their second reference.