The Instigator
DarwinBulldog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

I Bet I Can Make You Mad!

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 7 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,384 times Debate No: 48142
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (51)
Votes (7)

 

DarwinBulldog

Pro

By accepting this debate - you agree to follow the rules of the game and also that I cannot make you mad!

This debate will centered on your response to this debate!

RULES:

1) Please watch video/link FIRST before replying

2) Reply - present your counter - argument

3) You cannot get mad or forfeit or you will lose the debate

Let's see how well you can do (Hint: you do not need to watch the whole video).

Required Link/Video (Must Watch First):
progressivedem22

Con

I watched the entire video, including the ending which was quite bloody. However, it did not make me mad or angry, so you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. The fact of the matter is, this is a video from a fictional movie with, indeed, very high stakes of survival. One can only survive at the other's failure. It's quite a devious dynamic that only a truly evil mind could devise, but it did not make me mad because this is not real. The clip actually made me want to watch the movie.
Debate Round No. 1
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
That's circular logic because you're insinuating that the votebombs sprang from my use of the word "bloody." Again, you need to learn the difference between subjective and objective. You're completely wrong on this one, so attempting to condescend is not going to work toward your favor.
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
@sadolite: I don't know why, for some God forsaken reason, you're trying to attack me. Ya, attacking you. What drama. I only pointed out that you should have said nothing and you would not be having this great vote bomb drama. I didn't vote on the debate, so chill out on the attack crap. It is your opinion that pointing out that something is quite bloody does not constitute being even slightly disturbed by it. Why would you even mention it if i didn't trigger a negative response in your head.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 3 years ago
DarwinBulldog
It's fine. You're upset, clearly. I understand.

For your consideration; you are now:

1) wanting to humiliate others
2) still insinuating foul play
3) being passive-aggressive in an abrasive manner
4) projecting narcissism onto others
5) still arguing a case when it's over and was never intended to be "won"
6) claiming logic - when the debate was deliberately set-up to elicit an over reaction from you - that's all - which you are still giving!

It was funny at first but now its becoming a little sad and alarming. I could care less about winning a debate that was set-up to be "un-winnable" as that was not the objective. The objective was to arouse or elicit an emotional response from someone who agreed not to give one. Which you have given.

I'll explain:

This was a project for a psych study. I am studying Conditioned Emotional Response (CER) and Suppressed Emotional Response (SER) in a social settings via social media sites. In your case progressivedem22, you were simply the random person to accept this debate in which the parameters were set-up to study these responses under slight provocation after watching something mildly graphic, stressful or violent.

You might not care but I feel I owe you an explanation as you are clearly very emotional. My apologies.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Darwin, look at yourself. Your responses are absolutely asinine and devoid of logic. I'm tempted not to respond to you but I'll do so anyway, just to humiliate you once more.

1. I did not take it upon myself to decide what a fair vote is. I'm simply following site rules, as you yourself are obligated to do. If airmax felt that the votes were fair, he would've kept them.
2. You have not denied to soliciting votebombs. Did you or did you not?
3. You said that the outcome of this debate would be predicated on my reaction TO THE DEBATE. This can only be interpreted as my response to your debate challenge, not to post-debate votebombing. Had the latter been the case, your debate would have been contrary to site rules.
4. You n ever once said that we weren't going to rely on proof. That's nowhere in your first post, nor did I agree to it.
5. You are a troll, as are your votebombing friends. This is a fact. That's why all their votes were removed.
6. The comment section, for the last time, is outside the parameters of the debater, and may not -- can not -- serve as a barometer for gauging whether or not I'm angry.
7. You dealt yourself an impossible burden of proof.
8. The votes were not a matter of "opinion." It is an objective fact that you lost this debate because you could not fulfill your burden of proof.
9. This debate is not brilliant, nor are you. Your self-aggrandizing posts are not well-taken. I've seen brilliance. You aren't.
10. If you noticed, I haven't been responding -- how again am I digging myself a deeper hole? Look at the score. Your tactics have failed. I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Word to the wise: Avoid debating DarwinBulldog, the so-called brilliant thinker, who is in fact a no-name, self-aggrandizing troll with so much free time on his hands that he'll solicit votes from his buddies -- only to claim "that's their opinions, bro!" It's as if logic and reason were flushed down the toilet at the time of your conception.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 3 years ago
DarwinBulldog
Yes, but didn't the debate cause any supposed "vote-bombs" for progressivedem to become mad at? The supposed "vote -bombs" are in fact still derivative of this debate.

A reaction of having mass votes removed and calling others trolls qualifies as a mad emotional response. In order for progressivedem to have overcome the "game" - he simply needed to keep his cool. He didn't.

Instead he freaked out over the the whole thing - called other opinion votes ridiculous, others trolls, and reported every vote that was against his position so it would be deleted. progressivedem at one point even accused Pro of rigging the whole thing and having his friends "vote-bomb."

In fact, Con has taken it upon himself decide what a fair vote is. This is funny for several reasons:
1) we have all agreed that "proof" would not be rendered from the start (so really, these are all opinion votes that Con keeps contesting and had deleted, including the votes in his favor)
2) the debate was only one round on purpose in order to elicit an emotional response from Con
3) others have recognized this and understand the point of the debate's format and many see the brilliance
4) Con just keeps digging himself a deeper hole by not letting it go
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
@darwinbulldog

After reading the debate & comments, I would have to say you did not make progressivedem mad at all. Perhaps he was mad about votebombs, but even then, it would be the votebombers who made him mad, not you. Although, I doubt he was mad about them, as reporting votebombs gets them removed rather quickly, so there's no reason to get mad about them.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
But he doesn't and it was.

I'm not even going to waste my time on this one.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
DarwinBulldog has so many valid points. I didn't think 5 points awarded to Pro by me will also be removed.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 3 years ago
DarwinBulldog
Wow, after having everyone's opinion votes deleted in favor of Pro - I hope progressivedem22 (Con) feels a little better and isn't so mad anymore.

Yes, indeed, the idea was to control yourself - even post debate. Con very clearly demonstrates his emotions. Obviously, no one could "prove" you are mad Con. But a judgement call can be made easily just from your reactions post debate - which is in accord with my objective.

Though I might lack votes, to say you didn't have an emotional response to this debate would not honestly be genuine - especially considering you resorted to having other votes removed and calling others trolls.

The debate was not centered around the expiration of time but rather your reaction to the debate - period.

So while I might still lose the debate based on votes, your reaction to the debate proves my point - which is what I set out to do - Hence I have made my point and won the debate - however - you can sleep better at night knowing that it wont effect your record or rating.

By the way - this went exactly how I thought it would go - though I never imagined someone would have mass votes removed and claim not to have gotten mad like you did. Quite frankly, you played right into my game..
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
I changed but I'll keep arguments and source in favor of Pro.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe that Pro made con mad, but it was after the fact of the debate.
Vote Placed by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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: Con was not mad and Pro is a troll.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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: Con was not mad
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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: He wasn't mad, and even wanted to watch more.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Useless 1 round debate. Without a second round, Pro has no way to refute that Con was not mad at the video and fails to even explain what the point of this whole debate was. Arguments to Con. Con also had better spelling and sentence structure and better conduct for laying his argument out for the judges instead of leaving the judges to sheer speculation about what this was about. Wasting judges time is bad conduct. As is clear trolling.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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: Con clearly didn't get mad, and therefore wins the debate.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
DarwinBulldogprogressivedem22Tied
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: I agree - It looks like compadre failed to get mad or angry, because he was expecting it.