The Instigator
Mr.Sexy
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

I am a loser

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 16360
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Mr.Sexy

Pro

I wll present the argument that I am a loser:

1) I have an addiction to food. This sucks because I will probably bite the dust by age 30. My mouth waters and I always think about food 24/7.

2) I have ADD. I've tried several medictions and none of them have worked. It has caused me to get the worst grades I've had all semester.

3) I only have 3 friends. The first one is only my friend because we go to same high school and college. we don't talk to each other during car rides, only awkwardly turn on the radio. The 2nd friend is my cousin. The third friend was my friend from elementary school.

4) I have acne. Went to the dermatoligst. His pill did not work. Have had it my whole life.

5) I am super picky. I only eat pizza and sweets.

6) I have no idea what to do in life.

7) I hate myself.
larztheloser

Con

Greetings to my opponent! My argument is that my opponent sucks so incredibly bad that "loser" cannot even begin to denote just how terrible he is. I contest that a new word should be invented, just for my opponent, for people unworthy of even being called losers.

Definitions
loser (n): a person with a record of failing

A note on conduct
I would like to point out that any insults I deliver to my opponent should be seen in the context of the over-all argument I am making. My opponent could turn his life around and become slightly better. While I phrase my argument as criticism, which is sort of necessitated by the structure of my opponent's opening round and the adversarial nature of western debating, I have every intention of keeping this constructive and am not insulting for insult's sake. Where I have backed up my contentions with evidence, I ask that they do not lose me conduct because that would be necessarily confusing conduct and material.

Contentions
1) He came on this site with no debating record and randomly started 5 debates on ridiculous topics - two of them on public masturbation. He also did not take the time to write anything in his profile or tell us how he stands on the BIG issues. This points to trollish behavior. As everyone knows, a troll is worse than somebody who just loses all their debates. Someone who loses debates may be simply not very good at debating and worthy of sympathy. A troll is worthy of no such thing. To even use "troll" and "worthy" in the same sentence is kind of contradictory.

2) On another debate he is advocating junk food being banned forever, but here he says that the only food he likes is ... junk food! He also claims to have 3 friends, but his profile shows he has 0. Therefore my opponent is a liar. I mean, it's one thing to be a loser ... but then to be dishonest about it, or to be in denial, points to far more serious issues than just losing. Loser is therefore an inadequate term.

3) He has no idea what to do. You cannot fail if you do not do anything. I think to call him a loser or a failure is not enough because he is worse than both - nothing but a drain on society.

I would like voters to note that my opponent's contention #7 is irrelevant because one's opinion of oneself does not translate into a tangible record of any sort - if I thought I was God that would not necessarily make me a "winner." I accept all of my opponent's other contentions showing that he is at least a loser, but none are exclusive with my contention that he is worse than that.

Guys, just don't vote for Mr.Sexy. He's simply not a loser.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Sexy

Pro

Opponent has not attempted to agrue against any of my above points. If I don't have a debating record, that doesn't mean I can't start one. The fact that he has looked at my topics instead of addresing the current debate makes him unreliable. I also ment friends by friends in real life. As for the debates being ridicuolous, opponet should grow a pair and stop being so serious all the time. He also has a small penis.
larztheloser

Con

This round I only have rebuttal. I hope voters also noticed that my opponent offered no rebuttal against any of my points, only against some of the factual claims within some of my points - but for all of the points he rebutted, he missed out alternative factual claims by which one may reach the same conclusion.

Just because I do not argue against your points does not mean you are a loser. Rather what I'm saying is that your own points, compounded with mine, show that you are worse than a loser.

I agree that not having a debating record does not prove you are a troll, however, this fact cannot be seen in isolation. In context, put together with all my other evidence, it is pretty strong.

Real life friends is not evidence because you can lie about that too. Unless you put your friends where your mouth is (metaphorically speaking) you remain a liar. Incidentally, having no friends is also evidence you are a troll.

As to the ad hominum attack on me, I am happy to concede that I am a loser. So what? This debate is focused on my opponent, not me. In fact, if I am a loser and I can beat him, that would make him worse than a loser, would it not? The fact that my opponent resorts to ad hominum is a sign of fear, a sign that he feels he has already lost so he insults he instead. None of his insults on me have any evidence, of course, making him even worse still for losing a debate to a loser based on no evidence.

Therefore, vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Sexy

Pro

) He came on this site with no debating record and randomly started 5 debates on ridiculous topics - two of them on public masturbation. He also did not take the time to write anything in his profile or tell us how he stands on the BIG issues. This points to trollish behavior. As everyone knows, a troll is worse than somebody who just loses all their debates. Someone who loses debates may be simply not very good at debating and worthy of sympathy. A troll is worthy of no such thing. To even use "troll" and "worthy" in the same sentence is kind of contradictory.

I am interested in starting a debate record. At one time, you had no debate record. In fact, everyone did. I did not write anything on my proifle because I have not had the time.

2) On another debate he is advocating junk food being banned forever, but here he says that the only food he likes is ... junk food! He also claims to have 3 friends, but his profile shows he has 0. Therefore my opponent is a liar. I mean, it's one thing to be a loser ... but then to be dishonest about it, or to be in denial, points to far more serious issues than just losing. Loser is therefore an inadequate term.

The fact that I am addicted to junk food should make me a loser, but you are using an entirely different debate to argue your point, so it is invalid. And even though I can not prove it, you should give me the benefit of the doubt. And once again, you are not arguing if I am a winner or loser.

3) He has no idea what to do. You cannot fail if you do not do anything. I think to call him a loser or a failure is not enough because he is worse than both - nothing but a drain on society.

You can fail school if you do not do anything, You fail good sir.

I have addressed all your points. Now please address mine. Opponent still has a small penis.
larztheloser

Con

First, I already have addressed my opponent's points. See round one, second to last paragraph.

Second, notice how my opponent plagiarized my points without attribution? And how my opponent continues to bring un-necessary ad hominum into this argument, unlike my actually-relevant attacks? Bad conduct right there.

Third, using other debates is just another source of information. Even if voters are not willing to give me the arguments vote on that one (even though I will not concede that it isn't an argument) they should therefore give me their sources vote for that and their arguments vote for everything else.

Fourth, my opponent states he has an interest in starting a debating record. Most reasonable people who do this do not start five debates on ridiculous topics. They take the time to work out their profile and maybe say hi on the forums before they even start one debate. I am not arguing that the fact you are debating makes you a troll - rather your manner of debating indicates it.

Fifth, of course I'm not arguing whether you are a winner or loser. I am arguing that you are WORSE than a loser. There is no onus on me in this debate to show that you are better, because you are blatently not.

Again, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Sexy

Pro

Aha! I found a foil in your plan! I quote:
" I accept all of my opponent's other contentions showing that he is at least a loser"

Since you were supposed to argue why I was not a loser, yet you admit that I indeed am least a loser, I win the debate. All other arguements of yours are null and void.

Vote pro because even con did. Foolish mistake. You forgot the most basic rules of debate.
larztheloser

Con

But I say being a loser is INADEQUATE. Saying you are just a loser is false because you are so much worse than that that you no longer fit the definition. It's like saying everything is high-frequency. I contend that some things are low-frequency, even though they ALSO meet the thresh-hold for being high-frequency (as opposed to ultra-high-frequency), and therefore are not high-frequency. Or look at it logically. You contend you are L. I contend you are L-extra stuff worse then L = worse than L. Without accounting for the extra stuff I point out that makes you worse than a loser you'd be right. But if one actually looks at and understands my argument, then one sees that loser is not really an adequate term. One needs to take the other, over-riding factors into consideration. It is wrong of my opponent to conclude from his arguments he is a loser, because he excludes the possibility that he might be something worse.

By the way I see I am now also a fool. By my previous argument my opponent digs himself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Debate Round No. 4
Mr.Sexy

Pro

" I accept all of my opponent's other contentions showing that he is at least a loser"

He said I was a loser and he can not take it back! Therefore I win. That sentence cleary states that I am a loser.

Oppoent has small penis and is a virgin.

Vote pro bitches. peace out.
larztheloser

Con

"That sentence cleary states that I am a loser."

No, it doesn't. Read my analysis last round. Engage with it, otherwise this contention cannot stand. Stop asserting your points. Oh, wait, it's too late now! Looks like you'll have to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, Pro is a man who I often speak about in the context of those who live in a dungeon....
Sorry, Pro. As ReformedArsenal stated quite excellently, you did create a paradox. The fact that you call yourself a loser but expected to at least win the debate is the paradox.
Odd debate.
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
pro's account has been closed...
Posted by mauricio2 6 years ago
mauricio2
pro....what are you emo?
Posted by bigpoppajustice 6 years ago
bigpoppajustice
Successful troll is successful.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Buckethead31594
ouch. my. brain...
Posted by adidas 6 years ago
adidas
if the guy says hes a loser than he is
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 6 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
Excellent point. This is indeed quite the paradox.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
This debate has created a logical paradox...

If Pro wins... he is not a loser, even though the resolution affirms that... however if Con wins, Pro is indeed a loser and therefore should win the debate.

If I were a robot... I would explode.
Posted by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Buckethead31594
This debate is pointless. Pro is contradicting himself because he is currently "winning."
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Mr.SexylarztheloserTied
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 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: All Pro did was making baseless assertions, lies, distorting Con's argument, and insulting Con. It's a great benefit to DDO now that the loser (or perhaps, monster) known as Mr. Sexy has his account closed.
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
Mr.SexylarztheloserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: asdf
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Mr.SexylarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct was deplorable
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Mr.SexylarztheloserTied
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: Dominating performance by Con, Pro should have debated that they are a nob.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Mr.SexylarztheloserTied
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 didn't actually argue what they where supposed to. Troll or not, con never proves that Pro isn't a loser.