The Instigator
yoloswag132654
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

I am awesome

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 3 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 70424
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

yoloswag132654

Pro

I am awesome.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.

The burden of proof is on PRO to prove that he is awesome.
Debate Round No. 1
yoloswag132654

Pro

I am awesome. I can do many things.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO claims he is awesome because he do many things--but at this point this is nothing more than an assertion and cannot carry his burden of proof. Further, he doesn't tell us what those many things are.

The main objection I have to this resolution is as follows: if PRO were truly awesome, why would he need to make a debate telling us as much? If he were truly awesome, he would be secure enough in this that he woudln't need to make this announcement to the forum. Further, he's a new member, so we don't even have a debate record or any experience with him--and thus have no idea way to discern whether or not he is awesome.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
yoloswag132654

Pro

I am awesome.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO fails to uphold his burden of proof or respond to my arguments. He has done nothing more than assert that he is awesome without proving it.

Therefore, you vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
Lannan. 4 points to Con (Arguments & S&G). Removed because: failure to explain S&G point. Suspicion that S&G was used strategically. Pro made literally no grammatical or spelling errors.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro really didn't make an argument and thus the resolution is negated.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
TheJuniorVarsityNovice. 6 points to Pro (everything but S&G). Removed because: failure to explain sources point.

Reasons for voting decision: As a statement of fact, awesomeness is subjective thus if even 1 person believes that pro is awsome, the resolution has been affirmed. Pro has said that he is awesome and therefore at least 1 person thinks he is so, thus he has fulfilled his burden of proof and and won the debate. If you don't get me why I mean is that awesomeness is just like beauty. If the resolution were I am beautiful then nobody could tell this guy otherwise. You can't prove someone is not beautiful can you? In my opinion the resolution was affirmed the moment con clicked accept, as this is an impossible round to lose. Conduct goes to pro because con was condescending during the round
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
footballchris561
"So by the Pro argument I must assume that he is not awesome for his statement that he has done many things is open to interpretation and therefore I am interpreting it to mean that he kills small animals and is thus not awesome and a psychopath ;)"

If pro is a psychopath and thinks killing animals is awesome then by his definition he is awesome.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
It's okay. He's too incorrigible to argue with. Let him revel in his own ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 1 year ago
Fascist_Ferret
Junior Varsity: it is up to prove to prove his awesomeness which he has not done. He has not provided any feats to prove his awesomeness. If he has feats he much has substantial sources to provide evidence that he has in fact done these feats and is in fact awesome. So yes, awesome is subjective but simply saying he is awesome does not make himself awesome. Nor does himself as a source make his saying that he is awesome reliable because there is no evidence for an feats that make him awesome besides his comment " i have done many things," things of course which we do not know. These things could be murdering small animals for all we know which would make him not awesome. So by the Pro argument I must assume that he is not awesome for his statement that he has done many things is open to interpretation and therefore I am interpreting it to mean that he kills small animals and is thus not awesome and a psychopath ;)
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"I don't completely agree with TheJuniorVarsityNovice although I do think you lost this debate simply because you seemingly tried to argue with someone who was clearly just messing around but you did a poor job."

Even if he was messing around, I fail to see how I lose when he, not I, failed to carry his burden. I had no such burden. Clearly I didn't take the debate seriously, though you and JVN haven't the slightest clue as to how to evaluate even the simplest of debates, and as such neither of you ought to have voting privileges.

"You could have simply won this debate by raising the question as to the definition of awesome and yet you failed to do this."

I could have, but this didn't even mattering in the slightest because I managed to win in another way--preventing him from carry his BOP.

"As the contender if you don't clearly define the semantics of the debate you accept the instigators definition."

He didn't define it. He made a claim that he was awesome--he wasn't "defining himself as awesome.
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
footballchris561
I don't completely agree with TheJuniorVarsityNovice although I do think you lost this debate simply because you seemingly tried to argue with someone who was clearly just messing around but you did a poor job.

You could have simply won this debate by raising the question as to the definition of awesome and yet you failed to do this. As the contender if you don't clearly define the semantics of the debate you accept the instigators definition.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
So the source points are predicated once again on your misunderstanding of the debate. Gotcha.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
because You provided No sources and He provided The Only reliable source in the world, himself. Thus his self citation is infinitely more than your none. I'm not assuming anything.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I did address your "argument"--thoroughly, but here and in PM, but you haven't engaged a single criticism I've made--though the truth of the matter is that you *were* making an argument, and now you're voting strategically by docking conduct, claiming I was "condescending" during the round, though you haven't pointed to a single instance. You also, still, have not explained why you opted to award source points to my opponent when this debate included no source points.

I never once twisted your words. I responded to every statement you made and pointed out the fallacies sin your arguments. It is *not* a fact that awesomeness is subjective nor can you vote on that assumption, but even if it were--and this is the real kicker--you'd be voting for me because PRO is making an objective statement on a subjective quality, and that's what truly irritates me because it's as though you aren't even taking the team to read my retorts to you or to think critically about the contents of the debate. This is not a foreign concept, though to you it seems as much.

Never once did I propose that awesomeness is "objective," nor did I mention it once, but you do not make the assumption that it isn't--in fact, your goal as a judge is to evaluate debate argument based solely on the arguments themselves, not on your SUBJECTIVE opinion, which is what you've done.

And, again, I will repeat this so you can't weezle your way out of this: you haven't explained source points. Why did you allocate source points in a source-less debate?

Your RFD is asinine--by far the worst I have ever seen--and I truly hope bluesteel removes it, and send you a thorough (though it need not be thorough, to be honest, because this is actually quite simple) explanation as to how you're completely out of line.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
yoloswag132654ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Pro failed to present any real arguments affirming his claim that he is awesome. Due to his lack of upholding the BOP placed on him as Pro, Con clearly wins arguments.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 1 year ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
yoloswag132654ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 was an ?interesting? debate. Aff presented no case for his side and con brought up a few points against aff?s case. Aff: If you?re going to debate you need to craft a more proper case, if interested and you?d like to debate you can always ask the DDO (debate.org) community with help learning to do that, also there are many online resources to do that. Con: you came across as a bit condescending, obviously with a resolution like this it leans towards ad-hominem attacks more easily than a standard debate case but obviously you need to be careful with that. In the end I voted for Con because he had more subsistence to his arguments.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 1 year ago
Jingle_Bombs
yoloswag132654ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Pro really didn't prove anything.