The Instigator
Balacafa
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ADHDavid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I am epic

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 2 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/30/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 83234
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Balacafa

Pro

I'm bored.

R1 is acceptance.

Definitions:

I = balacafa (me)

epic =
ADHDavid

Con

Hello, I will argue that you infact, are not epic.


First of all, you posted a gif with rage comic characters plowing through a crowd of people. This is the opposite of epic. In fact, it's villanous.

Now, post whatever 'trollish response you have.
Debate Round No. 1
Balacafa

Pro

Trollish response? I feel very bad for doing this but I'm going to have to destory the negative case with some pretty epic arguments. Epic arguments can only come from epic people.

Contention 1: I've beaten the best

Now, it is undeniable that debating is epic. If you didn't classify it as epic you wouldn't be here on the site. Debating is subjective and therefore it is up to me to interpret whether or not it is epic. Now I propose the following sylogism for my first argument:

p = premise
c = conclusion

P1: Debating is epic
P2: Good debaters are epic
P3: I have beaten a good debater
C1: I am a good debater
C2: I am epic

P1 has already been demonstrated.

P2 can be demonstrated by P1. If debating is epic (according to my own subjectivity which is fine since epicness is subjective), then people who are good at doing epic things (ie. debating), are epic people.

P3 can be demonstrated by the fact that I have 'technically' beaten the sites voting moderator in a debate.

Balacafa vs Whiteflame: (http://www.debate.org...) [2]

My opponent (whitflame) has an elo above 5000, making him appear on the first page of the top debaters [1]. He has never forfeited a debate since joining DDO 1 year ago. He then, in a debate with me, forfeited. The rules stated that if you forfeit then you forfeit all points to me. Therefore, despite the debate not being over yet. It is inevitable that I have won the debate and therefore I am epic at doing epic things. This makes me an epic person.

C1 is proven by my debate with whiteflame.

C2 is proven by my explanation of my debate with whiteflame.

Contention 2: I have epic stats

My stats on this site are epic. That is undeniable. With my 51 won debates on only 4 losses [3]. My win ratio is at 92.73% that is extremely high in terms of looking at this in regards to the number of debates that I have participated in [3].

My elo is above 4000 making me very close to being on the second page of the top debaters [1,3]. I am truely epic based on this.
My percentile is 99.66% bringing me extremely close to the top debaters [3].

Contention 3: I am a nice person

I am such a nice person that it makes me epic and considered to be epic amongst the community. I did an extremely long debate with lannan13 [4] and in the final round he ran into some personal issues and requested a tie on the debate. If I had not agreed to the tie then lannan13 would have been forced to forfeit the debate and I would have won. I found the epicness in my heart and decided to allow him to tie such a long debate that I'd put many hours into.

I am so nice that I've even defended the likes of Hitler [2]! Of course I do not personally believe this but I because I am so epic and nice I decided that I would defend him because I'm such an epic person.

On top of all of this, I am even going to allow whiteflame to continue our debate (even though I technically won), just because I understand that everyone forgets once in a while. All of these users have been so greatful and probably did think that I'm epic just because I have done what most users wouldn't have done - given them a second chance. There are many examples of people who have denied having their debates tied due to personal issues. Check out the comments of this notorious debate in which Thett requested a tie but it was refused: http://www.debate.org...;[5].

Contention 4: Occupation

I work for the government [3]. I get to influence decisions and I also get to make decisions in various parts of the UK. I have a lot of power and even more responsibility. In order for me to successfully use this power and responsibility, I must be an epic person.

Uncle Ben said to Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. As demonstrated, I have great power (in the government) and great responsibility (in the government). Therefore, I am similar to Spiderman in terms of qualities that do not involve his powers.

Spiderman is referred to as the amazing spiderman [7]. Since I share so many qualities with Spiderman, it is evident that I am amazing too.

Epic is a synonym for amazing [8]. Therefore, since I am amazing, I must also be epic.

Conclusion

Sorry Con, if this wasn't the trollish argument that you may have expected it to be. With that, I hand it back to you for rebuttals, since I hold a major portion of the burden of proof in this debate.




Sources

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://www.debate.org...;
[3]http://www.debate.org...;
[4]http://www.debate.org...
[5]http://www.debate.org...
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://www.firstcovers.com...
ADHDavid

Con

Alright, that really wasn't the kind of response I was expecting, but I'll do my best to debate this issue. First off, we need a definition of the word "Epic". Pro has failed to present one, and I really don't want to start a definition war, so I will provide one just for my argument, I'll give Pro a chance to give the definition he is using.
(OFF TOPIC POST)
Now, what is an Epic? An epic is a long poem about either a certain hero, or a victory of sorts. In the old days, before written language was a large component of human day-to-day life, stories were passed down the generations in the form of poems. Some of these poems were extremely long, taking hours to recite at a time. Eventually, these poems were converted to written word, and the name "Epic" Became attributed to it, coming from the greek work "Epikos", which meant "Song" or "Poem". The greek word most likely originated from the ancient, written language of "Koine". But, alas....a lot has changed since the ancient times, so I will apply a definition that most likely suits what Pro is saying.

(BACK ON TRACK)
In this case, I'm assuming that he is using "Epic" as in he is great, or powerful. This is the definition that I will apply, although Pro can post another definition that I will use, if he prefers.

So, for now... Epic= Great and/or powerful. (Callout to Vi_spex...)


Con said: "Now, it is undeniable that debating is epic. If you didn't classify it as epic you wouldn't be here on the site. Debating is subjective and therefore it is up to me to interpret whether or not it is epic. Now I propose the following syllogism for my first argument"


I agree that debating, according to the definition I have given, is quite epic. It is debates that change the course of the world, influence public decisions, adjust religious ideologies, etcetera, etcetera. But, just because you do something that can be epic, doesn't make you epic. Such as...let's say war is epic. If you lose a war, you were technically doing something "Epic" (Keep in mind, still using the definition that I had provided, so...) You participated in the war, and lost. Just because you lost, you are not "Great" or "Powerful." So, just because you participate, does not mean the "Epicness" Can be attributed to you.

Con said :If debating is epic (according to my own subjectivity which is fine since epicness is subjective), then people who are good at doing epic things (ie. debating), are epic people.


Agreed, people who are good at doing Epic things should be considered epic. Since we are assuming that Debating is Epic, let's look at Bala Cafa's Debate record, it's pretty impressive! (1)


Con Said: "Contention 2: I have epic stats

My stats on this site are epic. That is undeniable. With my 51 won debates on only 4 losses [3]. My win ratio is at 92.73% that is extremely high in terms of looking at this in regards to the number of debates that I have participated in [3].

My elo is above 4000 making me very close to being on the second page of the top debaters [1,3]. I am truely epic based on this.
My percentile is 99.66% bringing me extremely close to the top debaters [3]. "




Balafaca, at the time I am writing this, has a total of 68 debates.
Balafaca has only lost 4 of them, tied 13 of them, and has a whopping 51 wins against the communtiy on debate.org

Computated against me, with 5 losses, 4 wins, and 7 ties, it seems he is the more "Epic" one.
But...I'm not arguing for my right to epicness, but...against Balafaca's epicness.

Well...let's look at the ammount of them that are "Easy" wins. Or, the ones that you are most likely to win. Because...beating someone who is not "Epic..." Shouldn't be considered epic!

I will be using my own system of “Easy” “Average” and “Hard,” Labeling each debate along the way.

(Forfeits will count for easy, unless the person debating Balaclava had personal issues to attend to, in which case I will label it as a neutral. Keep in mind, I am counting “Easy” debates as people who have not used sources for their arguments as well.)

Total “Easy” Debates:

52………..

I would like to point out that the majority of Balacafa’s debates have ended in either a forfieture, source check (Failed to provide valid or any sources), grammar check, and random statements mad by the opposer; Sometimes a clear win resulted in a tie due to lack of community voting. I have included a list of all of these debates, that he claims make him “Epic”. He contends that he has beaten the best, when it was a forfieture that gave him a win. (2)

Now, I wouldn't use this one as a win, but let's look at his win against Whiteflame. (2)

The debate was forfieted, and wasn't finished, so the end result wasn't decided. Looking at it now, both sides had good arguements, but Whiteflame most likely would ha

Since nobody won, considering his experience and Elo, and community bias, Whiteflame would have probobly won. Therefore, his Forfieture should not count as a win. (Also, the system didn't even count it as a loss..... It seems to have glitched) (3)

Pro has said that he works for the governement, and has provided no evidence that he does so, because the link he used is broken.

Pro said: contention 4: Occupation

I work for the government [3]. I get to influence decisions and I also get to make decisions in various parts of the UK. I have a lot of power and even more responsibility. In order for me to successfully use this power and responsibility, I must be an epic person.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, I have a fairly short arguement to make. Since Balafaca says he is epic, I will hereby disprove him using the age he listed on his profile. He claims to be 43, so his area of influence would therefore be 43 lightyears around him. This is the farthest any Photons, waves, or particles could have traveled due to events he as caused since his birth. There are around 130 stars in the area that this encompases 50 light years. 130....(4)
Due to this, and his influence of stars, the total percentage that he affects on all the stars in the universe (The percentage in which he affects) is about 130/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5)...or 1.43e-21%. (000000000000000000143%).....

I turn it back over to Balacafa to define "Epic" and to refute my arguement.



Sources..
1 http://www.debate.org...

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

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


4 http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...



5 http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...;



Debate Round No. 2
Balacafa

Pro

Contention 3 is dropped and many elements of my other contentions are dropped. Simly refuting one line out of each contention (and none out of C3) is not sufficient.

"just because you do something that can be epic, doesn't make you epic"

Did you misread my case? I know that people that do epic things are not necessarily epic. But people who are good at doing epic things are epic and that is what my case was based around.

"Agreed, people who are good at doing Epic things should be considered epic. Since we are assuming that Debating is Epic, let's look at Bala Cafa's Debate record, it's pretty impressive!"

Is this a concession? Firstly, he concedes that people who are good at doing epic things should be considered epic. Then he concedes that my record is pretty impressive. That is pretty much a concession to the debate. Stating that people who are good at debating are epic and then stating that my record is pretty impressive formulates the following argument in my favour:

P1: Debating is epic
P2: Good debaters are epic
P3: Balacafa has an 'impressive' debate record
C1: Balacafa is epic at debating

P1 is agreed upon by my opponent
P2 is agreed upon by my opponent
P3 is agreed upon by my opponent

Since all this agreements add up to the conclusion that I am epic this can and is being viewed as a concession.

"Total “Easy” Debates: 52………"

Almost immediately you can notice that this statistic is faulty. My opponent's first claim is that I have won 51 debates and then he claims that 52 of them are easy wins. How does that make any sense? Here are a few examples of debates where there haven't been forfeitures and the topic is not a troll one:

British Monarchy: http://www.debate.org...;
Feminist Movement: http://www.debate.org...;
Secret Societies: http://www.debate.org...
Abortion: http://www.debate.org...
Disability Rights: http://www.debate.org...
Space Travel: http://www.debate.org...
Abortion (again): http://www.debate.org...


The list goes on but I'm forced to stop because of the character limit. I won all of these debates and my opponent did not forfeit on one of them. The topics were not troll ones and were all in regards to very serious and debatable issues.

"The debate was forfieted, and wasn't finished, so the end result wasn't decided."

My opponent clearly didn't read the rules of the debate. If he had read them he would have noticed that rule 1 of the debate stated that there were to be no forfeits and rule 10 of the debate stated that any rule violating equate to an automatic loss [1].

"Since nobody won, considering his experience and Elo, and community bias,"

Firstly, I have experience out side of this site too in case you didn't realize. Secondly, many users have beaten useres with a higher elo than them. It is not unexpected that whiteflame has a higher elo than me. He has been on the site for over a year when I've only been on it for 4 months [2].

Community bias just proves my point. Epicness is about debate skill. If whiteflame wins because of community bias then that doesn't prove that he's more epic at debating than me. It just means that he has more community support than me and that is probably because he's the chief voting moderator on the site and gets a lot of respect from the community for producing so many votes with such high quality [3].

"It seems to have glitched"

Yes, but airmax is working on fixing it and when it is fixed the debate will continue and I will win (per the rules of the debate).

"Pro has said that he works for the governement, and has provided no evidence that he does so, because the link he used is broken. "

Apologies about that. I didn't realize that the link was broken. The source was just my source [2] of this round.

" (The percentage in which he affects) is about 130/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 "

And what does this have to do with anything. The definition of the word epic is not in regards to quantity, it is in regards to quantity. It is in regards to how good you are at doing things. Since my opponent has conceeded that debating is epic and good debaters are epic I do not see how this has anything to do with the resolution at hand.


Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
ADHDavid

Con

ADHDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ADHDavid

Con

ADHDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I knew you were gonna forfeit at some point ;)

I'm never wrong ... coz I'm epic!
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I've never forfeited a debate ... ever!
Posted by ADHDavid 1 year ago
ADHDavid
Don't forfeit dude.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Don't forfeit dude.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Stefanwaal 1 year ago
Stefanwaal
BalacafaADHDavid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won, because con forfeited, but if he didn't forfeit there was a decent chance he would win. The definition of epic I'll use is: Epic=Great and/or powerful. Con brought this fourth and I can't remember pro refuted this definition. Now the arguments of pro: 1. I've beaten the best As con pointed out you've only beaten Whiteflame because he forfeited. Looking at the definition of epic this doesn't make you epic, because winning through forfeiture proves you have luck. Not power 2. I have epic stats As con pointed out most of the debates were easy debates. I looked at your list and the top two links didn't work and in the third source the opponent DID forfeit. Furthermore, con never argued ALL of your victories were on easy debates 3. I am a nice person Con didn't seem to address this, so pro wins because of this 4. Occupation Pro claims he has power and responsibility in the government, but his profile only shows he works for the government. Not that he has responsibility and
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
BalacafaADHDavid
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.