The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 28280
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Oh yes I did.

Even if she's dead. You must prove it, objectively O.O

Con has full BOP because believe me you, my jizz is proof enough for me!

;
Zaradi

Con

I fully accept the BOP. I can confirm the BOP of my opponent not doing my mom last night because I know he wasn't there. Why? Because I did my mom. All night.

He has the BOP to prove I didn't to disprove that I never saw him.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

My opponent must OBJECTIVELY PROVE he did his mom all night and not someone being an impostor, posing as his mother. This is also very likely since I specifically hired a plastic surgeon to redo a madam, of similar body shape, to do so. I said objectively prove in round one, subjective evidence is irrelevant.
Zaradi

Con

My opponent must objectively prove that he hired a plastic surgeon to modify a different woman to look like my mom and must objectively prove how he knew what my mom looked like. Otherwise you prefer my precluding evidence. As my opponent must prove his BOP before we even look to whether or not I proved mine. Since if he fails to objectively show that I didn't fvck my mom, then he couldn't have been there for otherwise I would've seen him. Since I didn't, I know objectively 100% my opponent didn't fvck my mom.

Unlike my opponent, I have provided objective evidence (a.k.a. I didn't see my opponent) as to why my opponent did not do my mom. My opponent must disprove my evidence objectively in order to win.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

Firstly even if you did your mother, I could have done her too while you were under hallucinogens.


You say "I objectively know" How can a subjective entity objectivley know anything? I said objective evidence!

You seem to think I have BOP. I have 0% BOP read the resolution. thanks.
Zaradi

Con

"Firstly even if you did your mother, I could have done her too while you were under hallucinogens."

I wasn't under hallucinogens last night. My blood test came back negative. I was perfectly sober. I never saw you. Thus you weren't there.

"How can a subjective entity objectivley know anything?"

1. My opponent has yet to prove how humans are subjective. He must prove solipsism before he can even think about getting offense from this statement.
2. But even if humans are subjective, he must prove how humans can't objectively know anything. He has yet to and it's juts an assertion.
3. Humans can know things objectively. That's how we know that one plus one equals two.

Hence you buy my eye-witness evidence.

"You seem to think I have BOP. I have 0% BOP read the resolution. thanks."

I did and accepted it and fulfilled my BOP. You still have to refute my accessing the BOP. If you fail to then I win. In order to refute my accessing the BOP you must provide objective proof that you fvcked my mom since I never saw you when I was fvcking her. If you cannot prove that you fvcked my mom, then my eye-witness evidence stands and we can objectively know you didn't fvck my mom. Which means the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

Humans are subjective because we are limited to the five senses and the ability to retain information from this.

For example a blind man would never be able to fully comprehend the statement 'she has hot eyes' even though objectively this could be seen. In the same way I could have fvcked his mom last night having been unseen, unheard, untouched, untasted and unsmelt by him (and perhaps his mother if she had had a momentary lapse of consciousness). He has no evidence that he didn't pass out while she did and that I didn't 'do' her then whilst she then woke up with me inside her and whispered GO! Before he woke up then had his memories falsely replaced.

Zaradi

Con

The point my opponent brings up is, at best, that people who are blind or have some other sort of physical deformity have a subjective sense of knowledge of descriptions. That doesn't prove that humans can never hold objective knowledge. But even if he does, he does nothing to refute my claims about how humans can know objective things, which means you prefer my arguments as mostly unrefuted to his completely refuted.

My opponent then argues that he could've fvcked my mom while being unheard, unseen, untouched, untasted, and unsmelt. I will contest the first two.

I certainly would've seen you had you been fvcking my mom since I fvcked my mom all night. Since I failed to see you, and no way to cloak yourself exists in the modern world, you can not have gone unseen. You could not have gone unheard since I was with my mom all night and thus would've heard his very quickly reached orgasmic grunts and screams as he came all over my mom. Since I heard none other than my own, he couldn't have been there.

His last evidence that I didn't see or hear him was that I passed out and had my memories replaced. But that's false on both levels. I didn't pass out, as that would mean I wasn't fvcking my mom all night and is false, and he couldn't have replaced my memories as no way to do so exists in the modern world. Thus, all of his claims have fallen flat on his face. That means my claim of fvcking my mom all night stands and fulfills my burden of proof to disprove his claim.

Thus, you negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

My opponent's entire claim relies on that his memory of the entire night is objectively true, that his assumption that there exists no way to completely erase and replace memory at present and that there exists no invisibility cloak in the modern world.

He must now accept his full BOP to prove they don't exist at all, perhaps as a secret government operation (in which I was a part).

My opponent fails to objectively prove anything as it is all based on his subjective interpretation of who he fvcked (no necessarily his mother, just a woman who looks identical) and additionally failed to prove the non-existence of the cloaking device and memory replacer.

As he has accept full BOP is needn't prove any of my claims whatsoever. Thanks goodbye, I did your mom last night.
Zaradi

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, as it comes time to conclude upon this earth-shattering debate, it simply comes down to who better fulfilled their burden of proof.

Some of you may be scratching their heads, especially considering that upon acceptance of the resolution I inherented full burden of proof to prove that my opponent did not go to pound-town with my momma. I knew that fully well, and thus had to come up with a strategy that negated this abusive set-up and returned the ground to an even footing upon which an actual debate could occur. Thus, I presented the strategy I did: I argued the fact that since I was "Gettin' Jiggy With It" with my mum, and I didn't see my opponent, he couldn't have screwed my mom.

From the confused rage of my opponent's responses, my strategy seemed to have worked it's desired effect of negating the abuse of this resolution.

I realize I had full burden of proof to disprove my opponent's claim. But if I didn't see him while I was doing her, my claim disproves his claim, thus fulfilling the burden of proof. This means that in order for this to actually be a debate, and in order to prevent me from fulfilling my burden of proof, he had to negate the fact that I was doing my own mom. The real question was did he do this?

No, he hid behind the fact that "he didn't have to prove anything as I had the full burden of proof".

I agree. I did. You had to refute what I said though. That's why they call these things "debates" and not "free win machines".

Since he never did refute the claim that I did my mom, we can presume I was going Oedipus on the woman who birthed me. Instead, my opponent wanted to go a route that would claim that he could have done my mom without me knowing, while I was doing her. The following list of things is what he tried to use:

- Invisibility
- A memory-wiping device/machine
- Hallucinogens
- Knock-out drugs

The first two do not exist, and my opponent never proved that they existed to use so that he could negate my claim. The second two I negated, and were dropped thusly by my opponent who decided instead to go for the former two strategies. All four, however, were refuted. So there's no reason to believe that he did my mom while I did without me knowing. This means that you can presume if I didn't see or hear him, he wasn't there doing my mom.

This just leaves one final avenue of attack for my opponent: was I actually screwing my mom, or someone who looked like my mom. The problem with this is I asked my opponent to prove he made someone look like my mom, whcih would've then stuck me with the burden to prove that the girl I screwed was actually my mom. The problem with that is he never provided any sort of proof that he made someone look like my mom. In fact, he dropped it flat out after the second round and only brought it up again here. Since he failed to substantiate that, we can presume the woman I was was doing was, in fact, my mom.

All of the end results added together, we get one end summary: I was doing my mom, all night last night, and I saw not hide nor hair nor heard nothing from my opponent all night. Where does that leave someone in terms of the resolution? Solid negation, as I proved that my opponent clearly didn't do my mom.

I had 100% BOP to prove he didn't and he didn't have to prove that he did. I fulfilled my burden. He had the burden to refute my claims, as exist in every side in a debate. He never did. He failed to meet that requirement. Which means you prefer my fulfilled burden.

As such, I must urge the voters to vote in negation of the resolution, and vote for the con debater here.

Thank you, hope you enjoyed reading this entertaining debate!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Not really. I had full BOp to prove you didn't sleep with my mom. I did so. You came up with invisibility to refute my claim. Last I checked, that isn't covered. You gotta prove that one.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
LOL... xoxo
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
A THREE WAY MEANS VOTE FOR ME. xoxo
Posted by singingboy2 4 years ago
singingboy2
three way
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
you have full bop for invisibility cloak being fake not me
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I have the full Burden of Proof to prove that you didn't screw my mom. Okay. I did that with my claim. If you don't refute my claims, then they fulfill my 100% BOP.

The meaning of debate is lost on your brain.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
meaning of full bop is lost on your brain...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
You had no BOP to prove you did my mom. That's okay. You do have to refute my arguments, though. That's why they call these things "debates". It's not a one way fail-fest.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
No dude, you lost, you kept saying i had to meet my BOP I HAD NO BOP!
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
And THAT is why you don't try to make free win debates. Because I will take them and win.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
RationalMadmanZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: vote based primarily on the resolution, which I found offensive.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
RationalMadmanZaradiTied
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: Not having the BOP on the resolution doesn't mean you also don't have the BOP of addressing your opponents counter arguments.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RationalMadmanZaradiTied
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 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: Counter votebomb singingboy2. Also, throw in four points of my own, three for arguments because Con's were by far stronger than Pro's, and one because this topic is so retarded that Con deserves a free point.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
RationalMadmanZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fulfilled Bop and Pro was not able to refute the assertion that Con was getting down with his mom.
Vote Placed by singingboy2 4 years ago
singingboy2
RationalMadmanZaradiTied
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: You where both so drugged up you forgot it was a three way. Its not gay if its in a three way.