The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

I should win this debate

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 81280
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I, Pro, will be arguing in favor of me winning this debate. You, Con, will be arguing against me winning this debate. To clarify, the debate is about whether or not I SHOULD win this debate, not whether I WILL win this debate. Percentile, odds, probability are not factors to be considered in this debate. In this debate, we will refer to ourselves in the third person (Pro, Con).

This round is the acceptance round, do not post your argument upon accepting. The next three rounds are debate, the last is closing argument.


Con acept this chalenge.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, Pro should win this debate because Pro is, of course, number one. Pro is number one and also, is indeed the best. Pro knows a colleague named Victor, and to the victor goes the spoils. Therefore, unless Con is named victor, Pro shall win this debate. Pro is the smartest person on this website, so that means that Pro should win this debate. There is no reason why Pro will not win.

Pro has a dog named Mordecai, so obvious he should win this debate. Pro has a self-cleaning oven, that also leads one to believe that the winner should be Pro. The address of Pro's house is 1, and the street Pro lives on is First, these two factors combines to insure the definite and deserved victory of Pro. In this debate, Pro has chosen the funnier picture to represent him as his avatar, thus proving that Pro should win this debate.

Coffee requires three packets of sugar, not two, which means that Pro should win this debate. The Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around, so of course the winner is Pro. Pro should also win for the simple reason that Frankenstein was THE NAME OF THE SCIENTIST AND NOT THE MONSTER.

There is no reason why Con could beat Pro in this debate.


Pro makes many unsubstantiated claims. Con protects his/her anonymity by using the default photo. Con creates shorter arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Con does not have any claims to the victory of this debate. Nothing more than three sentences could be posted as his argument. Pro has many claims to victory and none can be disputed. For example, Pro has a Acer Aspire V Nitro which is arguably the best PC on the market.(1) Also, Pro drives a 2014 Chevrolet Suburban, the best value full-size SUV on the market.(2) Pro also likes the color chrome, while Con probably only likes very dark green. Pro also has picked his photo from the movie Idiocracy, one of the best movies.(3)



Pro makes assumptions about con's identity. Pro claims to drive a SUV. There are many criticisms of SUVs.

"Because SUVs release more emissions than an average car, they are criticized for doing more damage to the environment. " Posted on Editor in Car Buying on October 7, 2013

"However, the size of the SUV is a major drawback because it can roll over if the driver takes a sharp turn."

"SUVs are expensive to insure. Insurance companies take into consideration the likelihood of accidents, the higher repair costs, and the fact that an SUV will damage another car greatly if involved in a crash. On average, insuring SUVs will cost owners about $100 US Dollars more than ensuring small-size cars." Wisegeek

Pro claims to own an expensive laptop. Despite desktops having greater bang for their buck in terms of processing power versus cost. "However, if you want the most bang for your buck and portability is not necessary, a desktop is likely the best choice especially if price is important"

Also a desktop is easier to repair and upgrade than a laptop. Con hereby states he/she owns a desktop. Clearly Con is more savvy in his/her purchasing decisions.
Debate Round No. 3


Con owns a desktop, which of course is behind the times as it cannot be transported, unplugged, or adjusted as a laptop can. Con also implies that he does not own an SUV, which means that Con is not as good as Pro. Pro understands that owning an SUV means you cannot swerve as if you were apart of a Fast & Furious movie. Pro also understands that owning an SUV costs more in gasoline, insurance, and maintenance costs. However, Pro is more financially successful than Con and thus is able to afford "$100 more than small-size cars". This means that Pro should definitely win the debate.

Pro probably makes more money than Con, thus Pro should win this debate. Con cannot and should not win this debate, because he does not own (A an SUV, (B a laptop, or (C a dog named Mordecai.


Pro shows no consideration for the environment. Despite significant scienfic evidence that the threat of global climate change is real. Pro supports the motor vehicle industry by being a customer. An industry that time after time has resisted regulations that would result in a cleaner environment.

Not only that but buys cars from manufacturers who failed to stop slave labor in Brazil.

" The good news is today the pig iron industry has committed to changing its ways- all seven pig iron companies in the Brazilian state of Maranho agreed to not source wood charcoal that comes from slave labor, forest destruction or invasions into indigenous lands. For years the industrys progress or efforts to address these issues was ineffective and only symbolic."

"General Motors owns: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. GM owns a controlling interest in Opel and Vauxhall in Europe and Holden in Australia. (The U.S. Treasury Department is in the process of selling off the remaining GM stock holidngs.)"

"There are still a handful of companies in neighboring Para state who have not signed any commitment and continue selling pig iron (with all its negative impacts) to the U.S. Weve found that the worlds leading auto brands, such as Ford, GM, Nissan, and Mercedes, have been using steel made with this pig iron. "

Pro buys a SUV from General Motors. Con owns no car. Clearly Con should win the argument because Con holds the moral high ground.
Debate Round No. 4


Con concedes his inferiority to the lowly peasants of south America and even his inferiority to the environment. Pro realizes that he is of main importance in his purchasing decisions and because of this higher importance, Pro should win this debate. Con cannot win this debate because he considers the feelings of random foreign workers he does not know to be higher than his own ability to travel.

While Con reads Greenpeace to obtain the information needed for consumer decisions, Pro uses his mind to calculate how much it will cost to own a Chevy Suburban rather than say, not to own a car at all. Pro relies on his own judgement and wealth to make personal financial decisions. Con only considers the 0.0000000001% effect on the climate while driving a car, and the "support" for a company that "enslaves" workers in a far away land that was worse off before GM got there.

With greater intelligence, as well as a dog named Mordecai, Pro should definitely win this debate.


I want to thank Pro for the debate. Con had fun. Pro continues to make assumptions about Con's gender. Con considered physical fitness when choosing to own a car or not. Walking is good exercise. Con most likely walks more thus being more physically fit and healthy.

"Conclusion: Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity." Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):123-132. doi:10.7326/M14-1651

Con cites more sources than Pro. Con cites a scholarly peer reviewed source. Pro cites no scholarly peer reviewed sources. Pro makes distasteful statements about more material wealth being grounds for superiority. Con shows consideration to environment and people in other countries.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Bored_Debater 2 months ago
I would have voted Pro. His arguments are gold. Haha
Posted by Way2CheesE 1 year ago
Still, good debate.
Posted by Inventorkid 1 year ago
Go pro!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
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: As instigator, Pro has the burden of providing a debatable resolution, and as instigator and proponent he has the burden of proving the resolution is true. Pro offers no relevant reason why he "should" win the debate. His cited reasons are irrelevant to why should win. Having failed to meet the burden of proof by failing to provide a single relevant argument, Con would win without saying anything. No case prima facie case has been presented, so nothing needs to be refuted. Both debaters should find something useful to do with their free time. Maybe learn to skip rocks.