The Instigator
jdwooch
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
askbob
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,112 times Debate No: 6281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (12)

 

jdwooch

Pro

My argument is simple. I think that the giants will win the superbowl. This debate is not about whether or not they will actually win the superbowl, just about what I think. Because i have never met my opponent, nor is he reading my mind, you should vote affirmative because i am telling you what i think. Good luck to whoever wants to take this debate.
askbob

Con

Obviously ladies and gentleman of the audience, it should be clear to anyone reading this debate that my opponent does not understand how to properly think. He has been present on this website for the past three months, yet he has fallen into the pit of the "Not Saying" category. A notorious group of debaters who simply cannot think of an answer for any of the questions in their profile so they simply put "Not Saying" This is obviously indicative of someone who cannot think for themselves.

My contention is not only that my opponent cannot think properly, but also that he is deceiving us for purposes of this debate. Until I have irrefutable proof that my opponent is not only properly thinking but also is telling the truth about what he has typed, the voters of this debate must vote CON.

We cannot trust a "Not Saying" "No Answer" member of this website to not only tell the truth but to actually know how to properly think for himself.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
jdwooch

Pro

O.K, i have a couple of different approaches to my opponent's argument.
First, I think to much, therefore i cannot choose on yes or no answer for those questions on my profile, therefore i don't say.

Second, I am too lazy to think about debate.org, i am busy thinking about the giants winning the superbowl

Third, By not believing what I am saying we are going down a slippery slope. Simply voting con on this debate shows that you do not trust humanity, and that can lead to terrible things such as the holocaust- Hitler didn't trust the jews. So pretty much voting con will screw the world up even more.

Lastly, if you don't believe anything i have just said: My opponent is right, i cannot think for myself. I think what John Madden tells me, and he says that the Giants will win the superbowl.
askbob

Con

Ladies and Gentleman of debate.org,
If there was not enough evidence prior to Round 1, we can concurrently assume that there is a copious quantity of it in Round 2.
As of this point my opponent has conceded the following:
1. He is too lazy to think about his hobbies (debate.org) that he devotes his time to.
2. He makes two statements that contradict each other. Consequentially, both statements are reguarding his thinking. Logically, this leads us to believe he cannot think.
The Two Statements:
A. "I think too much (referencing debate.org)"
B. "I am to lazy to think (about debate.org)"
Obviously indicative of someone who can't think.
3. My opponent (who has the burden of proof) provides no evidence that he indeed does think.
4. My opponent has equated voting Con to supporting the Holocaust.
5. He admits he does not think the Giants will win the Superbowl. Since he states that Billy Madden thinks for him, then in essence, >>he<< does not think the Giants will win. Billy does
Debate Round No. 2
jdwooch

Pro

First just for clarification, when i said i think too much (so i can't just answer yes or no), then said too lazy to think about debate.org- The first one is my main reason, but the second thing i say is meant to be read as "if you don't buy that..."

My opponent said that this means i can't think because i have contradicting statements... this would show i can't think rationally, not that i can't think in general. No matter how rational or irrational, i think the Giants will win the superbowl.

He says i have the burden of proof- not true. He has the burden of proving that I am lying.

I did not say that voting Con will cause a holocaust. I said that is the type of thinking that has created terrible events. The type of thinking that everyone is deceiving you.

I do not admit that i don't think the giants will win the superbowl. I said that if you believe my opponent in that i cannot think for MYSELF, then John Madden thinks for me, and the thinks they will win the superbowl.
askbob

Con

Ladies and Gentleman of Debate.org,

Obviously my opponent has given himself even more proof that he indeed does not know how to think.
He doesn't really have any better explanation for his two contradicting statements other than "if you don't buy that..."

From this statement and from this statement in his R2 "if you don't believe anything i have just said" we can justly assume that my opponent assumes this community will think him a liar. Why would he make such a base assumption unless he indeed were truly lying?

Next my opponent proposes to shift the burden of proof. This is not so. I did not make the resolution, thusly I do not have to prove it my opponent does. Therefore since he obviously has not proven that he indeed does think the Giants will win the Superbowl.

My opponent has no excuse for his equating the holocaust with voting for Con.
My opponent clearly said: "My opponent is right, i cannot think for myself."

Thus thoroughly disproving his own resolution
Th
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dumbchic 6 years ago
Dumbchic
I liked the other guy's arguments better.

He's argument's a Lynch-a-tron.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
So is anyone's prediction coming true? What a wacky year.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
I would have debated differently as Con. The title of the debate is "I think that the Giants will win the Superbowl", since I = Me and Me = Labrat228 the title could be read "Labrat228 thinks that the Giants will win the Superbowl". Which I don't, therefor Con wins by default.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
"He says i have the burden of proof- not true. He has the burden of proving that I am lying."

LIES! YOU have the burden of proof PRO!!!!! I did not know what you were thinking before this debate so then PRO has to change my mind. Thus, PRO has the burden of proof.

My 7 points go to CON since he came up with a brilliant argument. He proved that he couldn't make up his mind on his profile, so how could he make up his mind on who would win the Super Bowl.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
Jets.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Who will it be then, if not one of them? Cowboys? Wildly inconsistent, even with Romo. Steelers or Titans? If only either of them had an offense.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
It will be neither.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
Negated...
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Although this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, I would just like to say that, the Panthers, not the Giants, will win the Super Bowl.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
The 100 word character limit was kinda hard but it made it interesting.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
jdwoochaskbobTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
jdwoochaskbobTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ChopStyxNryce 8 years ago
ChopStyxNryce
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
jdwoochaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by necromancer 8 years ago
necromancer
jdwoochaskbobTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05