The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

I will loose my first debate like a bawss

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 974 times Debate No: 23015
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

I bet I will lose my first debate. Pro will try to prove that I will win. May the odds be ever in your favor!
Zaradi

Con

Accepted.

In order for pro to fulfil his BOP of losing like a bawss, he must actually lose in resemblence to a 'bawss'.

For those of you who don't know what a 'bawss' is, I will define it for you.

Dictionary.com defines it as....

....oh. The word doesn't exist.[1]

Therefore, my opponent must lose this debate like he is non-existent.

This is physically impossible for him to do, since the mere fact he created this debate proves that he does exist.

Thus, he cannot lose his first debate like a 'bawss'
Debate Round No. 1
bossyburrito

Pro

bossyburrito forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

His attempts to forfeit and prove his non-existence are admirable, but he has already proved his existence in posting the debate. Thus, he does exist, and can not lose like something that doesn't exist.

My bad, he can't loose like something that doesn't exist. I forgot to define that, as well. Let me define loose.

Loose - Sexually ambiguous or 'easy'. I.e. "Your mom's so loose, I practically breathed on her and she hopped into bed with me."

So, what the resolution is really asking is that he must become sexually ambiguous in his first debate like something that doesn't exist. But these two things are contradictory, as in order to be sexually ambiguous, you must exist. Thus, it becomes impossible for him to fulfill either of his burdens. Thus, he cannot 'loose' his first debate like a 'bawss'.

On an interesting side-note: this isn't his first debate. He has already been in a debate with Imabench[1] and is getting his a.ss kicked. He used 'loose' in the present tense, which means the loss is sentered around this debate. Since he has already had a debate before, though, this debate will not be his first. Thus, he cannot fulfil that part of his burden.

So my opponent gave himself a ridiculously large burden, and he's not proving any of it.

1. He must first prove that he is sexually ambiguous or easy, as defined by the word 'loose' in the resolution. He's not doing that.
2. He has to 'loose' his first debate. But since 'loose' is present tense, it is indicative of this debate. Since this is not his first debate, you automatically negate here.
3. He must show that he's 'loosing' his 'first debate' like a bawss. But, as defined by Dictionary.com, a 'bawss' doesn't exist. Thus, he must prove that he doesn't exist. He's not doing that, and has shown that he DOES exist by posting this debate. Thus, he's failing on this level as well.

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

bossyburrito forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Zaradi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
I showed that Ima is a whore in my first debate, and that's pretty spectacular. So F you votebombers.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Oh zaradi and his LD lingo. "Therefor you must negate..."
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
I am do good at this I set a fifteen minute response time and forgot to check the status 101
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Awkward. Didn't give my source.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty self-explanatory.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The urban dictionary defines "bawss" [boss] as being out of control in a spectacular way. Con's semantic arguments were irrelevant and no better than annoying. The question is then whether Pro not just lost, but in a spectacular way. Forfeiting is not spectacular. spectacular would require bad grammar, bad formatting, bogus sources, and profoundly illogical arguments.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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: Pro had a a good rebuttal when he tried to prove his non existence through forfeiting, and he basically upheld that throughout the debate. Unfortunately zaradi wins this debate though as he proves pro's existence through pros first round. Thus, even though the pro made good arguments, con was able to find a loophole and thus wins the debate. :-)
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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: Pro lost another debate he had, a loss, his first, hence he actually did lost his first debate.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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: pwwwwwwwwwwwwwnt
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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: http://www.debate.org/debates/I-bet-I-will-not-post-anything-for-round-two-of-my-first-debate./1/ Pro already lost his first debate, and he sucked at it too. Points to the Con though since Bawss isnt an actual word, Pro is now only losing like a noob