I will lose this debate.
Debate Rounds (4)
Sometimes, debates aren't about winning; they're about losing, and this is one such debate. Voters are free to interpret the goal of this debate as they wish and may vote accordingly. I have selected Emmo as my opponent because he expressed an interest in debating with me in the comment of another post. My goal is to lose this debate.
Throughout this debate, I will argue that regardless of my overall rank, skill, etc. as a debator, I will do a terrible job in this particular debate; my opponent will basically wipe the floor with me. I will list irrelevant sources , misspell words , and make personal comments  that basically make my argument worthless. I will argue from authority  and GET REALLY EMOTIONAL OVER THIS SUBJECT MATTER BECAUSE IT'S PERSONAL TO ME, OFMG. By doing so, I hope to successfully demonstrate that seriously, my opponent is kicking my butt. Seriously.
Come at me, bro.
 Because f*** you.
 Wut, you hav a porblem?
 My opponent is a douche.
 God says I'm gonna lose this one, so there.
If on the other hand you prove that you will lose and voters do not vote for you and you indeed lose then that really wouldn't make much sense because you proved that you will lose, therefore the victory should in reality be handed to you
Already, we can see that my opponent has eloquently pointed out an inherent flaw in my argument, in that I am confusing voters with a paradox. Wonderfully done, Emmo. Wonderfully done. I rest my case. I readily accept my defeat on this basis, but I would like to push it farther to really drive the point home that I am losing terribly.
Unlike my civil and courteous opponent, I am going to take the low road and resort to personal attacks that make no sense. Emmo, you're jerk. I bet you mistreat women and do drugs . That's why I'm going to insert a non-sequitur conclusion here: I like steak . But hey, I sourced my comment. Does that put me in the lead? Polls show that no, irrelevant things don't really make a difference . Hence, voters should become confused and question my integrity, further enforcing the sad but true fact that I am getting my a** handed to me. 95% of all Americans agree on this fact that I totally didn't pull out of thin air . This further proves that I am on the losing end of this debate, by a lot.
One might argue that by losing, I am in fact winning, but let me make this clear for you: YOUR RONG BECAUSE I SED SO AND TERES NOTING U CAN DO BOUT IT. Are we clear? Fantastic. And believe me, if we were doing this face to face, I would obnoxiously interrupt every statement my opponent makes. PLEASE VOTE TO MAKE ME LOSE, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU!!! If I had a lot of money, I would even bribe you with it. But because I don't, this will have to suffice: I HOPE YOU ALL DIE IN A FIRE
 BECARSE I SAID SO
 Your'e checking sources now? Well F**** YOU!!
The trick here lies in understanding that at the point when all the stars are aligned we discover the cosmos is actually trying to convey a message, particularly regarding this debate, that in the bigger scheme of things, this debates actually means nothing, as such it would not make sense for you to lose something that has no meaning or no intrinsic value, because how exactly do you evaluate your loss, what factor do you look at. In order for you to lose something it has to exist, looking at things from a wider perspective, taking into consideration that there are about 7billion people and not even 0.1% of those people will ever read this debate, means that subjectively speaking, in the mind of an average person this debate does not even exist. Therefore it is impossible for you to lose it
According to a theory by a certain man, who happened to have a mind which conceived the idea i am about to explore. There is a possibility that this reality is in fact a dream. When we die, our brain continues to function for about 7 minutes, therefore there is a possibility that this is all just a manufactured dream, we are all in your head, therefore you cannot lose, because your brain has predetermined the voting, essentially you are arguing against yourself and voting. I know this because i am you, i am an extension of you. We breath the very same air, and eat the very same plants, the sun shines on me in the same light as you, because we are inseparable.
Therefore using the 7 laws of attraction, and the audi alteram partem principle we come to the rational conclusion that you haven't proved that you will lose
Thanks for your response, butthead. Pffffff.
It appears my opponent is very keen on not allowing me to lose this debate. I'd like to take a closer look at his rebuttal.
His first point can be broken down into two parts: 1.) The debate means nothing and has no value, and 2.) The debate doesn't actually exist. I value the debate enough to argue for it, and clearly, my opponent cares enough to respond. Anyone reading this debate cares enough to vote, and from the perspective of utility, that's good enough for all of us. 1.) changes nothing; my opponent is still srsly winning. I don't give two shlts  if this debate has no value; I'm still getting my butt handed to me. In short: I GIVE A CRAP, AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. ME ME ME ME ME.
2.) is an epistemological response, suggesting that since the overwhelming majority of people do not know of its existence, this debate does not exist. I do not agree with this definition of existence; we could argue that anything does not exist if we do not perceive it, which goes against common sense. Were we to take 2.) seriously, in order for the scientific community to prove anything, they would first need to convince over half the world population that their experiments took place before they can publish anything in a scientific journal. Schools would not be able to teach children anything without proving everything through first-hand senses. Complex thought would go out the window, and we would be left with a technologically stunted community of people who don't trust anything beyond what they can perceive themselves. I could also take this same form of argument and say the following:
I. My victory or a tie with Emmo in this debate would be unknown to almost 7 billion people on this planet.
II. Therefore, neither my victory nor tie exist or can exist.
III Therefore, I am left with the only option: I lose this debate.
I am losing this debate, as the keen voter can see clearly, but it is not because of the argument I just presented. Part II of my fallacious argument is the culprit: people not seeing something does not mean it does not exist. We all know that, metaphysically, something does exist even if we do not sense it ourselves. Hence, 2.) is incorrect, and Emmo is still kicking my butt. And it hurts. My butt is turning red.
The second part of his rebuttal suggests that I am dying, and that this reality (and hence this debate) is part of a dream I am having in the remaining seven or so minutes my brain has left to function. However, he then jumps from a possibility to a reality, claiming that he is in fact me, an extension of me. This is seriously creeping me the fack out , but my opponent has failed to logically prove that this debate is all in my head. This shows my opponent's generosity in that he wishes to keep me from losing, but still, it does not change the fact that he is really, truly kicking my arse . How embarrassing for me.
His conclusion makes no sense whatsoever, which I respect very much as another attempt to keep me from losing, but screw being polite. Emmo solicits sex from farm animals .
I'd like to prove my ineptitude in this debate by ending my response with an incomplete
 I tried to swear, but this website won't let me. Please mentally replace the "l" with an "i."
 Again! It won't let me lose the way I want!! Please mentally replace the "a" with a "u."
 I wanted to say the not-as-nice version of this word. Stupid filter.
 lol, u looked
From this we see that my opponent cannot be losing, because like Pinocchio, his nose is growing bigger as he writes. I know because we are all one, as I was saying and as he (who in actual fact is an extension of me) attempted to rebut my (his) assertion that we are one in the same. I can see through the lies because those are my lies. If you draw the tree of life and connect all the branches you find out that the source is the same for both me and him. Our thoughts emanate from one source, which is the root. I'm not sure whether the root is more like me or more like him (we are 2 branches in the same tree, therefore we are the same) All I know is the root is the truth, the root cannot lie, the root cannot lose. He cannot lose as he is part of the root, and if the root loses then the branch falls apart. If he lost then I would lose too and that would negate his assertion
My opponent (who also happens to be me) said "I give a crap" That is an indication of him acknowledging that I am him and he is me. The use of the title I relates directly to me, because I am also I, we have the same title "I" therefore we are 1, which is also ironic because when you look at it I looks like 1, meaning we are also related by inference. I refers to 1, I is 1, we are 1 because we are "I"
Me also refers to the title that is associated with myself, he acknowledges Me as an entity, Me is I and I is me.
If the majority of the world do not know about something, then it doesn't exist in the sense that it doesn't matter or rather has no relevance to the outside world. If a billion people don't know about a keyboard, then it has no relevance to their lives and looked at subjectively it does not exist in their minds. Its subjective existence is dependent on whether or not people acknowledge its existence. Therefore subjectively this debate does not exist as it has no bearing on the lives of the average person. It only exists in the mindsets on those who are reading it at the present moment. Its existence is also fleeting because 2 months from now, chances are no one will be reading this debate and most people would have all but forgotten about this debate, therefore one could say that it would no longer exist subjectively in our minds. If something does not subjectively exist and does not have an objective existence, much like the sun (you cannot deny the sun's existence because you see it everyday and it ahs a bearing on how your world operates) then it is as good as non existence. Therefore one cannot lose in something that does not exist, because one cannot take part in something that is not real. What is occurring here is a quasi-reality, it is not occurring.
Let me explain why, as I was saying when a person has died, his/her brain continues to function for 7 minutes, therefore a dream could seem like a lifetime, especially considering that when you are dead you cannot wake up because you have nothing to wake up to, therefore the laws of time (being as subjective as they are, "time flies when you are having fun", therefore to those who constantly have fun, time goes faster that normal) do not apply to you. The 7 minutes could be extended to what feels like years. Which is what is currently being experienced. You could be dead at this moment, make no doubt about it, you could be (could is very probably and statistics say could means 90% likely, for example if a girl/woman told you could get laid tonight, chances are you will, however if she is under age then you shouldn't and if she is engaged then you should decide whether or not you want to risk whatever consequences could be attached to her fianc"e finding out. If you are a woman then replace girl/woman with boy/man. If you are gay/homosexual then replace with whatever you deem necessary) dead. If you are dead , the you cannot lose because this is not truly reality, this is the imaginative reality your brain has created and already your brain has predetermined who wins and who loses because I am controlled by your brain (which is the root) and so are the voters.
Whatever outcome emanates is not indicative of the truth, therefore it is false, therefore you cannot lose
Furthermore it is unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional to discriminate on one's sexual orientation or sexual preference. Therefore the comment on sex with animals is uncalled for. My hypothetical (seeing as I don't exist and am merely an extension of Pro) right to privacy has been infringed. I have suffered grave damage to my dignity and have been defamed by an assertion that may or may note be true. As such I seek relief to the order of Pro's forfeiture of any votes he may or may not obtain, failure of which an appeal will be launched with the relevant authority. In the event that the appeal fails, Con argues that there has been bias and the judges should have recuse themselves from the decision making process. In the event that a jury system has been adopted to judge this case, the Con argues that the evidence presented has been tempered with and falsified and all the witnesses are in fact fraudulently working against Con's case and should not be considered as valid and credible witnesses.
Furthermore Con wishes as an alternative to apply for an interdict barring all actions that are detrimental to Con, by Pro as they will unfairly infringe on several of his constitutional rights and cannot therefore be constitutional. Rights such as dignity, equality, life and right to access of the court. Under the Interim Constitution and final Constitution of South Africa, the Constitution of the United States of America, common law, the constitution of the people's republic of China, the constitution of Canada, all other relevant constitutions and the United Nation's Human Rights Charter
Furthermore I have proved that Pro can never ever ever in a billion years lose this argument, therefore his assertion is wrong and can never be right, must not be considered as right. Has failed to meet up with the minimum requirements set by such an assertion. Has failed to establish the basis of such a claim and is wrong, unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional
I am thankful for Con writing out everything his argument, but I will not thank him for it, as that may earn me conduct points. I will instead claim that I made love to Con's mother last night while he was out and about, looking for the horse of his dreams.
I will now attempt to decipher Con's rebuttal and refute it, thereby demonstrating that I am have already lost this debait (and yes, voters, I did spell that wrong, so dock my friggin' points already). In the first four paragraphs of his rebuttal, my opponent is still trying to prove that we are, in fact, the same person. This reminds me of some crazy math sh*t  a friend of mine showed me back in high school that showed that even though he was half a foot taller than me, we were actually the same height. Was it mathematically sound? Possibly. I don't like math, and I forgot the stuff he did. Was he right? No. It was plainly obvious that he was still a full penis taller than me, and all the math in the world wouldn't change that. Similarly, Con and I are different people. It's as simple as that. He's kicking my butt, and no matter how he frames it, we are not the same person.
In his fifth paragraph, my opponent makes the jump from subjective reality to something not existing simply because it does not have an impact on people's lives. The reductio ad absurdumb (yep, it's a pun!) conclusion of my opponent's argument is that no debate on this website matters, and therefore a winner and loser should not be decided, ever. Clearly, this is not the case; we all participate in, read, and vote on debates. Therefore, this debate does still matter, and I am losing. However, my opponent has demonstrated that he is benevolent and wishes to keep me from losing this debate, despite the fact that he is an asshat. Please award him the conduct point, because if you don't, I will burn kittens in a fire . Also, I just called him an asshat.
In his sixth paragraph… Well, his sixth paragraph makes my brain hurt. I'm skipping this one. Please let this decision to neglect part of his argument affect your voting as you see fit.
His seventh paragraph makes reference to my accusation that Con prefers to pork pork. I believe he is also subtly implying that, because we are the same person, I enjoy hiding the salami in cows from time to time as well, but no matter. I've already shown above that we are not, in fact, the same person. Therefore, Con is still the only one cat-calling roosters.
My brain is still hurting from Con's sixth paragraph, so I will ignore his eighth paragraph as well. Man, I'm in way over my head here. You should just vote for Con because I keep skipping stuff he wrote, which is insanely rude and shows that I'm losing hardcore.
To the voters: As you can see, gentlemen and even more gentlemen , I have many reasons to lose this debate:
-I have failed to address all of Con's points.
-I have made blatant personal attacks against Con. (He prefers sheep over hens)
-I have abundant speling erors.
-My stomach aches. I might need to go poopies.
-My debate was doomed to start due to its paradoxical nature.
-My "sources" are terrible and irrelevant.
-I have been emotional from time to time and let that get the best of me.
-I have used inappropriate language multiple times (or tried to--this f*cking website won't let me).
-Yeah, it's aching pretty badly. Time to go stuff the toilet.
-I have argued from authority.
-Con deserves your votes. He's a good kid.
V O T E F O R C O N
Thanks for nothing, tools. ;D
Totally unreliable sources:
 I really want to swear. Just pretend that I'm swearing.
 Idle threats = awesum
 The subtle yet plainly obvious sexism is guaranteed to cost me votes, and if it doesn't, you guys are doing it wrong.
Emmo forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate