The Instigator
piefav
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

I will lose this debate

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 320 times Debate No: 82534
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

piefav

Pro

First round is acceptance.

RULES:
1. Starting this debate without my permission will trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent.
2. No forfeits
3. You cannot under any circumstances, use the number 42 in any of your debate. Using the number 42 in your argument will trigger forfeiture of all 7 points to my opponent.
4. Have fun [Or, have absolutely no fun at all. I couldn't care less.]
9spaceking

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
piefav

Pro

Seeing as you have accepted without permission, I officially forfeit, hereby officially losing, and thereby winning the debate. I will, and have, lost this debate. Thank you for your time.
9spaceking

Con

My opponent has actually not enforced his rules, since his Rules actually say, "Starting this debate without my permission will trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent." Yet.... who really started the debate?
Started:
"to begin or set out, as on a journey or activity." [see\; http://dictionary.reference.com...;]
Debate: "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints" [http://dictionary.reference.com... ]

You see here, my opponent did NOT say that accepting the debate would result in auto forfeit, rather, he said BEGINNING the discussion itself would result in a forfeit of 7 points to me. Who begun the discussion? My opponent clearly is the instigator, and I only contribute to CONTINUING the debate, since the discussion was already going on and anybody was free to join the discussion and bring in new ideas against my opponent's opening statements, rules, etc.

My opponent has also negated his own round two "argument". He breaks his own rule of no forfeits, through his round 2 paradox of actually forfeiting the debate to me. Therefore, his round two is completely negated. He never clearly says what would happend if somebody did attempt to forfeit, but we can only assume that the voters are to completely ignore it.

How does all of this help to my argument? You see, the tricky part is within the resolution. While pro's rounds does refer to himself with "I", the resolution I must personally negate is "I will lose this debate". Therefore, from my point of view, it is actually, "9spaceking will NOT lose this debate", because I am CON. I will NOT lose this debate because we are already on an equal footing since I have negated all my opponent's arguments. I will also not lose this debate, since my opponent will be trying to argue that HE WILL lose this debate. His arguments only ASSIST my position that I won't lose. If my opponent loses, then I will win. He is only helping me.
Debate Round No. 2
piefav

Pro

I'm sure it is common sense for someone to take me saying I to mean me, and me saying you are against me saying I will lose, it says you are against me losing, ipso facto causing themselves to need to lose. I will lose this debate, and that is the truth. I am breaking my own rules, opening my statement and rules to easy criticizing, and causing an abundance of paradoxes and loopholes. So with that in mind, you must know that there are 42+ ways for me to lose. I am going to lose, so win, so we both win in your kind, but I win in mine. You see it's all about perspective.
9spaceking

Con

Indeed, it is all about perspective, my opponent concedes, which opens up to multiple interpretations of the resolution, since my opponent has never defined the resolution in its full. "Lose" can also mean "being without, suffering deprivation of" [http://dictionary.reference.com... ] My opponent has clearly not been deprived of this debate. And I can still fulfill NOT suffering deprivation of this debate since I obviously am still having this debate.
So you see, in reality I have won, and my opponent has not won. He has not "lost" this debate because even he says the debate is open to interpretation and perspective, which has so many possibilities that my opponent losing is only one of the many. On the other hand, no matter what interpretation you take, I do not fulfill the definition of "lose". So voters, vote me. My opponent has been defeated [a much better wording if pro meant getting less points than me], and he does not win even resolution-wise, since he allowed loose interpretation, and thus why he's in a not-win-not-win situation. Good day.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Well played pro. I still had to make it look like I won without your winning though, lol. XD
Posted by piefav 1 year ago
piefav
Thank you, voters, for holding up what I stated in the rules.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
I would like to accept.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent." So, if your opponent starts debating without your permission, all 7points are forfeited TO your opponent. Meaning you lose.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Oh wait I mistread the first time. Never mind.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
So if I use the number 42 I win right?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
piefav9spacekingTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: lel
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
piefav9spacekingTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I will now quote pro in the first round: "Starting this debate without my permission will trigger an immediate forfeit of all 7 points to my opponent." He states that if con starts the debate without his permission then it will trigger an automatic 7 points to con. This doesn't really make sense but since it was stated in R1, I have no choice but to follow the rules set up by the instigator.
Vote Placed by twsurber 1 year ago
twsurber
piefav9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON accepting the debate does not mean he started the debate without permission. PRO used the number 42. IMO Pro was correct, he lost this debate.