The Instigator
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mestari
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mestari
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,689 times Debate No: 19114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (2)

 

jm_notguilty

Pro

I welcome Mestari again for one final showdown of this New Member Tournament Finals. 5 months later, finally! I wish her luck and thank her again. Now to proceed:


-------------------------------------------------------------------

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.

1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.

2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. R5 is for final rebuttals, no more rules.

3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.

4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round and R5, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null (unless a future rule requires otherwise).

5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round (except R5) or they forfeit.

7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate.

9. All rules (except FR) posted in a round are to only apply to the next round.

10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON.

[END OF FOUNDATION RULES]

-------------------------------------------------------------------


11. All of CON's rules should be completed with the letter 'J', with different words ending in 'J' being used at the end of the sentence of the rule.

12. All of instructions/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON.

13. CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.
Mestari

Con

26. All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON.
27. The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself.
28. The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break.
Debate Round No. 1
jm_notguilty

Pro

Rules Broken

I exercise my right (as per rule 7) to discuss some rules that were broken. It seems that my opponent has broken one of the foundation rules when he made his rules in R1:

Rule 26- This rule breaks rule 1, which states that a rules created earlier hold power over the rules created later and that a rule cannot contradict an earlier rule (in this case, rule 26 contradicts rules 11 and 13, which are only placed on CON). Meaning that since the rules were first there and was instructed to CON, my opponent cannot create a new rule to contradict said rules.

Also, this rule is considered null and void and may cannot take effect in the future since it violates the previous rules and my opponent didn’t specify which rounds it will take effect, and not to mention he used the verb ‘made’, which, I assume, apply to the past tense. So basically, that only affects the previous rules I posted, and not the upcoming rules.

Rule 27- This rule also breaks rule 1, which again states that rules created hold power over rules created later and that a rule cannot contradict an earlier rule (in this case, this rule contradicts rule 12). This is similar to rule 26’s flaw, the rules were first posted by me, which means that CON cannot create a new rule to contradict my previous rule (CON cannot instruct PRO on making CON's rules apply to CON too since PRO was first to specifically state in his rule 12 that CON's rules applied to PRO must also apply to CON).

Please note that I am not obligated to follow my previous rules here because they were specifically instructed to CON.

Rule 28- This rule contradicts rule 7, which abuses and nullifies my opportunity to discuss potential rule breakage. And as rule 1 specifically state, no rule shall contradict an earlier rule.

I'd also like to point out that this rule is impossible to enforce since I couldn’t point out a rule-breakage without accusing my opponent, even if he didn’t break it, I should still have the opportunity to point it out and discuss it.

Further Rules

14) Both debaters must have a palindrome, onomatopoeia and a metaphor in each round.

15) Both debaters must refer to themselves by their username.

16) Both must post a 'Forever Alone' meme in the next round.

Mestari

Con

Rules Broken (Con)

I am sorry to say, but my opponent has already lost this debate, First off I'll address his claims and then advance my own,

Rule 26: All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON,

My opponent claims that I violate rule 1, Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule, This comes from the idea that his rules 11, (12), and 13 only apply to me, thus it is impossible for him to uphold the rule, However, he seems to have forgotten his own foundation rules, Rule 9 explicitly states, "All rules (except FR) posted in a round are to only apply to the next round," From this we can conclude that my rule 26 only effects rules my opponent makes beginning in round 2, As rules 11, 12, and 13 were made in round 1, they do not have to follow rule 26,

As for his argument about it being null and void because used the word "made," Made can be representative of the future tense in combination with passive voice, I,e, a great wonder will be made, We will default to my interpretation of made applying to the future because once again rule 9 states that all rules only apply in future rounds, Thus, it is more likely to be true that made is being used in the future tense than the past as it is nonsensical to impose a rule that is outdated once it comes into effect, Furthermore, if there was any confusion he could have clarified in the comments section before making this assertion, Don't let my opponent twist my words,

Rule 27: The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself,

My opponent's appeal claims that though enforcement of rule 1 I violate his rule 12, All of instructions/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON,Luckily for me, I had already predicted this response, Dictionary,com defines instruction as [1], "the act or practice of instructing or teaching; education," To make sure there is no ambiguity, dictionary,com also defines what it means to instruct [2], "to furnish with knowledge, especially by a systematic method; teach; train; educate," Finally, dictionary,com defines restrictions [3], "something that restricts; a restrictive condition or regulation; limitation,"Restrict is defined by dictionary,com as [4], "to confine or keep within limits, as of space, action, choice, intensity, or quantity,"

Now, as we can see my opponent's rule 12 only applies if my rules have instructive or restrictive intent, Neither do my rules teach nor limit my opponent, Thus, insofar as my rules follow this pattern they shall not be in violation of his rule 12,

Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break,

My opponent claims that my rule 28 is in violation of foundation rule 7, This accusation is made on the basis of the clause stating, "Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage," It is very clear that I am not preventing my opponent from discussion rule-breakage, Insofar as rule-breakage has occurred, he may talk about it, If there is no rule-breakage, then it cannot be discussed,,, because quite frankly in such a case there would not be any rule-breakage,

Finally my opponent says that he "couldn’t point out a rule-breakage without accusing [me], even if [I] didn’t break it," I would like to say that 1, If I did not break a rule then there is no rule-breakage to point out, and 2, If I did break a rule, then my Rule 2 allows him to accuse me of it,

Rules Broken (Pro)

Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break,

Rule 9 states that all rules come into effect in the following round, Thus in round 2 my opponent was required to follow rule 28, My opponent accused me of breaking 3 separate rules, I've quite evidently shown that I am not in violation on any account, Insofar as this is true, the PRO has accused me of breaking 3 rules that I did not break, Thus, I win,

Rule 11: All of CON's rules should be completed with the letter 'J', with different words ending in 'J' being used at the end of the sentence of the rule,

This clearly violates rule 7's clause stating, "Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule," It is impossible for me to coherently perform this task, According to WordByLetter,com [5], only 8 words in the English language end in J; and of these words, 1 is an abbreviation which does not end in J when spelled in full, 2 are alternative spellings of each other, and 4 do not have definitions, This leaves me with 2 applicable words, A requirement from my opponent was to use different words ending in J to complete every rule, I have more than 2 rules that must be made, Fulfilling his rule 11 is an impossible burden,

In fact, words that end with J are removed from the English language, According to krysstal,com the word orange [6], "came into English where the fruit was a NARANJ, Words ending in J are not common in English so the spelling quickly changed to a NARANGE,"

Rule 13: CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes,

Rule 13 requires me to end every sentence with a comma, This rule is impossible for me to uphold, and is thus in direct violation of rule 7, because sentences cannot end with commas, Hunter College explains [7], "A sentence needs a period, a question mark, or an exclamation point at the end," Clearly commas do not end sentences,

Additional Rules

28, The PRO must use 7 Js, 12 Is, 2 As, 1 P, the word "cat" one time, the word "batman" two times, the word "word" one time, the phrase "I love you" 77 times, 1 quote from David Hume, 1 reference to the Bible, 1 picture of a drowning baby, 1 graph, 3 pie references, 1 pi reference, 2 Qs, 100 Ys, 72 Ks, 1 reference to the KKK, 1 quote from former president George Washington, the name of 3 pokemon (all from different regions), two entire songs (all lyrics included), 1 drawing of a fish, 4 mottos, 3 slogans, 3 rhymes, 1 kite reference, 3 waterfall names, the name of a planet outside of the milky way galaxy, provide proof for the existence of aliens, provide proof that global warming does not exist, cite 3 news articles about chinese agriculture published within the past 2 months in each rule, The PRO may use any number of items that I did not specify on the list; however, he may not use anything specified more or less than the amount of times specified,

29, Each rule created by the PRO must be no more and no less than 2631 characters long, and are to be written in both iambic pentameter and old english, utilizing perfect grammar,

30, The PRO may not impose rules that require me to perform multiple tasks,

Sources

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
5. http://www.wordbyletter.com...
6. http://www.krysstal.com...
7. http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
jm_notguilty

Pro




JJJJJJJIIIIIIIIIIIIAA


Catwoman is a cat whereas Batman is a bat.


“Hi” –David Hume


“Hi” –George Washington


“In the beginning” –Gen 1:1


Squirtle, Charmander and Bulbasaur can kill Batman.


Rules Broken


If I can adequately prove that Mestari has broken atleast one of the rules first with clear evidence, it’s is sufficient to ensure jm_notguilty’s victory since rule 3 states that, “If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.”


Accusations to CON


Rule 26- CON seems to be twisting my words and confusing us, he argues that Rule 26 doesn’t contradict rule 11/13 because the rules weren’t enforced yet, but again, I stated those rules (11, 13) before my opponent posted rule 26 in which automatically contradicts rules 11, 13, which affects rule 1 which applies to round 1. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t enforced yet in that round.


Also, CON then argues that rule 26 only will only apply once I post round 2, but with his poor choice of words, it is very much safe to assume that rule 26 will also apply (or only apply) to round 1, he could’ve clarified this rule in his post, but he didn’t, thus sparking a dispute which is a very clear contradiction.


Rule 27- This was obvious. Mestari has caught himself red-handed when he realized that this rule was against the FR, so he tried a futile attempt to refute it with semantics. Nice try, but let’s not confuse each other here ladies and gents, the word ‘instruction’ is crystal clear to all.


And if you viewers realize, among the definitions CON has provided, he left some out. He has grossly misinterpreted the word ‘instruct’ and my accusation. Now according to Dictionary.com (from her link), ‘instruct’ also means “to furnish with orders or directions.ßThis was the accurate meaning and Mestari knows it, it was a Hail Mary for him to rely on semantics and technicalities.


Bottomline, it’s clearly obvious that rule 27 specifically orders, directs and instructs PRO to not make CON’s rules apply to CON and that it restricts PRO from making CON’s rules apply to CON, which is, again, contradictory to rule 12 (which was 1st made) which violates foundation rule 1. This clearly has instructive and restrictive intent. This accusation firmly stands and is a clear violation.


Rule 28- Clearly if I (hypothetically) accused my opponent on a rule he broke and later found out he didn’t break it then be bound to be violating rule 28, it is a clear violation and abuse on my right to attempt a discussion on rule breakage, whether my opponent broke it or not, I should still have the right to point it out and let my opponent respond for me to learn and understand what he meant by it, and if his defense checks out, obviously I need to drop it but then the outcome would be that I violated a rule. Clear abuse on my right vested upon me by the FR.


---


Rule 10- My opponent broke this rule when he started three new rules with #28, but if you noticed, he used #28 last round.


Rule 11- My opponent has broken this rule for not ending his sentences with the letter ‘J’, clear violation. I will be addressing his failed explanation on this in my defense.


Rule 12- This rule was broken when CON made rules 28, 29 and 30. The instructions in those rules were placed on PRO when rule 12 specifically states that all CON’s rules must apply to himself too.


Rule 13- My opponent has broken this rule for not ending his sentences with a comma (,), clear violation. I’ll address his attempt to explain on this in my defense.


Rule 28- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1. It also violates rule 7 since it’s impossible to do this and it contradicts rule 29 which again affects/violates rule 1.


Rule 29- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1. It also violates rule 7 since it’s impossible to do this and it contradicts rule 28 which again affects/violates rule 1.


Rule 30- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1.


Defense


Re: Rule 28- This rule is considered to be null and void since I’ve argued that this rule was against FR, making it invalid. Furthermore, even if this is valid, CON’s argument here fails since he did break a rule which negates this rule’s instruction.


Re: Rule 11- My opponent’s excuse for not following this rule is that this rule was against FR, making me break the FR. This is false. He claims that this violates FR 7 because it’s ‘impossible’. But it’s only impossible if we’re required to speak English or abide in a specific dictionary, but since no rule has been made that specifically state that each person should only speak English, then this rule is valid since there are foreign words that end with J that CON can use, or CON can use valid names or abbreviations that end with J (example: Raj, CJ, EJ, etc). Also, ‘words’ weren’t specifically defined, so no one’s going to dispute anything, just use any possible words under the sun and you’re okay, but sadly CON didn’t see it.


For example, my opponent could write (in his rules):

29. PRO must capitalize all common nouns, verbs and adj.

30. PRO must make Indian jokes, unless his married to Raj.

31. PRO must post a funny YouTube video of a DJ.

32. PRO must show a video of someone doing a BJ.

33. PRO must say he is the ‘El Reloj”.

34. PRO must say he is the “El Contrarreloj”.

Etc, etc, etc.


But if CON still insist on using ‘technical’ English words that end with ‘J’, here’s a link: http://quasistoic.org...


Finally, I’d like to cite some case laws previous ‘Rule’ debates that used this tactic and made my argument valid.


Re: Rule 13- Similar to my opponent’s flaw on not following rule 11 because it’s impossible. But says who, a dictionary? That’s too shallow. Please note that there is no rule specified previously that instructs both players to use perfect grammar and punctuation. Ergo, this is a clear violation my opponent made. My opponent’s just probably lazy or sick to see green lines when he uses MS word to type his post.


So in conclusion, I, jm_notguilty hasn’t broken a SINGLE rule since the debate started and my previous rules stand clear. Also, since my opponent violated the rules first thus ensuring my victory.


Further Rules


17) Both debaters must post a video of a Pop singer or a plane crash in each round.


18) Both debaters must tell a ‘Knock knock’ joke in each round.


19) Both debaters are to be able to speak in any language they want and may use improper grammar/punctuation whenever necessary or whenever they wish.

Mestari

Con

Overview

At this point there is no purpose in following the standard format of the debate. It is probably clear that both of us have or will break at least one rule. As per rule 3, whoever breaks a rule first loses. As such, my focus is going to be on defending myself from the original 3 accusations he made in round 2, and advancing the ones I had made. Any violations after this point simply won't matter as one of us will win the debate on this issue. Why? Because obviously had a broken a rule I would lose. If I haven't, well rule 28 (the one posted in round 1, not round 2) states that the PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break. Thus, if I put adequate defense on his accusations I win by proxy of rule 28 (for future reference whenever I say rule 28 I mean the rule pusted in round 1).

Rules Broken (Con)

Rule 26: All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON.

My opponent has not done enough work in the last round to make his accusation against my rule 26 strong enough to prove a violation. He's actually just resorted to misconstruing my argument because he has realized that he hasn't got a legitimate claim. Here is what he's saying:

1. Rule 26 makes PRO's rules apply to both PRO and CON.
2. Rules 11-13 do not apply to both PRO and CON.
C. PRO cannot uphold Rule 26.

Here is what I'm saying:

1. Rule 26 make PRO's rules made AFTER the enforcement of rule 26 apply to both PRO and CON.
2. Rules 11-13 are not regulated by rule 26.
C. PRO can uphold Rule 26.

Now, as a judge you have to choose which debater is right in terms of how this rule functions. I gave you justifications via the framework rules and grammar to defend my side. He claims that my poor choice of words it is safe to assume the rule implicates those made in rule 1. This is simply not the case.

1. Foundation Rule 9 makes it so that rules only apply in the following round. I couldn't make a rule that applies to round 1 even if I wanted to.

2. I show that, "Made can be representative of the future tense in combination with passive voice, I,e, a great wonder will be made, We will default to my interpretation of made applying to the future because once again Rule 9 states that all rules only apply in future rounds, Thus, it is more likely to be true that made is being used in the future tense than the past as it is nonsensical to impose a rule that is outdated once it comes into effect,"
My opponent DOES NOT refute this argument. I give you grammatical justification for my side. He provides a warrantless assertion.

3. I never said that Rule 26 overrides Rules 11-13. In fact, IF it could actually apply to Rules 11-13 then it would simply be an expansion of the rule rather than a contradiction.

4. It it clear that none of my rules come into effect until the following round through the comments section. Before we started this debate my opponent wanted rules to take effect the round they were created and I objected. That's why Rule 9 was edited to make it so that they apply in the following round. Why in the hell would I make a rule apply within the round it was created AFTER I argue that it would be bad for the debate?

Rule 27: The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself

The debate over Rule 27 is rather simple as well. He tries to claim that this conflicts with rule 12. There are 2 key areas of this dispute that clearly show how I am not forcing such a violations.

1. The most obvious contradiction between our understanding of how each rule functions comes through the definition of instruct that we provide. You should prefer my definition to his because of the principle of common usage. Definitions are listed in the dictionary in order of common usage. Thus, the earlier on the list each definition appears, the more common it is for that definition to be accepted as accurate, and used accordingly. My definition was the first listed and his was the second. Thus, my definition is more universally accepted as correct. Words only have value insofar as we can attribute common meaning to them. If we rely on conflicting minority definitions it would be impossible to communicate; therefore, we need to accept the definition that it most commonly used, which is mine. Also, we interpreting rules violations we must advocate the most commonly used definitions because it sets fair limits on the debate. Once we say it is okay to reject the most commonly used definition we say it's to use ANY definition. Why stop at the second most commonly used? What gives legitimacy to any definition at all? We would be able to manipulate the meaning of any word we want to fabricate any violation we want. It is impossible to objectvely evaluate a debate like this. To keep any sense of legitimacy in this debate at all we have to accept the most commonly used definitions as preferable.

2. Cross-apply my argument in defense of Rule 26. My Rule 27 would not come into effect until round 2, thus would not violate Rules 11-13.

Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break.

I quite frankly fail to understand what straws my opponent is attempting to grasp. He claims that he is unable to discuss rule violations that I did not commit... Well duh... He only ever had the ability to discuss rule violations that I did commit. There really is no clear violation that would grant my opponent the win.


Rules Broken (Pro)

Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break.

My opponent's only defense is that this rule is null and void. Evidently if you, like myself, do not see any ground within my opponent's claim against Rule 28, I win through its enforcement.

Rule 13: CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.

My opponent's argument is basically that dictionaries are too shallow! He obviously does not understand how my argument interacts with his. He claims that I am not held to use perfect grammar. However, his rule 13 clearly binds me to the following:


1. I must use sentences.
2. I must end all sentence with commas.
C. I must use sentences that end with commas.

However, I've shown that it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma. Sentences must end with exclamation points, questions marks, or periods. Once you end it with a comma it is no longer a sentence; it becomes a fragment.

Underview

All that matters in this debate is finding out who broke a rule first. I will list the rules in the order they should be evaluated. Once you find a violation, that is where you vote.

1. Rule 13 (CON Wins): This was posted FIRST in the debate. Thus, if it is impossible for me to uphold it, I win.

2. Rules 26-28 (PRO Wins): These rules were posted in the CON's round 1, after Rule 13 but before, thus moving them down in order of priority.


3. Rule 28 (CON Wins): PRO accuses PRO's rules 26-28 of being in violation of other rules. Thus the PRO's accusation come prior. However, if Rule 28 is not in violation of other rules, it is still in play. This means that the CON wins as the PRO would have had to of broken Rule 28 in his earlier accusations. However, this still does not matter if my rules 26 or 27 are in violation of other rules.



Debate Round No. 3
jm_notguilty

Pro



Summation

Thanks for the response. Now, at this point, all the next following rounds would be a debate on who broke a rule first between PRO and CON. Please note again as per rule 3 that the first player who breaks a rule first should lose. I will prove that the following accusations I made were clear and that the accusations CON’s indictments against me are invalid. I will first start with my defense then proceed to backing up my claims.

Defense/Case

Rule 13 defense

Yes, CON gave evidence that ending a sentence with a comma is impossible, but he based this evidence by citing expert testimony.

First and foremost, this is irrelevant since again, we are not bound to follow proper grammar punctuation/structure in this debate. ‘Sentence’ wasn’t also broadly defined. So to clarify things a bit, according to Wikipedia/Dictionary.com, a ‘sentence’ is defined as “a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that generally bear minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it. A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a statement, question, exclamation, request, command or suggestion. (http://dictionary.reference.com...).

Without even using proper punctuation, a grammatical unit ending with a comma can be considered a sentence because it can express a statement, command, etc. Ending a sentence with a comma is therefore, possible.

Furthermore, my opponent states that ending sentences would result to it being a fragment, but so what? Does that make it impossible to type? A fragment can be considered a sentence, if we disregard proper punctuation.

But seriously, this boils down to possibility. Let’s think logically, is it impossible? I don’t think so, consider the following:

1) Is it possible for CON to type in his post? Yes.

2) Is it possible for CON to type sentences in his post? Yes.

3) Is it possible for CON to end his sentences with commas by typing in his post? Yes.

C) Therefore, it is possible to end his sentences with commas by typing in his post.

Lol, how do I put this…. The person makes the sentence. The person has every right and power to do whatever he/she wants with the sentence. The sentence doesn’t make itself. It doesn’t correct or change itself because it doesn’t have the power to do so since a sentence is… well, a sentence, not a living thing.

Now, to the real question, CON states that this rule violates rule 7, but does it really apply here? Did Mestari have an opportunity to not break this rule? Based on what I’ve proven above, Mestari did have the opportunity to not break rule 13.

Ergo, this claim is a huge stretch to CON, I’ve already refuted this premise and shown that this accusation is invalid since we are not bound to follow proper sentencing/grammar rules and since there was no rule made that states we need to do so.

Rule 28 defense

Let me simplify:

1) FR grants us the right to discuss potential rule breakage, extraordinary claims or not, and shouldn’t be held liable for accusing it.

2) I (PRO) point out potential rule breakage that my opponent probably committed, thus accusing him.

3) Opponent (CON) successfully puts up defense, thus making me drop the accusation.

4) Opponent has put a rule claiming that me accusing him would be a rule violation (rule 28).

5) But I was just exercising my right to discuss potential rule breakage. If I have knowledge of rule 28, it would limit me from making extraordinary or shallow claims even though I’m entitled to it.

C) Ergo, this rule contradicts rule 7 which affects rule 1 and must be considered invalid, null and void.

Furthermore, if this was considered valid, I still wouldn’t be held completely liable because this would end up in a he-said, she-said dispute, so it’s hard to judge this accusation. Observe:

1) PRO accuses CON of breaking rule x.

2) CON makes defense and claims PRO now breaks rule 28.

3) PRO attacks CON’s defense and nullifying CON’s rule 28 accusation.

4) Repeat 2).

5) Repeat 3).

And so on. We would never know if CON actually broke rule x since he’ll keep defending himself and PRO can’t be held liable on breaking rule 28 because he would insist that CON broke rule x thus making the rule 28 accusation invalid.

--------------------------

Rule 26 accusation

Again, I repeat, I made the rule first, so rule 26 contradicts rules 11/13, it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t enforced yet, it’s still a contradiction.

But CON stipulates that he doesn’t mean that and that my claim of his word, and ‘made’ only applies to the future simple tense.

There’s a difference between past and future simple:

Past: Rule 26) All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON.

Future Simple: Rule 26) All rules which will be made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON.

CON should’ve used the right sentencing structure if he really meant to make ‘made’ apply to the future simple tense.

Rule 27 accusation

I’d like to remind the voters that the current issue here is what rule 12 really meant.

CON’s playing with semantics again, and he further argues that his definitions should be more superior because he defined it first. This is flawed if not unfair. I have a right to discuss rule breakage and a de-facto obligation to clarify and define things. Again, the definitions given by CON are far-fetched and my definitions made more sense and CON knows it. My opponent could ask for clarification in comments, but he didn’t. Therefore, he blatantly misinterpreted the word ‘instruct’.

Think logically, why would my definition of ‘instruct’ be teach? Does it make sense if I said “All of teachings/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON.”? No, of course not, the more plausible meaning of this word is to order or give command.

As for ‘restrict’, remember my opponent defined that word, and I agree, but he states that his rules didn’t instruct/restrict, really? Do his rules restrict/limit me from doing something? Observe:

Rule 26: All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON. - This limits me from making rules that only apply to CON since this rule states that every rule I make should apply to both of us.

Rule 27 (This rule): The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself. - This limits me from making rules apply to CON. Therefore, this makes her argument that she doesn’t restrict PRO from doing anything invalid.

Rule 28:The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break. - This limits me from accusing him of potential rule breakage as explained by me in the rule 28 defense.

Obviously, these restrictions also collide with instructions, since it instructs/commands.

TLDR? Let's proceed to what's relevant:

PRO’s Rule 12: All of instructions/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON.

CON’s Rule 27: The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself.

So given the above, this rule contradicts rule 12, which violates rule 1.

Moreover, CON’s second reason relating rule 27 and 26 is invalid because rule 27 still contradicts rule 12 nevertheless. I highly doubt that rule 27 meant to apply to the next following rounds because it is impossible since I already posted rule 12 first.

Rule 28 accusation

See my rule 28 defense to back up this accusation.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve proven my case, my opponent made a noble yet futile effort to backup his claims and accusations, but in summary, my opponent was definitely the first person who broke a rule and therefore I must win this debate. Thank you.

I await CON’s response. Good luck.

Mestari

Con

Okay, this debate is over. I'm going to make it really simple for you sign the ballot. Rule 13 is the first violation presented in the round. If I win any risk of violation here then it is enough fo me to win the round.

My opponent's response to my accusation is that I am not bound to proper grammar. However, I am bound to creating sentences. Even if there is no overarching standard within debate that makes me use perfect grammar, his rule creates a standard intrinsic to this debate. By demanding that I create sentences I must conform to the rules of gramar required to make sentences. My opponent tries to say that I am able to make sentences and cites a wikipedia article. What he fails to explain, however, is that the wikipedia article simply points out the purpose of a sentence. My quote from Hunter College describes what is prerequisite for a sentence to be created. Conceptualize it as a meta-argument about what it means to make a sentence.


Once again, his rule 13 clearly binds me to the following:

1. I must use sentences.
2. I must end all sentence with commas.
C. I must use sentences that end with commas.

However, I've shown that it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma. Sentences must end with exclamation points, questions marks, or periods. Once you end it with a comma it is no longer a sentence; it becomes a fragment.

Now, onto his argument about possibility. I'm sorry, but this is just stupid.

1) Yes I can type my post.
2) No, I cannot type sentences while following Rule 13. That's my argument. You need warrants, not clueless assertions.
3) No, I cannot. Per the Hunter College evidence, it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma.
C) No... My entire warranted analysis proves otherwise. You do what exactly? Provide a wiki article about the purpose of a sentence? That sounds pretty and all but I give expert analysis on the fundamental requiremets of formulating a sentence, not its intent.

I'm sorry if I've seemed rude, I'm just tired of the stupid arguments. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
jm_notguilty

Pro



Ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the final conclusion. My opponent has conceded on rebutting my previous accusations and decided to focus whether or not I violated a rule first (rule 7), so if I successfully argue that I did not violate rule 7, you must and should vote for PRO because my opponent has violated rules rule 1 and rule 7 when she posted in R2.

Any new arguments CON makes this round that addresses my previous accusations must be disregarded since I wouldn’t have the opportunity to rebut them, I trust my opponent would do the ethical thing.

Now, let’s review the subject in hand:

Rule in question: Rule 13 (CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.)

Violation of: Rule 7 (Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.)

Reason: Rule 13 is impossible to follow because a college says so, and that once we use sentences, we need to conform on proper grammar.

Defense: I'll repeat this again, there is NO rule the specifically state we have to conform on using perfect grammar/punctuation. My opponent never addressed this point accurately, we are not bound, nor do we have any obligation to follow the rules of linguistics. I’ve also defined what a sentence means, CON dismissed it because it only defines what a sentence’ purpose is, it’s still relevant to this debate and must be taken to consideration.

Furthermore, just because this rule breaks a rule in linguistics, it DOES NOT mean he had no opportunity to not break it, and it DOES NOT mean that I broke rule 7. He had the opportunity and the possibility to not break it.

Furthermore, My opponent could’ve argued that this rule was to be null and void at best, but this rule was NEVER a violation of the FR. He took the long road and argued something ludicrous, she blatantly misunderstood my defense on this and then commented on it being stupid, I take offense on that. If anything, they are valid and they stand firm. CON's arguments, on the other hand, relies on technicalities as proper linguistics, which is irrelevant and inadmissible, not to mention it being frivolous and ridiculous.

In the simplest terms, again, my opponent had the opportunity and possibility to type, to type sentences, to make sentences, to edit and fix his sentences. This makes him have the opportunity to not break rule 13 because this gives him the possibility to follow the rule by editing his sentences, he had the ability and power to do so.

Like what I said in the last round:

“The person makes the sentence. The person has every right and power to do whatever he/she wants with the sentence. The sentence doesn’t make itself. It doesn’t correct or change itself because it doesn’t have the power to do so since a sentence is a sentence, not a living thing.”

---

Mestari, I thank you for your desperate efforts to find a loophole on this one, it was a brave but futile venture on your part.

I also thank Blackvoid for hosting this tournament that has been going since the summer, I congratulate him for being the first person to successfully host a tournament.

And finally, I thank the readers and voters for spectating and judging. I urge them to please extend my previous arguments and please note that when voting, all 7 points go to the winner, regardless of the categories.

I wish you all happy holidays. Vote PRO. <(^_^)>

Mestari

Con

I would love to post a closing argument, but things have come up in my personal life and I simply cannot. I am sorry for that jm. For the judges, my arguments for a violation on rule 13 have already been made; there is no need to repeat them. I am sorry again.
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Oh well...

Didn't expect this, I did argue about it being null and void earlier, since a rule being NV isn't a rule violation. But, BV, what did you think of that NV argument and 'he had an opportunity' argument by the way? You didn't state in RFD.

Anyways, I had fun throughout the debate and the tournament. Congrats BV on hosting the first successful tourney (I think) and congrats again Mestari on winning the tournament.... unless some person(s) gives votes before deadline. >:D
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
As a side note, if this were a normal debate I'd have given pro conduct for con calling his arguments stupid, but the rules said I have to give all 7.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
RFD:

First, awesome job to both of you guys here. There were some interesting methods you used to find rule violations, and even when some broken rules seemed obvious, you found ways around them. Awesome debate.

Anyway, since Mestari concedes to all the violations except 13, thats where I vote.
So the issue Pro has here is that he eventually decides to give a definition of the word sentence. Except that this is introduced in R4, way too late to be introducing new definitions. But Mestari showed anyway how his definition shows what the purpose of a sentence was, not the prerequisites of actually making one. So I do buy that a sentence is not a sentence if it doesn't have a full stop. But Pro also says that we're not bound to proper grammar and punctuation. Except this doesn't bypass the argument. Yes, by using commas at the end of "sentences", Con isn't using proper grammer. However, as just shows, he isn't using a sentence either. Pro's rule stating that Con must end his *sentences* in a comma presupposed that what he writes are indeed sentences. But Con's sourced argument shows that with commas at the end, the phrase is a fragment instead of a sentence. So I have to buy that its impossible for Con to follow Rule 13, thus violating rule 7.

Sucks to give JM the loss here since he did an amazing job constructing this debate. I also really loved his pics, especially the one about asking a girl out in a dream, rofl. Unfortunately, Mestari just makes the correct argument here, so the ballot goes con.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Lol no prob, was a good game.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
I haven't read any of the RFDs yet but I wanted to come back or a moment and apologize to you JM. I was extremely hostile this debate and that is out of character for me. I've just had a lot on my mind and took it out on you. Again I'm sorry. With that, I'm gone for a while again.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
My thanks to cameronl35 for giving a proxy vote. It is much appreciated.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
The rules were that you vote all 7 for the winner.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Con gets all 7.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
I can vote for Logic, just let me know who gets which points
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Logic I'll find someone to proxy vote for you. I'll vote as soon as I read this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
jm_notguiltyMestariTied
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: Comments
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
jm_notguiltyMestariTied
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: Per request by Logiconrails, read his RFD