The Instigator
retarded-flamingo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points

I will not break a rule- and this time I mean it!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 1/17/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,474 times Debate No: 10861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (11)

 

retarded-flamingo

Pro

This was my first topic on DDO, and since I was new to the site I failed miserably. I am going to give it another shot. Here are the rules:

~Rules~

1. Each round CON must give me three rules, which I must follow. Failure for PRO doing so results in a loss. Failure for CON to give three rules to PRO results in his loss.

2. The rules cannot have anything that will go against the Terms of Service, or will be increasingly tiresome or difficult. I think the voters will decide on where the questionable rules stand.

3. If CON sees any breaking of rules, he must say so in his next turn. PRO will then either admit defeat (and automatically lose) or argue why he thinks he did not break a rule. CON can also admit defeat if he finds he cannot find any rule breakages, and of course automatically lose.

~End of Rules~

I am anticipating my opponent's post, blah blah blah, lets get to it. :3
Logical-Master

Con

~Rules~

1. During rounds 2 through 4, the instigator is uphold all obligations which have been set for the contender to follow while abandoning the PRO position. Only during Round 5 is he allowed to swap back to PRO.

2. The user known as Logical-Master is allowed to serve as a substitute for the Instigator during Rounds 2 through 4 (in other words, LM will essentially be PRO throughout rounds 2-4) while also fulfilling his obligations as CON (hence, he is PRO and CON for a limited amount of time)(he is also CON, only to assure that the instigator doesn't attempt to sabotage his position). The position he is upholding shall be placed in sections titled PRO and CON during each round for the sake of clarification.

3. When upholding the position of CON, Logical-Master is the only one allowed to make the rules as well as determine whether or not anyone upholding the PRO position violated said rules; rules made by any other party shall be swiftly ignored. If there are any other obligations as CON other than being present during the debate, anyone else upholding the CON position is free to fulfill said obligations.

~End of Rules~

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
retarded-flamingo

Pro

Apologies, but I relize that one of my slaves seemed to start a debate, mimicing an older one I had participated in. Since he was not retarded_flamingo I must restate MY rules of the debate.

~Rules~

1. Each round Logical-Master most post three rules to which I, retarded-flamingo, must follow. Not following the rules unless they are against this before hand set of rules results in a loss. If Logical-Master does not give me three acceptable rules he loses.

2. The rules cannot have anything that will go against the Terms of Service, will be increasingly tiresome or difficult, or allow Logical-Master to take both sides of the debate and I to be PRO at the 5th round. I think the voters will decide on where the questionable rules stand. (i.e. the tiresome or difficult ones.)

3. If Logical-Master sees any breaking of rules, he must say so in his next turn. I, retarded-flamingo, will then either admit defeat (and automatally lose) or argue why I think I did not break a rule. Logical-Master can also admit defeat if he finds he cannot find any rule breakages, and of course automatically loses.

4. If I, retarded-flamingo, am actually not retarded-flamingo, then I return on my next turn with a clean slate- meaning all past complications or rule breakages are not to be counted.

5. If Logical-Master posts rules directed to retarded-flamingo, who is me, but the account is being controlled by a slave or hottub mate, Logiacl-Master's rules are not to be counted as not followed and are to be forgotten.

~End of Rules~

By the way, if you request to continue this debate with my slave, I banished him from my hottub and he died in a nuclear explosion. This means that you cannot debate with the person who posted first on this debate. Hopefully no one else will go on my computer........
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings the real retarded_flamingo. I feel you on your problem with your slaves. My slaves do that all the time! It's such a bother. There's a reason slavery was abolished. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who is using your account. My rules are stated to concern the instigator and whoever is using your account is the instigator. There is nothing you can do about that. Furthermore, my 3rd rule stated that all rules created by anyone other than me (Logical-Master) are to be ignored, hence making the majority of your above round pointless.

===============
MY CON SECTION |
===============

RULES:

1. All of PRO's sentences must be no longer than 10 characters.
2. Each statement which PRO makes must also be a compliment towards Michael Bay.
3. PRO must wear a hat for the duration of the debate.

I have a good feeling that PRO will violate these rules. In fact, I know without a doubt that it shall be done explicitly!

============
MY PRO SECTION:
============

Uwe Boll is the greatest directer ever and this sentence is probably more than 10 characters. In addition, I don't like to wear hats, hence I refuse to wear a hat!
Debate Round No. 2
retarded-flamingo

Pro

I am confused as to why you view my rules as pointless, because that talented Michael Bay wouldn't. Anyway, your whole concept of you being PRO and CON contradicts my first rule, which clearly states "give me". Shanarf to you, and I hope buff Michael Bay thinks so as well.

1. Character: the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing, like dashing Michael Bay.

Voters, you will see that what I write above contains only one character, and that is Michael Bay, the smart fellow. And in some sentences I purposely did not contain any compliments toward awesome Michael Bay because they were not statements, but facts and opinions. Also, I have been wearing a hat for your third rule.

Adios, and good luck to you and intelligent Michael Bay!
Logical-Master

Con

Many greetings once again to the real retarded flamingo. I see your slave is not present. That is rather good to hear. However, it's very unfortunate that in spite of your efforts to find a loophole in the set of rules I've laid forward, that it has all been naught.

You say that your first rule having the line "give me" indicates that I've contradicted your first rule, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Although the first rule does say that you are to be given three rules, it also states that failure for PRO following these rules doing so results in a loss. Ergo, you can follow these rules to your heart's content, but the main concern in this debate is whether or not PRO violates them. Let me stress the point that there is nothing in my rules which impedes you personally from following my rules.

With that being said . . .

=============
MY CON SECTION |
=============

Lets say you buy the instigator's argument. That still doesn't change the fact that he has violated each of my rules which I set about in R2. Copy and paste each sentence in his last response and you'll see that they are all above 10 characters. Furthermore, not all of his sentences compliment Michael Bay as we can see with the following sentence: "Also, I have been wearing a hat for your third rule."

Therefore, even by the instigator's own argument, he has still lost this debate.

Also, whether a statement, fact or an opinion is presented(although both of the latter can easily exist in the former), my ruled concerned sentences, thus that argument fails as well.

~Rules~

1. PRO must present a picture of a square circle.
2. PRO must post an attractive picture of Jodie Foster.
3. In addition to complimenting Michael Bay, PRO must also compliment George Bush in every sentence he makes.

~End of Rules~

============
MY PRO SECTION:
============

Jodie Foster is the hottest chick I've ever seen, hence posting a picture of her would be too much for the DDO community handle and I'm pretty sure this sentence is more than 10 characters. Square circles are highly offensive thus I refuse to post a picture of one. And Hillary Clinton is super special awesome!
Debate Round No. 3
retarded-flamingo

Pro

Araagh!!!!!!!!!! You clever basturd....:) I was hoping I would compete with a less intelligent person than you L-M. Eh, I'll try again some other time. *cloud of dust poofs out of nowhere*
..........................................................
............................................
...............................
..................

*cricket cricket*
Logical-Master

Con

*clears throat* I'll take that as a concession.

=============
MY CON SECTION |
=============

1) PRO must do 10 push ups and sit ups while drinking juice.
2) PRO is to set a timer on a VCR
3) PRO is not allowed to say the words "I give up."

I believe PRO's rule violations are self-evident thus see no need to explain them.

=============
MY PRO SECTION |
=============

. . . I give up.
Debate Round No. 4
Logical-Master

Con

With the instigator now being PRO again, all of the rule breaking which has taken place on the PRO side now rest on him, hence he loses this debate.

I rest my case.

Additional Rules (since I am supposed to create rules every round).

#1. PRO must eat some pie after this debate concludes.
#2. PRO must buy CON some pie after this debate concludes.
#3. PRO must purchase some whip cream after this debate concludes.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
In that case, it'd be a draw granted that the rules obligate me to switch back to CON. :D
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Yeah, I had the same idea as Cody. I would have sacrificed rounds 2-4, then refused to switch back to Pro for round 5. Then the rule breakages would have fallen on L-M's shoulders.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"4. If I, retarded-flamingo, am actually not retarded-flamingo, then I return on my next turn with a clean slate- meaning all past complications or rule breakages are not to be counted."

In other words, if I messed up, that wasn't me and I get a free ride out.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Agreed, I think there could have been a way out.

"Only during Round 5 is he *ALLOWED* to swap back to PRO."

That would mean that r-f would be permitted, but not obligated, to swap back. :P
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
omg i lolled so hard the whole way throught xDDDDDDDD
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
LM, I think you've reached the pinnacle of this style of debate. That was badass.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Should have made one of the opening rules "rules cannot be physically impossible" that way you could protest Rule 2 of round 3.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Ha ha. Good try r-f, but I think L-M saw it coming.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
I think there's a way out. It all hinges on the way Con worded the first rule.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 6 years ago
spinnerclotho
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 retarded-flamingo 7 years ago
retarded-flamingo
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
retarded-flamingoLogical-MasterTied
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