The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

I will not break a rule.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,733 times Debate No: 5978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (12)

 

wjmelements

Pro

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rulse already posted.
This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me.

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.

3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate.

4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null.

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

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.

7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule.

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

(End Foundation Rules)

1. My opponent cannot use any of the following words in a rule: I me my you your the a an is am was were be being been can cannot not must rule rules he she her his it and but or round PRO CON opponent wjmelements oppose other any word word appear use words phrase

2. CON must use proper spelling and grammar.

3. CON cannot restrict PRO's ability to speak English.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

4. Thou, Instigator, shalt never forbid thy challenger to discriminate between parties to this debate.

5. Thou, Instigator, shalt never after now create conditions of debate which would in their creation violate themselves, nor in their reversal to apply to another party to this debate violate themselves.

6. Thou, Instigator, shalt never create conditions of debate which forbid anything without forbidding said thing to all involved herein; in short, thy conditions shalt never discriminate between parties.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

7. Commas can not be used.

8. All rules posted must be attempted to be posted in modern German and translations must proceed them within parenthesis (the translations of previous rules and previous rules still apply).

9. Keine bekanntgegebenen Richtlinien k�nnen irgendwelche der folgenden W�rter nicht enthalten: nie Tausend shalt zu sollen innen Aufhetzer sie ihr wurde k�nnte wird ihr
(Any rules posted cannot contain any of the following words: never shall thou shalt to in instigator they their would could will their)
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Foundation rule 4 interjection:

Pursuivant to Foundation rule 1 and rule 5: rule 8 as my opponent has labelled it is null and void. It was not posted in Modern German. No attempt was made to post it in Modern German. Therefore it "would in it's creation violate itself." It's creation breaks a rule. Therefore it results in a loss for Pro per rule 3 since it's posting violated rule 5. Which was not null.

Pursuivant to foundation rule 1 and rule 5: Rule 9 as my opponent has labelled it is null and void- it contains words it says rules cannot contain. Thus again it would in it's creation violate itself. It's posting results independently also in a loss for Pro per rule 3. It's posting violated rule 5. Which was not null.

8. Ragnar_rahl is permitted to use every designation thus far non-forbidden by valid rulemaking. This holds forever.

9. Each new condition promulgated by past-- plus present -- Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to Ragnar's-- plus this debate's-- requirement that said condition become posted with maximally pure use of that alphabet which Ragnar knows as "1337." Language speaking remains unaffected. Language's written representation has sole relevance.

10. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Post videos with adaptation of fictional speech of at least one protagonist of Atlas Shrugged. Do so next statement!
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

Foundation rule 4 interjection:

Rule 8 as I have labeled it is not null and void and its creation did not violate itself because Rule 5 as posted by my opponent was referring to 'conditions of debate'. This obviously was referring to the foundation rules. I did not create any new foundation rules. Therefore I did not break Rule 5. The Rule 8 posted by me is neither null nor void.

condition-a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends http://www.merriam-webster.com...
rule-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Rule 9 as posted by me is also not null and void because it is not one of the 'conditions of debate'. Therefore it does not break rule 5 as posted by my opponent. My opponent also claims that my Rule 9 broke Rule 3. Rule 3 states that CON can not restrict PRO's ability to speak English. This does not keep PRO from restricting either player's ability to speak English. Perhaps my opponent also thinks that rules posted later can modify earlier rules. This is not the case according to Foundation Rule 1.

My opponent has posted illegal rules, and by Foundation Rule 3, loses this debate automatically. Rule 8, as posted by my opponent uses the word 'is' (which was banned to CON in Rule 1 posted by me).

In addition my opponent broke rule 2 as posted by me in using improper grammar in Rule 9 as posted by my opponent: "...Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to..." (subject-verb disagreement). Therefore, my oppoent's Rule 9 is also void (resulting in my opponent's loss of the debate.)

Further, as Rules 8 & 9 as posted by me are not void, all three of my opponent's rules in Round 2 (Rule 8 Rule 9 and Rule 10) as posted by my opponent are void for not being attempted to be posted in German (resulting in my opponent's loss of the debate).

10. Die Disputanten k�nnen hinsitzen.
(The debaters may sit down.)

11. Die Disputanten wissen die PRO gewonnen hat.
(The debaters know that PRO has won.)

12. Die W�hler m�ssen dementsprechend w�hlen.
(The voters must vote accordingly.)
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Rule 8 as I have labeled it is not null and void and its creation did not violate itself because Rule 5 as posted by my opponent was referring to 'conditions of debate'. This obviously was referring to the foundation rules."

What is obvious is not always true. A condition of this debate is any rule. Furthermore: I am the expert on what I refer to. Not you. See definition 3a on your link. "3 a: a restricting or modifying factor." All rules are restricting or modifying factors.

This applies to all your arguments except one:

"My opponent also claims that my Rule 9 broke Rule 3."

I failed to specify. There, I was indeed speaking of a foundation rule. Foundation rule 3 is a rule labelled 3, just as regular rule 3 is a rule labelled three. My ambiguity does not change the fact of the argument.

"In addition my opponent broke rule 2 as posted by me in using improper grammar in Rule 9 as posted by my opponent: "..." (I cannot post since the snippet HE put is indeed grammatically improper, since it's out of the context which makes it grammatically proper

That was taken out of context. In it's relevant context: "Each new condition promulgated by past-- plus present -- Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to..."

The subject is "Each new condition." The verb is "subjects." That subject and verb set agree. My post was grammatically correct. The terms in between were a phrase describing "each new condition."

Rule 11 as he has posted is according to Foundation Rule 7 null and void. Since both debaters having "knowledge" (as opposed to opinion) that Pro had won would necessarily imply Pro's victory. Rule 12 is null if intended to be understood in the context of rule 11. If otherwise intended it has no content of course.

Rule 10 as I posted has been violated. Due to the aforementioned truth about the nature of rule 5 Pro also loses.

12. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Read dictionary entries thoroughally!

13. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Eat something.

14. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Bow towards Ragnar! Read his profile for purposes such as discovering his general direction.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Rule 8 does not violate Rule 3.
Rule 8 does violate Rule 8 and therefore violates rule 5.

Vote Con.

Pro had valid objections to later rules but Con's objection was correct. The rule created violated itself in it's presentation and typing that rule with a German translation would clearly not violate Rule 3 to impede English communications (simply require additional German translations).

That's a fun debate though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
None "too" interesting. ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Few things to note:

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

Yet if I read . . .

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

I didn't accept the debate, ergo, the rules don't apply to me or any other voter. Besides, you can't honestly expect for me to vote for you in categories which I do not believe you deserve to be the victor in, do you?

The topic states: "I will not break a rule."

Seeing who can win the game is fine and dandy, but as for the actual debate, it concerned whether or not you'd break a rule. In other words, if you lost or tied with your opponent (in terms of rule breaking), well . . .given that you have broken a rule, you lose by default. Had you addressed otherwise in the debate, I would vote the convincing argument portion as a tie.

As for spelling/grammar:

PRO: rulse, cannnot, oppportunity, used the term "word" two times in a row, oppoent's,
CON: labelled, misuse of "It's", usage of "Which was not null", labelled, labelled, thoroughally

Granted that I ignored some grammar complications from both parties considering that this arena was informal, that brings about the mistake tally to be in PRO's advantage. If either of you see any more spelling errors, feel free to point them out so that I may change my verdict. At any rate though, PRO wins on spelling/grammar.

He wins on reliable sources as well given that he used two dictionary sources in attempt to support his argument.

Oh yeah, and conduct is a tie.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I left that out.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I had 3 before I had ten, so I think at least one voter has....

Though the rules don't specify what happens in the event of no victor :D
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The rules say that the voters should give all 7 points to the victor. And I don't think a single one has.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Oh goddammit... and I fixed that several times in some other places.

Well, I guess by the rules we are tied then...

The voters aren't following the rules...
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
8. Ragnar_rahl is permitted to use every designation thus far non-forbidden by valid rulemaking. This holds forever.
"is" is in there.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I broke rule 1? Remember, it only said I couldn't use those words in a rule, it said nothing about using them in side discussions....
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
I'd have to vote Ragnar, if I could vote, due to wjm breaking Ragnar's rule 5 before Ragnar broke wjm's rule 1.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Plato 8 years ago
Plato
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by starkmad 8 years ago
starkmad
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by fireimp_237 8 years ago
fireimp_237
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 sgtsledge 8 years ago
sgtsledge
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:13 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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