The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I will not break a rule.

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  
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: 2/3/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,075 times Debate No: 14623
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (8)

 

mongeese

Pro

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.

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, 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 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 are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules, including the rules and actions in the Round in which they were posted.

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

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

11. No rule posted by CON may discriminate between the individuals PRO and CON in any way beyond what may be required by the foundation rules.

12. CON must include exactly one example of parallelism, one epanalepsis, and one sentence that contains alliteration in each round.

13. CON may not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

larztheloser

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this awesome argument - thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!

New rules:
26 - All rules posted, including rules posted in prior argument(s) apply equally to both debaters after round one;
27 - Both debaters must use a punctuation mark other than a full stop at the end of every sentence;
28 - Subsequent arguments must not contain the same word twice!
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

My opponent has broken Rule #4; he was not allowed to post his first sentence, which was not required before!

My opponent has broken Rule #7, which requires that "each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule": while Rule #26 applies Rules #11-13 to me, which means that by Rule #12, I must use one example of epanalepsis in each round, Rule #28 states that I may not use the same word twice in this argument; as epanalepsis requires the repetition of one or more words within a single sentence or clause (http://en.wikipedia.org...), so that the word was used twice, I cannot follow both Rule #12 and Rule #28! This same contradiction falls upon my opponent, which makes him lose by Rule #3, as well.

My opponent has broken Rule #12; he has no parallelism!

14. Once per round each debater must use the British spelling of a word not chosen for this rule before; it must be done each round by each debater once!

15. Both debaters must include their favourite food somewhere in their Round 2 argument!

16. Both debaters must use the phrase "macaroni and cheese" each round!
larztheloser

Con

RULES PRO BROKE: 27 (end paragraph 2) plus 28 (see below)!

#4 is not broken by me as your 2nd non-foundational rule requires extra words - I did not break it! (note the valid use of epanalepsis without doubled words - ergo #7 remains unbroken & correct! You Lose!)

#12 - in my defence, sentences 1/2, last round, are a perfect parallelism!

NEW STUFF:
29 - "Kung Fu Panda" must be correctly quoted thrice during all forthcoming arguments;
30 - During later rounds, debaters can only write using sonnet form;
31 - Subsequent cases cannot contain the phrase "macaroni and cheese" because it's inferior to chocolate cake!
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Rule #4 was indeed broken, as the various rhetorical devices could still be used within rules!
For example, when I was required to use epanalepsis last round, I included it in Rule #14! My opponent could have done the same thing with his rules, and yet he ignored the ability!
He was never required to post non-rule sentences, non-discussion sentences, and yet he did, clearly violating Rule #4!

My opponent's only defense towards Rule #7 invokes a valid use of epanalepsis that does not involve doubled words, and yet Wikipedia the source allows for no such thing!
The clearest example is my opponent's lack of epanalepsis in his most recent round!
And the rules has been broken yet again, as Rule #16 requires the use of "maraconi and cheese," while Rule #31 requires their absence!

My opponent calls his first and second sentences in Roud 2 paralellism, but they are not!
They are merely an example of inverted word order, which is not parallelism at all!

I may have broken Rule #27, but the breakage was in Round 2!
By Rule #3, as my opponent broke rules in Round 1, he loses anyway!

17. The form of sonnet required for this debate shall be the rhyming scheme used in this argument!
18. After this round, "noodle dreams," "dragon scrolls," and "awesomeness" may not be mentioned!
19. No debater may post hyperlinks!

larztheloser

Con

PRO BROKE: 14 (this round was lacking device #2), 27 (previously), 28 (same), 29 (twice incorrectly pluralised), 30 (sonnet has 14 lines always, he's got 13 but 14 sentences - this also voids #17), 31 (see below)...

A paralellism is any form of parallel structure!
Like inverted word order!
Epanalepsis DOES allow for different forms of the same phrase to be used!
As I did!
Under #4, a future rule required extra examples not in my case!

So you're still wrong!
Victory be mine - I'm victorious!

One can also "use" phrases without quoting them directly!
Example: Cheese & Macaroni!

New stuff:
32 - Debaters must follow this argument's rhyme scheme, include 2 Chuck Norris facts and cite two academic non-web sources;
33 - Additionally, they cannot write "sacred peach tree," "heavenly wisdom" or "furious five";
34 - We can only make rules if the rule has 2 words starting with "r"!
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Now, at this point, I have clearly broken numerous rules; however, my earliest breaking of the rules was in Round 2, so if I can prove that my opponent broke a rule in Round 1, then I win anyway, by Rule #3:
"If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses"!

My opponent claims that his inverted word order was parallelism, but if you read it, it really isn't: "Thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!" is first says that I receive thanks, then commands others to thank me; He uses two sentences of different types, imperative and exclamatory, which cannot be parallelism!
In fact, one sentence involves the readers, while the other does not, ruining any chance of them being parallel!

My opponent continues to claim that epanalepsis can allow different forms of words to be used, but I quote Wikipedia: "The epanalepsis is a figure of speech defined by the repetition of the initial word (or words) of a clause or sentence at the end of that same clause or sentence"!
It doesn't allow for different forms of words to be used at all, and all of the examples provided by Wikipedia use the exact same phrases at the beginning and end, letter for letter, space for space!
He can't just say things that contradict a reliable source without a source of his own and expect his argument to hold water!

Finally, Rule #4 did not require non-rule, non-discussion writing; again, the devices could easily be included in his rules!
For example, I could rephrase my opponent's rule #26 to say, "All rules posted by both me and my opponent..." (parallelism) and #27 to say, "Both debaters must pick a punctuaction mark other than a period to place at the end of every sentence," (alliteration) and #28 to say "arguments after this must not contain the same word twice; there must be no repeated words in subsequent arguments!"
To follow Rule #12, my opponent should have adapted his case to include the rhetorical devices; he was never required by the rule to write additional sentences, only by his own stubborn refusal to adapt his own writing!

Sonnet style was indeed followed in my last round; count the exclamation points, and you will find fourteen, fitting perfectly the sonnet!

20. Both debaters must, in Round 5, "respect" Chuck Norris, who can eat a "panda" in one bite and destroy an army in his "sleep," according to the CATO Institute and the AMA!
21. All future rules may only affect Round 5!
22. Both debaters are required to start and end their argument with the same word, regardless of what it was then or is now!
larztheloser

Con

OK, so here's the deal. If I can prove I did not break the rules in round one, I have to win because you have already conceded that you broke the rules in round two, where you went first. This makes me following the rules now pointless because you've lost if I can prove I followed the 13 rules in the first round.

My opponent claims that I broke rules 4, 7 and 12. I shall investigate these in reverse order.

RULE 12
"CON must include exactly one example of parallelism...in each round"

Definition of parallelism: similarity by virtue of corresponding (wolframalpha)
Note that the sentence type is irrelevant here. And you misidentified them, but that's another story.

My words: "thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!"

Is it similar? YES!

Do the two phrases correspond to one another? Yes they do, because one asks for him to receive thanks, the other for it to be given. I find it difficult to imagine that my opponent fails to see the correspondence between giving and receiving.

Therefore I have met the definition and followed the rule.

RULE 7
"Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule"

This question is really about whether rule 28, that arguments cannot contain the same word twice, contradicts the need for epanalepsis required by rule 12.
Therefore, even if my opponent is right, it is merely a rule that need not be followed under rule 1. It does not mean that I lose.

However, my opponent is not right. Epanalepsis is "repetition after intervening words." Repetition can be exact, or it can be different forms of the same word. I highly doubt that your respected sources will say that "I see, he sees, we all see the truth" is not an example of repetition, despite the alternate central form of "to see".

Thus this point falls to me too.

RULE 4
"...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."

future rule says: "CON must include..."

Yip. It requires inclusion. Therefore if there are no examples of the aforementioned things in my rules, I must add extra sentences to fulfill the rule. If that violates rule number four, then the fault for that is with rule 12, not me. No then-current rule said I couldn't add extra sentences if those sentences would be required to fulfill a rule.

If my opponent counters by saying "adapt your rules," then I would counter by saying rule four doesn't force me to. The door is left wide open for extra rule-fulfilling sentences. They are required for my argument to fulfill the rule because without them, the rule is not fulfilled.

Thus my argument did not break a rule in round one.

My three new rules (35-37) are the same as 32-34.
Oh, and by the way. Sonnets are not measured by exclamation points. They are measured by lines. You forgot to put a new line after one of your points. I didn't.
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

The debate now boils to whether or not my opponent broke a rule in Round 1. If he did, then I win. Otherwise, my opponent wins.

Rule #12 requires an example of parallelism in each round. My opponent claims that "Thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!" is parallelism. He uses the definition from WolframAlpha, but that definition is vague and unclear. It isn't even necessarily related to grammar at all, and given that the other two terms, epanalepsis and alliteration, are grammatical, it follows that parallelism was intended to be grammatical. Wikipedia clearly states that parallelism requires balance, but there is no balance between an imperative and an exclamatory sentence.

We also have conflict between Rule #12, which requires epanalepsis, and Rule #28, which forbids repetition of a word. My opponent claims that using a different form of the word is still okay using WolframAplha's definition of "epanalepsis," but again, this definition is unclear on how strict the repetition must be. Wikipedia goes into much greater detail in what epanalepsis is, and clearly states that the word itself must be repeated. If one Googles "epanalepsis" (http://www.google.com...),
every major source provided will agree that the word must be repeated, and none say that different forms of the same word are acceptable. If one looks at the examples provided here (http://grammar.about.com...), none of them use different forms of the same word. If different forms of the word were acceptable, wouldn't at least a few sources provide at least one example of epanalepsis that uses a different form?

If we are going to be using such loose definitions, then I'd like to point out that my opponent also broke Rule #12 in Round 1 through the use of two examples of alliteration. The first is "awesome argument," andthe second is "end of every..." Rule #12 demands exactly one example, not two.
You may questio whether the second example is truly alliteration, but Wikipedia agrees with me. It defines alliteration as "the repetition of a particular sound in the first syllables of a series of words and/or phrases," and even provides an example in which a word is skipped ("some mammals are clammy"), corresponding with the exclusion of "of." Therefore, my opponent broke Rule #12 in two ways, not one.

Finally, we come to Rule #4, which states that neither debater may post anything besides a discussion of rule breakage or a rule itself unless a future rule requires such a deviation. My opponent claims that Rule #12 required an extra sentence, but I have already explained how he could follow Rule #12 without using an additional sentence. He claims that because he didn't include the devices in his rules, he was required to include them in an extra sentence. However, he could still edit his rules to include the devices instead. This means that he was required to either edit his rules or include an extra sentence. However, he may only use extra sentences when required, and he was not truly required to include an extra sentence when it was perfectly possible to get by without it. A requirement to do A or B cannot be restated as a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B. As he was not required by Rule #12 to use an additional sentence, by Rule #4, he couldn't use an additional sentence, but he did, breaking Rule #4.

To conclude, my opponent broke Rule #4, Rule #7, and Rule #12 in Round 1, losing the debate outright by Rule #3.

However, my opponent also failed to produce three rules this round, forfeiting the debate instantly. He claims that they are the same, but without actually typing the rules out, this is a mere conjecture, and not to be assumed. Therefore, my opponent forfeits the debate whether he already lost or not.

23. Everyone must put treat Wikipedia as a more reliable source than WolframAlpha, regardless of their own personal feelings.
24. All rules must be viewed in the most strict sense possible, so that a requirement to do A or B is not read as either a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B.
25. After this sentence is posted, any futher arguments must include a YouTube video that has both a rhinoceros and a racoon in it.
larztheloser

Con

I remind voters that #23 and #24 will only apply to this round. I choose to ignore both, but that's OK, because my opponent was the first to lose in round two.

Rebuttal:
WolframAlpha's definition was taken straight from Princeton Wordnet. The balance talked about by wiki is misconstrued by my opponent - here is another way of putting the same thing - "similarly phrased and developed" (http://www.pearsoned.ca...). Indeed, all other definitions are more clear than wiki as to how this balance is to be achieved, and all of them accept mine as legitimate (after all, who could deny the similar phrasing and development). Cengage, for instance, says "two ideas in which each is developed in the same grammatical structure" - once again, this would easily meet the criteria. The burden was on my opponent to prove that sentence type mattered, and no evidence was given that sentence type relates to balance in this context. Therefore this issue falls to me.

The strictness of repetition for epanalepsis is both irrelevant and un-noted in wikipedia (probably because it is irrelevant). The point is that it is still repetition. As I justified last round, using alternate forms of the same word is still considered repetition. My opponent ignores this fact entirely and so thus issue falls to me too.

On the point about my apparent double use of alliteration in round one, my opponent should note that /ɛnd/ and /ˈɛvri/ (phonetics from dictionary.com) have a subtely different opening phonetic - the ɛ is soft in /ˈɛvri/, so it makes more of a "eh" sound. It's not alliteration unless the sound is the same, which in this case it isn't, as the phonetic spelling proves. Therefore I only alliterated once!

My opponent states that I must edit my rules because an alternative to adding is possible - "he was not truly required to include an extra sentence when it was perfectly possible to get by without it." The problem with this is that the question is not whether I am required, but whether the rule requires. The rule clearly did require extra information. Therefore I can add extra information. This is irrespective of whether it is possible to integrate that information into a pre-existing debate construct.

Not strictly related, but under the rules of logic, your statement "A requirement to do A or B cannot be restated as a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B." is the most wrong thing ever.

Not typing the rules out is not the same as not presenting rules. While it is not to be assumed, the rules do have certainty because they are printed above, and thus are not "mere conjecture." Therefore I did not forfeit. I think this is an example of my opponent getting desperate.

Conclusion:
It seems that my opponent has run out of steam. All his arguments for my round one rule breaking have been defeated, just as he has been defeated in this debate. I thank him once again for this very entertaining and informed discussion.
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Yes, P2 can be fulfilled in many ways, but none of those ways are required. Overall, the end result is required, but one cannot say that an individual part is required. Because neither part was required, one cannot donate to a foreign charity, and therefore, because P2 is synonymous with donating to the local charity, donating to the local charity becomes required. Your mistake is in thinking of options as requirements. If I have the option of doing something, I am not required to do it.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
P1:You must not leave city unless a law requires you to do otherwise
P2:You must donate to a charity (and physically hand over the cash)
...
I really do fail to see why following P2, electing to donate to a charity beyond the city limits is illegal. After all, if you do, then P1 does not matter because you are doing so in fulfillment of a law. P1 makes itself subservient to P2. P2 can be fulfilled in many ways, and is not bound by P1, because P1 is subservient. The one rule is exclusive of the other.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Ah, but my rule did not command you to include anything beyond rules. Let's say that you're in a city in which people are not allowed to leave the city limits unless commanded to by the mayor. The mayor then commands that everybody donate to charity. There is a charity within the city limits and a charity outside the city limits. You were not commanded to leave the city limits, because it is perfectly possible to fulfill the command without leaving the city limits, and the command definitely did not come with the desire for you to leave the city limits. Therefore, you would have to donate to the charity within the city limits, and could not donate to the charity outside the city limits.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Ah, but my rule did not command you to include anything beyond rules. Let's say that you're in a city in which people are not allowed to leave the city limits unless commanded to by the mayor. The mayor then commands that everybody donate to charity. There is a charity within the city limits and a charity outside the city limits. You were not commanded to leave the city limits, because it is perfectly possible to fulfill the command without leaving the city limits, and the command definitely did not come with the desire for you to leave the city limits. Therefore, you would have to donate to the charity within the city limits, and could not donate to the charity outside the city limits.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
A "requirement" is an obligation that arises from a command. To "require" is to create such an obligation using a command. "Required" is the past tense of require.

"unless a future rule requires otherwise" == unless a future rule commands you to do something else. In this case, a future rule commanded me to do something other than post rules, or discuss rule validity/breakage. It said to post an example. I COULD have posted a rule as an example, but I was not REQUIRED to. The requirement was to post an example, not to post an example as part of a rule. Posting it independently is, as I have said, outside of the scope of rule four because I was required to do otherwise.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Do you have a different definition for "required," then?
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Do you have a different definition for "required," then?
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
No, "ambiguous" in that you assumed it had a certain meaning, yet it could be read with a different meaning and still be completely logically correct.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
"Ambiguous" in that you understand neither the definition of "required" nor the logic behind requirement.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I interpret rules by the letter. The letter of your rules does not match your intention. It's not my fault you wrote your rules ambiguously.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by KelchUSMC 5 years ago
KelchUSMC
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke a rule first (all 7 points because of Rule 8).
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke rule first.
Vote Placed by mongoose 5 years ago
mongoose
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke a rule in the first round.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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: While I believe that Con broke numerous rules in Round 1, Con also failed to post any rules at all in Round 5, forfeiting by Rule #6.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
mongeeselarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, argument for Rule #4, plus noted forfeit by no rules produced.