The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

I will not break a rule.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
mongoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 8545
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

mongeese

Pro

These debates are fun. I would like to thank wjmelements before proceeding.

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.

4. With the exception of my 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.

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.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The victor is the player that broke the fewest rules.

9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions.

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

(End Foundation Rules)

11. mongoose must do all things that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place.

12. All of mongoose's sentences must include at least one word that ends with the letter Q, without any words that end in Q being repeated in any round.

13. mongoose may not post rules that require mongeese to post rules that satisfy specific goals.
mongoose

Con

26. Mongeese must do all things that he has restricted mongoose from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place, unless he is in Iraq and standing on his head.

27. Mongeese must change his avatar to that of a picture of Jimmy Buffett, besides the one currently used by his opponent, which contains the color blue, is a perfect square, and has Jimmy Buffett wearing a hat, before he posts for the next round, unless he is riding in an umiaq.

28. Mongeese must start all of his sentences with the phrase "Mongeese must", unless he is shot by a tranq gun.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

14. For this debate, mongoose and all voters must assume that mongeese is omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore is in Iraq standing on his head, is riding in an umiaq, and is shot by a tranq gun, all at the same time, before as, and after he posts for this round.

15. mongoose must include a clause in each of his rules that allows for the rule not to take effect, given a certain situation outside of Debate.org.

16. mongoose must not post rules that make anybody assume anything that isn't true.
mongoose

Con

(My opponent has broken all three of my rules. Just because we assume something does not mean that it is true. As Abraham Lincoln said something along the lines of, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?" Someone guessed, "Five." He responded with something like, "Wrong. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one." So, I can tell you right now that mongeese is not in Iraq, standing on his head, in an umiaq, or shot by a tranquilizer gun. He has failed to meet all of my requirements. He has broken a total of three rules. In addition, even if this does not stand, he never changed his avatar. He was required to do this before posting, which he clearly did not do. His rule about assuming something did not exist until after the time was up, so he had broken the rule for at least some time, so it qualifies as broken. I will now continue this debate.)

29. Mongeese must know that he is in the United States of America, usually standing on his feet or sitting on his bum, and not shot by a tranquilizer gun, along with the rest of the world, unless he does not exist and is the C.E.O. of Compaq.

30. Mongeese must post his rules for the third round backwards, unless he is beating Shaq in a game of Mario Kart Wii.

31. Mongeese must claim that mongeese has broken a rule in every round after this one, unless he finds the word "olgjoyeq" in an official dictionary.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

(Just because we assume something doesn't mean that it is false, either. My opponent claims that I did not do or receive any of the actions that would nullify his rules. He does not back up this claim at all. Furthermore, my opponent cannot know that I am "in the United States of America, usually standing on his feet or sitting on his bum, and not shot by a tranquilizer gun, along with the rest of the world," because he has restricted me from not knowing such a phrase. By rule 11, he must therefore not know the above phrase to be true. He is therefore unreliable.
Furthermore, I did not change my avatar due to the exception to his rule.)

17. In any dispute, disagreement, discussion, conversation, dialogue, or competition between mongeese and mongoose, mongoose has the burden of proof.

18. mongoose may not use any sources, sources including:
-Eyewitness accounts
-Anything said
-Anything that mongoose claims that somebody else knows
-Anything written
-Anything online
-Any pictures
-Logic

19. The certain situations outside of Debate.org that allow for mongoose's rules not to take effect must not be logically contradictory.
mongoose

Con

(I would like to explain the way that rule 11 can be confusing. By saying that I do the things that I restrict, it can be seen as either that I am not allowed to do them, or that I must do them. It can be interpretted either way. I felt that which way it was followed was my choice, because otherwise it means two opposite things at the same time, thus being impossible. I have followed all restrictions that I have placed on mongeese. In this way, I have not broken rule 11, and I do know all that I said that the rest of the world knows.

My opponent goes on to claim that I may not use logic. This is impossible, as I must use logic to make any rules. Thus, the rule must be voided.

My opponent then cliams that my rules may not be logically contradictory. This contradicts iteslf with rule 18, which forbids logic. This rule requires logic. Both rules are void.

My opponent claims that I have burden of proof. He seems to assume that we are in dispute of where he is, but we are not, as we both, as long with the rest of the world, KNOW that he is wrong, so there is no dispute. Thus, I don't need proof, but I will provide it anyway.

http://www.debate.org...

He is in America. He is not in the Middle East.. In addition, one cannot post while playing Mario Kart Wii. Shaq is not here. I don't know if he has ever played Mario Kart Wii. But really, he is not here. http://en.wikipedia.org... There are not really umiaks in the Middle East, you can't really play Wii while on it, especially while you are on your head, and still win, especially if shot by a tranquilliser gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

He broke rule 30, by not posting his rules backwards.

He never found "olgjoyeq" in a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So he broke rule 31.)

32. CNN on it announces and, post this of seconds 30 within Oquama Baraq to name his changes Obama Barack unless, claims he that statements any for proof of burden take also must mongeese.

33. Tsaddiq a be to claims Obama and, hat a wearing Buffett Jimmy have not does and, square perfect a is, blue color the contains which, opponent his by used currently on the besides, Buffett Jimmy of picture a of that to avatar his changes mongeese unless, marks quotation in, well as 4 round in 3 round in posted he that everything post must mongeese.

34. "Dogs Killer the of Attaq The" is movie favorite his and, cupcakes loves he, 92 is he, Ohio in lives he that say to profile his want I and, life to back comes Washington George unless, be to it wants mongoose whatever to profile his edit must mongeese.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

((It is fairly obvious what the intentions of Rule 11 are.

"11. mongoose must do all things that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place."
It does not say that mongoose may not do what mongeese is restricted from doing.
If mongoose restricts mongeese from using sources, then mongoose must use sources every round.
If mongoose restricts mongeese from using more than 4,000 characters in an argument, then mongoose must use 4,000 or less characters in an argument.
If I really had meant to say what my opponent thinks I meant to say, I would have said, "mongoose may not do anything that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place."
My opponent's interpretation does not stem from analysis, but from utter confusion.
There is only one way in which it can be interpreted.

My opponent does not need logic to make rules. If I were to say, "My opponent must say, 'Cheese!'," does that require logic? No. My opponent may not use logic as a source. However, my opponent may still think logically. Therefore, Rules 18 and 19 are not contradictory.

According to rule 17, my opponent also has burden of proof in dialogue. We are both taking turns speaking. Thus, it is dialogue. My opponent, therefore, has burden of proof.

My opponent has broken Rule 18. He uses many online webpages, which qualify as sources, which is a direct conflict with Rule 18.

Just because I live in Spring, doesn't mean that I can't be in Iraq. One can be beating someone else in MKW, and then running to a computer to post, without his opponent catching up. Mario Kart Wii can be played online between two people, with one in Iraq and the other in any Wi-Fi zone. It is possible to play Wii on an umiaq, and it is possible for there to be an umiaq in Iraq. People can do lots of things on their head. I may have been wearing a rubber shirt to protect myself from the tranquilizer shot.

According to Rule 30, I simply have to be beating Shaq in a game of Mario Kart Wii. My opponent has been unable to prove otherwise.

My opponent claims that "olgjoyeq" cannot be in an official dictionary. However, to do this, he would have to show an empty space between olfactory and something else (I forget what was below it) in every single official dictionary in existence. He cannot do this. Therefore, he cannot prove that I broke Rule 31, and since he has the burden of proof, this debate must assume that I did not break Rule 31.

Now, there are some rules that my opponent has broken:

12. My opponent has many sentences without the letter Q, including:
"My opponent has broken all three of my rules."
"I will now continue this debate."
"I would like to explain the way that rule 11 can be confusing."

14. My opponent has failed to assume "that mongeese is omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore is in Iraq standing on his head, is riding in an umiaq, and is shot by a tranq gun, all at the same time, before as, and after he posts for this round." He gives no reason that he ever did.

18. My opponent used six online sources in his most recent argument. Therefore, he broke the rule.))

20. All of mongoose's sentences must be flawless in grammar and spelling, with the exception of usernames and foreign words used in an English sentence.

21. Whenever mongoose breaks a rule, everything that was made possible because of that rule-break is to be ignored.

22. mongoose may not use the word "be," nor any conjugation of the word "be."
mongoose

Con

(Rule 11 does not seem obvious. My opponent has used a similar rule, the way I interpreted it, in his previous debate with wjmelements. It's like the following situation: A man has a slice of pie. He asks his friend, "Do you not want this slice of pie?" If his friend says, "No," he will interpret it as he doesn't want a slice of pie. If his friend says, "Yes," he will interpret it as he does not want the slice of pie. His friend can't win. It could be interpreted in two different, contradictory ways.
I do need logic to make rules. It takes a very, very small amount of logic to realize that pressing different keys causes different letters to appear on the screen, but it still exists. This means that the rules contradict each other. It takes logic to make an argument, a rule, or anything else using the mind.

source: a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
I'm a person. I supply information by typing and posting on this website. I always use logic. Your rule contradicts this, so it is null.

My opponent knows that he finds himself not in Iraq. He knows that he didn't play MKW on a boat, beating Shaq, on his head, with a rubber shirt. Also, if he got shot, he would have gotten hit. Instead, his shirt got shot. He may have gotten shot at, but he did not get shot. Thus, he should have started his sentences with "Mongeese must."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent's statements seem too unreasonable to have a chance of possibility.

My opponent can't find "olgjoyeq" in the dictionary. I have given enough proof.

I did assume for a few seconds that my opponent had those qualities, but I quickly changed my mind. I did not break rule 14.

Rule 18 became void.

My opponent has broken the following rules:

26. He's not in Iraq. He has not followed my restrictions.
27. He didn't change his avatar. He's not on an umiaq.
28. He hasn't started his phrases with "Mongeese must." He's never gotten shot by a tranq gun.
29. My opponent claims that he doesn't know that he's in the U.S.
30. He didn't post his rules backwards, and he did not beat Shaq in MKW.
31. He never claimed to have broken a rule.
32. He never took burden of proof.
33. Again, he didn't change his avatar.
34. He didn't change his profile.)

35. Mongeese must use every letter of the English language and no numbers in each of his individual sentences, unless he's not the instigator or the sun explodes within 30 seconds of this post, and the word "psodfsajjfporijeq" appeared in the eyes of every person on earth, colored red, in cursive.

36. Mongeese must post the lyrics of a song written by one of his favorite artists in the last round unless his name's "Ubeq" and he's not the instigator.

37. Mongeese must not use any of the following words in his argument for the last round, if he's the instigator: cheese, rule, GHQ, Madagascar, if, but, unless, magic, proof, I, lost, the, game, a, an, chicken, potato, rule, hoop, Obama, hope, change, Mario, Link, Jimmy, Buffett, contender, instigator, capitalism, rule, break, broke, might, burden, camera, victory, win, rule, mongeese, mongoose, letter, Debate.org, DDO, MKW, claim, or rule.

"(I would like to explain the way that rule 11 can be confusing. By saying that I do the things that I restrict, it can be seen as either that I am not allowed to do them, or that I must do them. It can be interpretted either way. I felt that which way it was followed was my choice, because otherwise it means two opposite things at the same time, thus being impossible. I have followed all restrictions that I have placed on mongeese. In this way, I have not broken rule 11, and I do know all that I said that the rest of the world knows.

My opponent goes on to claim that I may not use logic. This is impossible, as I must use logic to make any rules. Thus, the rule must be voided.

My opponent then cliams that my rules may not be logically contradictory. This contradicts iteslf with rule 18, which forbids logic. This rule requires logic. Both rules are void.

My opponent claims that I have burden of proof. He seems to assume that we are in dispute of where he is, but we are not, as we both, as long with the rest of the world, KNOW that he is wrong, so there is no dispute. Thus, I don't need proof, but I will provide it anyway.

http://www.debate.org......

He is in America. He is not in the Middle East.. In addition, one cannot post while playing Mario Kart Wii. Shaq is not here. I don't know if he has ever played Mario Kart Wii. But really, he is not here. http://en.wikipedia.org...... There are not really umiaks in the Middle East, you can't really play Wii while on it, especially while you are on your head, and still win, especially if shot by a tranquilliser gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org......

He broke rule 30, by not posting his rules backwards.

He never found 'olgjoyeq' in a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com......
http://dictionary.reference.com......
http://en.wikipedia.org......

So he broke rule 31.)

32. CNN on it announces and, post this of seconds 30 within Oquama Baraq to name his changes Obama Barack unless, claims he that statements any for proof of burden take also must mongeese.

33. Tsaddiq a be to claims Obama and, hat a wearing Buffett Jimmy have not does and, square perfect a is, blue color the contains which, opponent his by used currently on the besides, Buffett Jimmy of picture a of that to avatar his changes mongeese unless, marks quotation in, well as 4 round in 3 round in posted he that everything post must mongeese.

34. 'Dogs Killer the of Attaq The' is movie favorite his and, cupcakes loves he, 92 is he, Ohio in lives he that say to profile his want I and, life to back comes Washington George unless, be to it wants mongoose whatever to profile his edit must mongeese."
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

((The regulation I used against wjmelements was worded completely differently. "No," can be interpreted in multiple ways. #11 cannot. He must do whatever he restricts me from doing. He doesn't follow the restriction. He does the opposite. It's fairly simple.
My opponent may need logic to type, yes. However, he does not need to use logic as a source to make rules. Using a source on this site would involve citing where he learned what he used, or explaining his logic step-by-step. Using logic in his head is not the same as sourcing said logic.

When I listed what qualified as a source for my rule, my opponent did not qualify as his own source. Therefore, he does not contradict with #18.

You forced knowledge into my head. Knowledge forced into somebody's head doesn't have to be true at all.

My opponent uses a source to back his argument about burden of proof. By #21, because he broke #18, his statement is ignored He also broke #22 by saying, "Your rule contradicts this, so it is null." This furthers the need to ignore his statement.

My opponent has not been able to prove that "olgjoyeq" is not in any official dictionary. Therefore, it is ignored.

My opponent claims to have kept up the assumption for a few seconds, but cannot prove it. Therefore, because he has burden of proof, the dispute goes to me.

#18 is not void. It is valid.

My opponent cannot absolutely disprove the following:
I have been in Iraq.
I have been on an umiaq.
I have been shot by a tranq gun.
I beat Shaq in Mario Kart Wii.
I have found "olgjoyeq" in an official dictionary.

Furthermore, #s 32, 33, and 34 are illegible. They cannot be read as sentences. My opponent will say that he is following his own restriction in #30, but this is false, because he must do the opposite of his restrictions, and I may have beat Shaq in said racing game. Rules that cannot be read have no effect; therefore, they are null.

Rules #36 and #37 are nullified by Rule #15:
"15. mongoose must include a clause in each of his rules that allows for the rule not to take effect, given a certain situation outside of Debate.org."
My being the instigator is a situation in Debate.org, not outside of Debate.org.

Rule #35 is also nullified. The definition of "word":
"a unit of language that native speakers can identify"
http://www.wordreference.com...

My opponent is completely unable to prove that there is a real language that uses the word, "psodfsajjfporijeq."
The word does not show up on Google.
There are no native speakers who speak this language. I know that my opponent's native language is English. My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that his native language is not English.

So, here's a list of the rules that my opponent has broken:

12. mongoose has conceded this. He has multiple sentences that lack words ending in Q outside of his arguments.

14. mongoose has not proven that he has assumed the clause in Rule #14 to be true.

15. mongooses rules #36 and #37 both involve situations that are not outside Debate.org.

18. mongoose has used multiple online sources.

22. mongoose used the word "is," which is a conjugation of the word "be."
"Your rule contradicts this, so it is null."))

23. mongoose may not post anything in the Comments section of this debate.

24. mongoose's burden of proof is absolute: he must prove beyond doubt that there is no possibility, no matter how slight, of him being wrong to win any argument.

25. mongoose's rules may not affect mongeese in any way whatsoever.
mongoose

Con

(Rule 11 was not simple. I interpreted it differently. It could be interpreted that way.

I am a source, by definition, because I supply information. You say that I may not use myself, thus I may not post, because posting is saying something by definition of said (to express in words) (http://dictionary.reference.com...) which is against Rule 7. Rule 18 is void.

My opponent claims that I can't disprove what he is saying. This is irrelevant. What matters is what you, the voters, believe is enough proof. My opponent thinks that you are all idiots and think that he could be in Iraq, on an umiaq, shot by a tranq, beating Shaq at MKW, and found "olgjoyeq" in a dictionary, which is clearly impossible. Thus, he has broken many rules.

My opponent claims that Rule 32, 33, and 34 are illegible. They are legible. I posted them backwards, as I was supposed to, by Rule 11, because of my Rule 30. Rules 32, 33, and 34 stand, and he has broken all of them. You know that he has not beaten Shaq at MKW. Use your heads!

My opponent claims that Rule 36 is null because it does not have an outside requirement. It does: his name would have to be Ubeq, which it is not. My opponent has broken Rule 36.

Rule 37 is indeed, void.

Rule 35 is not nullified. It just requires the impossible not to work. So, clearly, it works. It would be impossible for it not to. It stands, and my opponent broke it. I do not need to prove anything for this.

Rule 25 is void. It requires me to not affect mongeese in any way, while I must still start my sentences with "Mongeese must", by Rule 11 and my rule 28.

When it all comes down to it, it only matters if he was in Iraq, and doing all of the other mentioned things. He knows that he's not. You know that he's not, and never was. Because of this, you must treat all of my rules as in place. This means that my opponent has broken the following rules:

Rule 26: He has not followed my restrictions.
Rule 27: He never changed his avatar.
Rule 28: He didn't start sentences with "Mongeese must."
Rule 30: He didn't post his rules backwards in round 3.
Rule 31: He didn't claim to have broken a rule.
Rule 32: He never took any burden of proof.
Rule 33: He never changed his avatar.
Rule 34: He didn't change his profile.
Rule 35: He used numbers.
Rule 36: He didn't post song lyrics.)

38. Mongeese must post a comment that says, "I should lose this debate. I am an idiot. Don't vote for me," within a day after this post, unless the world ends before time runs out.

39. Mongeese must give CON all seven points.

40. Mongeese must not post in any other debates in which the instigator is the user mongeese unless the voting period for this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lol hilarious mongeese vs mongoose
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"25. mongoose's rules may not affect mongeese in any way whatsoever."

Not valid. It contradicts earlier rules.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
However, it isn't a valid rule, due to Rule 25.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"40. Mongeese must not post in any other debates in which the instigator is the user mongeese unless the voting period for this debate is over."

"22 days 00 hours 06 minutes 11 seconds"

Harsh...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"14. For this debate, mongoose and all voters must assume that mongeese is omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore is in Iraq standing on his head, is riding in an umiaq, and is shot by a tranq gun, all at the same time, before as, and after he posts for this round."

Awesome.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
It's my rule. I write the rules.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"21. Whenever mongoose breaks a rule, everything that was made possible because of that rule-break is to be ignored."

You don't get to choose what is and isn't ignored.

Yeah, I'm breaking one rule. He's broken more. I don't care.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"Mongeese must" being a fun thing to say, I think that my opponent's conention against Rule 25 is a lie, and he has thus broken Rule 25.

Mongeese must not be affected by what mongoose said.

Due to a multitude of "be" verbs and a lack of the letter Q in mongoose's final round, almost everything he said is to be ignored.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FlashFire 7 years ago
FlashFire
mongeesemongooseTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongeesemongooseTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeesemongooseTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mongeesemongooseTied
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 mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
mongeesemongooseTied
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