The Instigator
Logician
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

I will not break a rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/7/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 14697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Logician

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 commit two logical fallacies in each round. No logical fallacy may be used by CON more than once throughout the debate.

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

Con

My opponent has broken a rule, because he cannot prove that he hasn't broken a rule, and because I need for him to break a rule so that I may win this debate.

26. Neither debater may do anything that would cause any rule documented with a number between 14 and 25 inclusive to do anything besides regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate.

27. Neither debater may post an argument that uses more characters (with spaces) than their opponent's Round 1 argument does.

28. Each debater must commit two logical fallacies in each round, without using any logical fallacy more than once.
Debate Round No. 1
Logician

Pro

My opponent has broken a rule, because he cannot prove that he hasn't broken a rule, and because I need for him to break a rule so that I may win this debate.

14. CON must end round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye".

15. In round 2, CON must provide a Spanish translation for every English word he writes in that round (using the translation service at http://babelfish.yahoo.com...), unless doing so would lead to him breaking rule 13.

16. In round 2, CON must directly quote a Spanish-language news article, accessible online, which celebrates Spain's victory at the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

mongeese

Con

I cannot have broken a rule, because I did not break a rule.

My opponent has broken Rule #7 by creating two contradictory rules, #13 and #14. All Spanish words for "goodbye" that I have encountered so far are not in the required dictionary, so no Spanish word for "goodbye" is in the provided dictionary. Therefore, to end Round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye" would be to use a word not in the dictionary; following Rule #14 would be breaking Rule #13.

My opponent has broken Rule #26. By typing Rules #14-16, he has caused them to require Spanish words to be used in arguments. However, according to Rule #26, the rules may only regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate, not what Spanish words must be used in this debate. The rule is allowed to say that I may not use a particular Spanish word, or that I may use a particular Spanish word, but it cannot say that I must use a particular Spanish word.

29. Each debater must use the phrase "Revive 2010" once in this debate.

30. Neither debater may use any words not found in an online English dictionary.

31. In Rounds 3-5, neither debater may restrict the other debater's freedom of word choice.

Debate Round No. 2
Logician

Pro

CON's round 2 made him sound a lot like Hitler, thus we should ignore him. This further means he broke a rule.

I didn't specify which Spanish words CON had to use - e.g. he may have written either "adios" or "adieu". Choice was available. Those two words are in the provided dictionary, so CON broke rule 14. His round 2 only contained one logical fallacy, breaking rule 12. Rule 31 contradicts rule 26, as I'm no longer allowed to specify words which CON may not use.

17. CON may write "adios".

18. CON may write "adieu".

19. CON may write any other Spanish word allowed by rule 13.
mongeese

Con

My opponent is an idiot, so all of his points should be disregarded. Someone on the front page agrees with me; therefore, I am right.

While I was still given an option between two words, I was still required to use one of them. By Rule 26, Rules 14-25 may not require the use of certain Spanish words, as that is neither allowing Spanish words nor banning Spanish words, but requiring them, a separate category in itself. I can be prevented from using Spanish words for "goodbye," or allowed to use Spanish words for "goodbye," but I cannot be forced to use Spanish words for "goodbye." Therefore, Rule #14 broke Rule #26, and my opponent broke a rule.

Round 2 contained two logical fallacies, not one. The circular reasoning is at the top of the argument. The falsely extended inductive reasoning is in my third sentence, claiming because I cannot find something, it cannot exist.

Rule #31 is in perfect harmony with Rule #26. Rule #26 does not forbid doing anything that would make Rules 17-19 only able to allow Spanish words, and no longer regulate them.

32. All arguments claiming that either debater broke Rule #14 must be posted in the smallest font size avaliable.

33. In Round 4, each debater must post one internet video.

34. Neither debater may post any hyperlinks not required by Rule #33.
Debate Round No. 3
Logician

Pro

Rule 3 states that: "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."

My opponent clearly broke rule 14 in round 2, by not ending it with a Spanish word for "goodbye". This debate now hinges on whether my setting of rule 14 was in contradiction to rule 26. If it was, my opponent wins the debate. If it wasn't, I win the debate.

Rule 26, essentially, stated that every rule that I created henceforth had to "regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate." This is what I did in rule 14. He may have ended with the word "adios", or the word "adieu". Or, if that were not good enough, the word "ciao".

Contrary to my opponent's claim, rule 26 doesn't say that I was not allowed to require that he write Spanish vocabulary. That additional criterion came later on, in rule 31. It only says that I must regulate which words he is allowed to use. He was allowed to write any Spanish word for 'goodbye' that is present in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. He did not do so, which means he broke the rule.

20. CON's internet video in round 4, as provided for by rule 33, must include a bunny with a pancake on its head.

21. CON must write the phrase "Revive 2010" in round 4.

22. CON must write round 4 in haiku form.

mongeese

Con

As Logician said, this debate hinges entirely around the combatibility of Rules 14-16 and Rule 26.

By Rule 26, my opponent could not cause Rule 14 to do anything besides what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate. Stating that something may or may not occur is never synonymous with saying that someting must occur; Rule 14 could not require anything to happen. However, my opponent typed Rule 14 so that it required me to post a Spanish word for "goodbye." Requiring the use of a Spanish word was not allowed by Rule 26.

It is true that I was offered a choice between a few Spanish words. However, while my opponent was allowed to say that I may use a Spanish word that means "goodbye," or that I may not use a Spanish word that means "goodbye," he was not allowed to require such a word.

The very fact that I was able to break the rule by not using a Spanish word for "goodbye" demonstrates that the rule is invalid. My opponent claims that I was "allowed" to use a Spanish word for "goodbye," then turns around and says that because I did not, I broke the rule. This is contradiction, as if I am only "allowed" to do something, I may still not do it if I do not want to. My opponent clearly means that I was required to use a Spanish word, even though giving Rule 14 such authority violated Rule 26.

This also applies to Rule 15 and 16, which required the use of Spanish words with forbidden authority, although I followed Rule 16 with "Revive 2010" and ignored Rule 15 due to its exception clause.

Note that my opponent fails to post an internet video, and breaks Rule 26 again by empowering his rules with requirements that they may not have.



35. There is a difference between "allowed" and "required."

36. All rules must be interpreted in the most strict sense possible.

37. In Round 5, both debaters must summarize the other debater's internet video from Round 4.
Debate Round No. 4
Logician

Pro

Remember, it doesn't matter how many rules I broke in the last round, since CON broke a rule in round 2. If I can prove that I didn't break one before him, I win,

My opponent has made much of the fact that, in my rule 14, I made it such that he had to write at least one word of Spanish. He claims that this is in contravention of rule 26. However, if this was what he intended when he wrote that rule, it wasn't explicit in the wording. He may try and add in a "strict interpretation" after the fact, as he did with rules 31 and 36, but when I wrote rule 14, I only had the wording of rule 26 to guide me.

Remember: the rule says that rules written by me must "regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate." All this says is that a variety of choice must exist in what Spanish words my opponent can use. I could not, for instance, have written: "CON must write the word 'adios'", or "CON must write 'ciao'". That would have forced him to write specific words, and would have contradicted the rule. However, I wrote instead that "CON must end round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye". This gave him choice: he may or may not have written the word "adios", or, if he was not so inclined, the word "ciao". Or, indeed, any other Spanish word for goodbye that can be found in Merriam-Webster.

As such, that rule was perfectly in line with rule 26, and because my opponent broke it in round 2, I win the debate. Vote PRO.

23. CON must declare war on the world in round 5.

24. CON should express his love for the admin at debate.org.

25. CON must launch a Precision F Strike http://tvtropes.org... in his final round.

mongeese

Con

I do believe that my wording of Rule 26 was very clear. Rule 14 could regulate what Spanish words can or cannot be said; this in no sane way implies that it could regulate what Spanish words must be said.

My opponent claims that the rule only requires that I have a choice in Spanish words. How he could possibly arrive at this interpretation in English, I'm not really sure. Rule 26 rather obviously restricted Rule 14 to only allowing or disallowing Spanish words; it did not say in any way that the rule could ban Spanish words in any way, so long as choice was avaliable. In the way the rule was worded, with "may" and "may not" but not "must," the choice to say no Spanish words had to be avaliable; my opponent failed to offer such a choice to me.

For an easy illustration, imagine that we have a government agency that regulates what lightbulbs Americans may or may not buy and use. This agency posts a list of lightbulbs that may be used and lightbulbs that may not be used. If this agency were to require that Americans use lightbulbs, it would be overstepping its bounds; nowhere did it have the power to force people to buy or use anything. For a real-life example, look at healthcare. It is a popular view that government has the power to regulate what healthcare may or may not be sold in the United States; however, it is another debate entirely about whether or not the government can require healthcare, and nowhere in that debate does any sane man claim that "may or may not" can ever translate to "must."

In conclusion, Rule 26 stated that my opponent's rules could only regulate what Spanish words "may" or "may not" be used, broken by my opponent when he typed Rule 14, which regulated what Spanish words I "must" use, which carries an important and significant distinction. As my opponent broke a rule, vote CON. By Rule 8, vote all seven points to CON.

38. Neither debater may curse in this debate.

39. Neither debater may post any hyperlinks in this debate.

40. Both debaters must exist.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Oh, you don't even know.

http://www.debate.org...
Looking back, I still don't fully understand it.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
This is the most complicated rule game yet.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
LogicianmongeeseTied
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 Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
LogicianmongeeseTied
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: My opponent has broken Rule #26. By typing Rules #14-16, he has caused them to require Spanish words to be used in arguments. However, according to Rule #26, the rules may only regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate, not what Spanish words must be used in this debate - Clever