The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

I would Like

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 81838
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I would like to apologize about the way I have been debating.
Being so offensive and all, not only lately.
BUt I feel I have won every debate with you because your way made no sense or was off the button.
So, I debate, That I have been apologetic, but I was in fact usingt eh servae very straight.
So. Who says I'm wrong.


No, dont apologise. Being offensive gets peoples emotional attention. Fredrich Neitzche said we have to judge the philosophy by the philosophER! If some fat dip was making claims, we can disregard it on the grounds of him being a fat dip.

You HAVE won every debate but being insulting gives you hair on your chest and chin. WIth that hair you can grow a beard and be a man.

Grow it bro, and be offensive as all f*ck. Post pics of your willy, say swear words, post dank memes when they are not on topic that IS the jedi way!

Debate Round No. 1


I really must be blunt. 90% of people do not like the emotional part of a debate.
It inhibits their capacity to use "logic" because they become rattled.
IN reality, they simply were not logically in the first place, if emotions in any way effect their capacity to interpret, read or convey information BUT
like aggravated-assault, drawing out emotional instability in the opponent demonstrates mental instability. And their credibility becomes lost.
Insults however are not emotional. Insults are derived from facts and evidence.,

Emotions are: Refusing to reflect on one's own contributions; read someone else's argument thoroughly when perhaps misunderstood; evaluate the credibility of sourced information (ex. Mars exploration slim suits); and the ability to Actually present information or facts without vague references ("Gravity is Fact", "evolution is fact.", "Carbon dating is fact")

Drawing emotions out in a debate prove whether or not the opponent is actually capable of contributing. They always prove they are not.

Insulting someone who refusing o acknowledge the arguments presented to them, or their own faulty behaviours, Is fundamental. When u get insulted in a debate you should reflect upon your own behaviour. Not put on your best baby face and call the person a baby.

so. NO. I was genuinely apologizing; for any lack of Appreciable behaviour. NOt simply to be apologetic. I am not apologizing for things that don't need apologizing for.


Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


indeed. I was truly apologetic for anyone whom I, while being in the wrong, may have offended.

but then again. am I really? There was once a Con to this debate trying to prove otherwise...

How his forfeits account for my win.


Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
I figured we had a very philosophical crowd.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture