The Instigator
The-Ultimate-debater
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Marcus.Aurelius
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If you think that I should not walk near the swamp, then be ready to debate else do not answer.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
The-Ultimate-debater
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,332 times Debate No: 62702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (2)

 

The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

1.) A school van was driving without any details and indications that it was a school transport vehicle which was required by the law of my country (India).
2.) The school van was firstly driving at a wrong lane i.e. left side from where cars come inside the area, not go outside.
3.) It was driving at a high speed in a residential area where speed limit should be maintained as per law.
4.) It was driving at a high speed even though there were norms regarding school transport vehicles to maintain speed limit in my country.
5.) It was driving at a high speed even though there was a speed breaker which was again a violation of a state laws.
6.) Even while crossing the speed breaker, it drove at a such a high speed that it splashed swamp on me and dirtied my clothes which could be avoided if it was driving slowly.
7.) I was walking on the footpath towards my home. When I reached near the speed-breaker, the school-van firstly went into the wrong lane, secondly did not slow-down in the speed-breaker, and thirdly, splashed swamp on me.

NOW A STUPID AND A EUNUCH PERSON TEACHES ME THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE WALKED NEAR THE SWAMP, TO WHICH I GAVE SUCH REASONS THAT SHE (BIOLOGICALLY BORN AS A GUY BUT SINCE SHE IS A EUNUCH THEREFORE I ADDRESSED HER AS 'SHE') COULD NOT COUNTER AND PROVED HERSELF TO BE STUPID.

DO YOU THINK THAT I SHOULD NOT WALK NEAR A SWAMP? ESPECIALLY, IF THERE IS NO CHOICE AVAILABLE? IF YES, THEN GET READY FOR A DEBATE.

I WILL GIVE THE SAME REASONS FOR WHICH I GAVE TO THAT EUNUCH WHICH SHE COULD NOT COUNTER!
Marcus.Aurelius

Con

To your above on how the van was speeding in a residential area, not having a license and driving on the wrong lane. This is all clearly an indication that there is something wrong with driver and the way he drives. Obviously, if you were smart you would tried to avoid the situation if you knew something was wrong.

I completely understand that the situation is not completely avoidable.
However It is not true to say that there is no choice available. Knowing the situation you should have been able to comprehend it and run away or avoid the swamp as you would get splashed or even killed if the van ran over you. There is a law implied in your country however, you can't expect everyone to follow the law all the time. In the future, you do have a choice.

You can either take a safer path back home on another route which is not next the road/swamp or continue walking near the swamp ignoring the advice not to "walk near the swamp" and potentially getting splashed again.

If you are intelligent you should not have walked near the swamp/ tried to avoid it when you knew there was something wrong with the driver.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

"To your above on how the van was speeding in a residential area, not having a license and driving on the wrong lane. This is all clearly an indication that there is something wrong with driver and the way he drives. Obviously, if you were smart you would tried to avoid the situation if you knew something was wrong."

1.) I am not a psychic that I knew something was wrong. Had I been one then I would have utilized the same ability in the casino and earned lots of money rather than under-utilizing it just for knowing that whether a van which is switching to a wrong side of the road.
2.) I never mentioned that I knew it from before. It was only after the splashing took place that when I asked the security guard about the van and he gave me the details. Next day, when I saw the same van, then I realized that it did not even had any indications about the school and contact numbers etc.
3.) Is it humanly possible for anyone to know about what is written in a van which is speeding in just matter of seconds to move in advance of just one or two seconds because the van has switched to the wrong side of the road and it would splash me? I do not think that it is humanly possible to run away at a distance of 2-3 meters in just a second for any human being. Had it been so then I would have been in the Guinness Book of World Records.

"I completely understand that the situation is not completely avoidable.
However It is not true to say that there is no choice available. Knowing the situation you should have been able to comprehend it and run away or avoid the swamp as you would get splashed or even killed if the van ran over you. There is a law implied in your country however, you can't expect everyone to follow the law all the time. In the future, you do have a choice."

1.) So, you have agreed yourself that the situation was not completely avoidable.
2.) As I already stated, I never mentioned that I knew it from before. It was only after the splashing took place that when I asked the security guard about the van and he gave me the details. Next day, when I saw the same van, then I realized that it did not even had any indications about the school and contact numbers etc.
3.) Is it humanly possible for anyone to know about what is written in a van which is speeding in just matter of seconds to move in advance of just one or two seconds because the van has switched to the wrong side of the road and it would splash me? I do not think that it is humanly possible to run away at a distance of 2-3 meters in just a second for any human being. Had it been so then I would have been in the Guinness Book of World Records.
4.) I have paid the road tax just like the driver of the van has paid. Therefore, I have the right to use the road safely when I fulfilled the duty of not walking in the middle of the road where his van was being driven and it was his duty to not to splash by coming next to the footpath where I was walking, if he is given the right to use the middle of the road. Else, if I cannot expect safety, then:
a.) I should not be paying taxes.
b.) I should also be given the right to come in middle of the road while he should avoid me by taking the side of the road.

THEREFORE, IT IS UNFOUNDED TO SAY THAT WE CANNOT EXPECT EVERYONE TO FOLLOW LAWS AS TOMORROW THEY MIGHT EVEN GO FEW STEPS AHEAD AND RAM THE VAN INSIDE MY BEDROOM AND THEN KILL ME. IN THAT CASE, YOU CANNOT EXPECT ME TO LIVE UNDERGROUND OR IN THE AIR, CAN YOU? LOL!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!!

If he does not follow the law and only I have to do and I have burdened with all the duties while he has all the rights of the world, tomorrow he might even ram the van inside my bedroom of the house. Then are you going to say that I should not have resided at that locality also? If there is inequality of distribution of rights and duties

"You can either take a safer path back home on another route which is not next the road/swamp or continue walking near the swamp ignoring the advice not to "walk near the swamp" and potentially getting splashed again."

1.) If a safer path is located 10 miles away, do you expect me that just to avoid getting splashed I should waste one hour or even fuel and money when the same can be saved by instructing the driver to drive carefully?
2.) If a comet is likely to strike the earth, is it a feasible solution to deflect the comet's path or destroy the comet itself or is it feasible to change your planet which you live in, i.e. earth?

"If you are intelligent you should not have walked near the swamp/ tried to avoid it when you knew there was something wrong with the driver."

1.) If you are rational, then you would have made a complaint to the authorities and the traffic police, like I did, and instruct the driver to drive carefully rather than just avoid walking near the swamp because it only encourages him to be more rash and tomorrow he might even ram the van inside your bedroom and then it is totally unavoidable as you cannot live in the air or underground, and suffer suffocation and compromise on your personal benefits of a garden and swimming pool in your house just because the driver is rash.
2.) What you are suggesting is a Cinderella surgery, i.e. to fit in the shoes, instead of making the shoe longer or finding a shoe which is long enough, you chop off your toes. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D.
Marcus.Aurelius

Con

Marcus.Aurelius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Con has forfeited the round, which means that he/she has ran out of words for debating. Had there been any reasons by which con could have countered me then he/shhe would have not forfeited the round else there is no definite reason as to why con should forfeit this round.

Therefore, I request the Judges to vote for pro i.e. me as con has ran out of words after reading my counter-reasons and has forfeited the round.
Marcus.Aurelius

Con

Marcus.Aurelius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Con has forfeited the round AGAIN, which MAKES IT MORE OBVIOUS that he/she has ran out of words for debating. Had there been any reasons by which con could have countered me then he/she would have not forfeited the round AND THAT TOO, SECOND TIME, else there is no definite reason as to why con should forfeit this SECOND round ALSO.

Therefore, I request the Judges to vote for pro i.e. me as con has ran out of words after reading my counter-reasons and has forfeited the round. It proves more that required that I have won this debate.
Marcus.Aurelius

Con

Marcus.Aurelius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Ultimate-debater

Pro

Con has forfeited the round AGAIN. His/her constantly forfeiting the rounds has made it quite clear that I have won the debate without any doubt.

Therefore, I request the Judges to vote for pro i.e. me as con has ran out of words after reading my counter-reasons and has forfeited the round. It proves more that required that I have won this debate.
Marcus.Aurelius

Con

Marcus.Aurelius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@fazz . "Trust me cos I am one to"??????? Is it "to" or "too"???

Moreover, there was one more sentence in another debate about jokes on racism that you used wrong grammar. You had typed, "This is not a argument". It is "an argument" and not "a argument" and you lost that debate too.

Can you provide me screenshots of MS words showing wavy lines below the words or phrases which prove that my English was wrong? before teaching me English, go and correct your knowledge of computers.

Moreover, it is proved beyond doubt that you have yourself made many grammatical errors while using English. Therefore, a pot cannot call a kettle black as a kettle only reflects the pot. Infact, your accusation of my English just reminds me of the idiom where a cat scratches the pillar in frustration when she cannot catch any mice, but does no harm to the pillar but damages her own nails. It is the Urdu idiom of, "khisyani bili khamba nochay" that suits you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D.

Muslims like you are moral but stupid. You are irrational and you have no right to teach us that what atheists like us should do. If there are no casinos in India then there are definitely stock markets where I could have used my psychic ability to earn lots of money.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
Plus, there are no casinos in India, etc. I could go on.
Posted by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
@trustme

Nope. This guy is not Shailesh ("shailesh09021984"). Shailesh was Indian. Trust me cos I am one to. Shailesh spoke broken english. This guy is debating the same style just fluently. This is some guy pretending to be a troll. He also uses the HAHA ROFL line not in the same way, and Shailesh used it less. Conclusion: This guy is in America. Not India.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@Domr . "As you have mentioned Ultimate, you do have an adversary in this debate, so I will not bother you with questions."

When did I mention that? Are you high? You must have consumed cocaine that you are airily assuming that I mentioned that.

"A piece of advice while debating, I would refrain from "haha" or "rofl" or "lol"

As it is unprofessional, baseless, and can severely hurt your credibility as you come across as someone who does not take this seriously."

It seems that you copied my words like, 'baseless'. I have already patented the word and using them again will not make you smarter than me, on the contrary would prove that you are again behaving like a frustrated cat who scratches the pillar but does harm to her on nails itself. If you speak irrationally then obviously I would burst into laughter and speaking irrationally is unprofessional which is to be replied unprofessionally. Moreover, if you do not understand that rationality in the laughter, then it is not my fault as you are stupid enough to not to understand. HAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D.

"Good luck."

Like a eunuch you are also running away. Do not add any more baseless comments else I will block your profile.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@TrustmeImlying . As regards the last quote of private parts of a person, that quote does not prove that protests can be fake or false. It can be true also based on evidence. HAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D.
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@TrustmeImlying . "I only pointed this information out to show your hypocrisy and inability to let relatively minor incidents go. (Such as being splashed with water or failing to figure out how a pen camera works)"

Before blaming me, I want to ask that have you tested the pen yourself or did you check that how did I use the pen? If no, then how can you assume airily that I could not figure out as to how to use the pen. I would still say that I am what I say about myself. You are bringing the gutter to me even if I am staying far away from the gutter. HAHAHAHAHA!! ROFL-LOL!!!! :D :D :D.

Just because that you cannot understand the debate as you are foolish, does not mean that my points are not correct. I am not providing any baseless information which do not support as evidence.

A debate is not a musical program of a crazy citizen's democracy nation where maximum number of claps and cheers would make anyone win his/her case. That is why I selected Judges, not any member of the stupid public who go for democratic voting and make a mockery of democracy.

Never mind if you do not debate as I have nothing to loose because of that as I have already got people to debate. I can debate and still vote with my fake accounts and then vote if that be the case.

I would not do all those irrational acts as there is no reason that why I should create a proper name as it is already there. There is no reason for me also to put me on proper side as I am already there and being on proper side if according to you is taking a different path located 10 miles away, then you must be irrational who chops of his legs to fit in a shoe. If people who decide this debate are common public and are neutral, then it is as good as saying that earth is sky and sky is earth. HAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D. I do not want to cause loss to my debate by allowing people like you to debate, and I never invited people like you to debate either. So, take your baseless answering machine somewhere
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
As you have mentioned Ultimate, you do have an adversary in this debate, so I will not bother you with questions.

A piece of advice while debating, I would refrain from "haha" or "rofl" or "lol"

As it is unprofessional, baseless, and can severely hurt your credibility as you come across as someone who does not take this seriously.

Good luck.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
I only pointed this information out to show your hypocrisy and inability to let relatively minor incidents go. (Such as being splashed with water or failing to figure out how a pen camera works)

I'd have gladly debated you if you had correctly structured the debate and not left ANOTHER loophole for you to snatch a cheap victory.

I'd have debated you if this debate wasn't "judge" style voting. (I'm sure you figured out by now your fake accounts cannot vote without themselves debating first.)

Create a debate with a proper name, put yourself on the proper side, describe what point exactly you wish to debate, and open the voting to neutral judges or completely open and I'll debate this topic as many times as you please.

As for your fascination with everyone's genitals, Mr. Prasad - as the great Shakespeare once said:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@TrustmeImlying . By the way, are you one of the sellers of the pen? If that be the case then it could also be that the pen was a junk and nobody could use it. It was later even admitted by the sellers that the pen was a junk!
Posted by The-Ultimate-debater 2 years ago
The-Ultimate-debater
@TrustmeImlying . How did you know about the spy pen and other details, especially Gulbarga University?

By the way, I stopped using the pen after this racket got busted in New Delhi i.e. ---> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

And I think that you got it wrong. Nowhere it is mentioned that I failed in IIPM. I have already graduated and can show you the degree also.

Following the rules of the state and passing a private exam whether by cheating or through fair means is different as rules are set by the government and rules of the exam are set by an institute. They are not comparable.

BTW, HOW DID YOU GET TO KNOW ABOUT THESE DETAILS OF SPY PEN, GULBARGA UNIVERSITY ETC.?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
The-Ultimate-debaterMarcus.AureliusTied
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: This is a dopey topic, especially for a five round debate. The challenge is not very clear. I think Pro means "puddle" when he says "swamp." In any case, Pro couldn't reasonably avoid something he didn't know in advance, and Con give up trying to argue the point. The title of the debate hints that Pro might have known in advance, but it's not explicit and Con didn't claim he was misled. Con loses conduct for forfeiting.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The-Ultimate-debaterMarcus.AureliusTied
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