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

Interp. the elusive statement

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 904 times Debate No: 22853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




"u guys obvi dont watch mvoies... atlantis is real all day"

From here:

Basically two interps. Debate over whose is idea why I just made this....but, okay :P

I'll let the honorable Nur-ab-Sal provide his interp. first :D


I thank THEBOMB for his fantastic debate challenge.

My interpretation of this elusive statement is that milkman1218 believes the following:

1. Atlantis is represented cinematically as "real all day"
2. We are unaware of this cinematic representation
3. Therefore, we obvi dont watch mvoies

I will now turn it over to THEBOMB for his interpretation of the statement. Hopefully he will have a better literary analysis of the statement.
Debate Round No. 1


:D no problem. Should be extraordinarily interesting :D

"u guys obvi dont watch mvoies... atlantis is real all day" You see the milkman (speaking of which I need milk...) believes a key thing:

1. "u [you] guys [people]" don't watch movies

2. There are movies which depict Atlantis

3. Conclusion: "Atlantis is real all day" in movies

Now this conclusion makes much more sense. You see, I shall back up my reasoning.

1. Of course we don't watch movies, who here on DDO does? I mean DDO with pants > DDO without pants ( DDO with pants or without pants > opera. DDO > opera. Movie > opera (I mean movie? or listening to people sing at the top of their lungs for 4 hours). DDO > (or equal) movie > opera. But, DDO without pants > movie without pants (Likely to get one wants that). Therefore, DDO > movie.


There are at least 10 movies depicting Atlantis.

3. Therefore, since movies exist all day, Atlantis exists all day.


I thank THEBOMB for his continuation of our most intellectual of all debates.

However, his interpretation is false. He provides us a syllogism, but his conclusion is a non sequitur from his premises. In his syllogism, he never provides evidence that Atlantis is "real all day," but instead introduces this cinematic characteristic in his conclusion. The correct syllogism, if my opponent were correct, would be:

1. You people don't watch movies
2. There are movies which depict Atlantis
3. Therefore, you people don't watch depictions of Atlantis

Not only has my opponent already used a logical fallacy, but even if he didn't, his interpretation would still be way off. He then goes on to attempt and defend this logical abomination...

Rebuttal 1: DDO>Movies

I'm gonna have to raise the bulls**t flag on this one. It goes something like this:

1. DDO with pants > DDO without pants
2. DDO > opera
3. movie > opera
4. DDO ≥ movie
5. DDO without pants > movie
6. Therefore, DDO with pants > movie

My opponent's argument here is perfectly logical. THE THING IS, we can't trust logic. Why? Because we are interpreting a statement made by a guy who is Republican but supports Obama:

milkman1218 contradiction
how is that possibly logical?! As you can see, we simply cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman. My opponent's argument thusly fails. DDO's relation to movies has been rendered indeterminate.

Rebuttal 2: 10 movies depicting Atlantis or something like that

I concede. There are at least 10 movies depicting Atlantis.

Rebuttal 3: Conclusion

My opponent has provided no evidence that movies exist all day.

day: an Adamawa language of southern Chad[1]

If my opponent can provide evidence that movies only exist within the context of the Moyen-Chari region of Southwestern Chad, his interpretation would be correct. However, this is obviously not so. My opponent has thus failed.


I have shown that my opponent's interpretation is incorrect because he attempts to use "logic" which obvi cant be used when dealing with a guy who's Republican and also voting for Obama. He also tries to convince us that movies only exist in southwestern Chad, which is incorrect again. Thus, my opponent is completely and totally wrong.

My interpretation is obviously superior simply because my opponent's is so weak.


Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has failed to realize several key things. (Thank you for this wonderful debate though)

First, as my opponent says "we simply cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman" but, then my opponent's syllogism is logical. The conclusion clearly flows from the premises. My syllogism is completely illogical, as my opponent stated, it is a non sequitur. Therefore, you can vote Pro simply because my interpretation is illogical while my opponent's interpretation is logical. In terms of this debate, my defense of something illogical is completely logical because we cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman who is illogical. (Get it?) :P

Pro wins as their syllogism is less logical. Even if Pro concedes their defense they still win because Con is logical when dealing with the illogical, and Pro is illogical when dealing with the illogical which is more logical. An illogical fallacy is better than a logical statement when it comes to milkman.

Now for the sake of this debate I shall proceed to defend my illogical syllogism.

Point 1.

My opponent concedes that my argument is logical then goes on to say that milkman is not logical so why should we trust logic. But, why is milkman illogical? I mean he could just hate all of the Republican candidates so much that he supports Obama.

Point 2.

Conceded :D

Point 3.

Movies exist in Chad ( Movies exist in Southern Chad. Therefore, movies exist in the language Day.


My opponents argument is illogical because it is logical. Since we cannot deal with logic when dealing with milkman. An illogical interpretation is better than a logical interpretation when dealing with he who is illogical.


Oh, dear. My opponent is using logic to show that my use of logic is illogical because we cannot trust logic when dealing with an illogical person.

I don't even know what to do anymore!!!

Rebuttal 1
Yeah but it's impossible to hate Ron Paul.[1]

Rebuttal 3
Ok, I condede. Movies exist in Chad. However, my opponent still has not shown that movies exist ONLY in Day. Because you can't say "movies are real all day" without limiting the realization to only within the context of Day. So yeah. Basically I'm right.


My opponent has attempted to use logic to show how illogical interpretations are better than logical interpretations because we can't use logic when dealing with milkman who is illogical. So he's wrong. Also movies don't exist only within Day. So I have proved my point

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
thank you :D
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
You are a formidable opponent, thebomb.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
Your going to be quite surprised :P :D
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Gah my picture didn't work...
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
I pity your response in the next round, my argument is bulletproof
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
I give Con the honor of the first rebuttal :P
Posted by NotYourFault 4 years ago
This is hilarious...
No votes have been placed for this debate.