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

Is Stephen a Wanker?

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: 3/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 49467
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Stephen is a wanker because he doesnt have sweg


I disagree with the resolution and accept the debate.

I'd like my opponent to make his opening case.
Debate Round No. 1


well sir since u disagree u must also be a wanker


Readers of this topic: welcome to this troll debate. My opponent has made the ill-supported assertion that a man named Stephen is a wanker. His only argument was “because he does not have sweg” which I presume is a misspelled version of the word “swag”. How do we define the two terms?

a contemptible person (often used as a form of abuse)


deserving of contempt.

the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or deserving scorn

an ornamental festoon of flowers, fruit, and greenery.

2: money or goods taken by a thief or burglar.

Also informally it is a term describing someone that is wasting his life, is arrogant, has an overpriced sense of street fashion, irresponsible, spoiled and has little or no class. Those with swag are destined to work at McDonald's or a similar minimum-wage job. [since this isn't a dictionary defined noun, adjective,whatever I tried to find the most common definition online. Most people seemed to agree on this, surprisingly. The other four definitions are the google definitions of the words]

So, we have three possible versions of the resolution:

Stephen is worthless because he does not have an ornamental festoon of flowers.

Stephen is worthless because he does not have any goods that where stolen

Stephen is worthless because he isn't wasting his life (plus the rest of the definition)

The third resolution is just pure nonsense. Wasting of ones own life cannot be considered a good thing and those that do waster their lives are generally worthless so my opponent who didn't define any terms cannot be meaning this.

The second resolution is a bit more plausible. Stephen might be a worthless thief if he has no goods from that profession but we all generally agree that crimes and purchasing hot merchandise is a bit sad and Is frowned upon so in that understanding Stephen isn’t a wanker, he is just an honest man that doesn't steal things.

The first resolution however is the most plausible one, but hardly makes up a case. My opponent cannot expect me to truly believe that just because someone does not have a swag of flowers that he is worthless. Maybe Stephen doesn't have a garden. Maybe he is allergic to pollen. Perhaps there is no room at his house for an entire swag of flowers. Ones character isn't defined by his will to have many flowers at his/her possession, so the first round statement is refuted and isn't in my opponents favor.

I asked my opponent to next define why exactly Stephen is in fact a wanker and he responded with an Ad hominem, attacking me and stating that I am also a wanker. He did not give any valid reason for this other than that I accepted this debate which is a logical fallacy. There is no correlation between the side a debated takes and his personal preferences and character. My opponent is making a rather weak case that surely cannot hold up for long. To defend the resolution my opponent must give valid, detailed and sourced arguments. If he fails to do so the resolution falls and the debate itself is contemptible, a wanker in text form.


Debate Round No. 2


Rascaldog forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeits, meaning either he concedes or he simply doesn't have an answer to my incredible sense of logic, or didn't bother to come back to DDO and follow his insult trough. If it is the first one Stephen isn't a Wanker and is a wonderful person. Same conclusion if it is the second one and if he simply didn't bother to come back and follow trough Pro simply has no debating etiquette, and is a morbid excuse for a bully, no offense meant. In that case the resolution is also negated and Stephen walks off as a great man and certainly not a wanker for the BoP is on pro and he fails to meet it if he does not show up for the rest of the debate.

to have a filler in this round; listen to Moby Dick by Led Zeppelin from the album "How the west was won". this 20 minute song, of which 16 minutes are filled with the most epic of all drum solos, should suffice to entertain even the most persistent of our readers.

after that you can simply find the rest of the album on youtube and enjoy the most awesome of all music, 1970's rock. Enjoy.

and because Stephen is such a wonderful person, as everyone who is reading this, he may also enjoy this piece: The remastered edition of "Strange kind of woman" by Deep purple from the album "Made in Japan." A real classic in my opinion and quite the enjoyable listen for a great person like Stephen. Enjoy Stephen, whoever you are:

Debate Round No. 3


Rascaldog forfeited this round.


Once again my opponent has fainted in the presence of my incredible rock 'n roll!

Next up for Stephen to enjoy is this Eminem classic: "Superman"
Note, this is the explicit version.

Iron maiden "Blood brothers" has also been a favortie of mine for quite some time:
Debate Round No. 4


Rascaldog forfeited this round.



We see that Stephen cannot be a Wanker, my opponent has not done, said or demonstrated anything to prove that he is. I however have shown that he is not a wanker based on the only argument my opponent ever made. I also have introduced you to some magnificent music. In conclusion we clearly see who should win, and that there is a lot of music we can all enjoy.

to conclude the debate:

Still Dre:

Back to the progressive rock that we all love, "High Hopes" by Pink Floyd always gives me chills, as does the entire "The wall Album" from which we find the ever classic gem "Another brick in the wall, part 2"

and with the gentle soothing sounds of George Michael leading us into the week with "Careless Whispers" I'll thank our audience for this musically sound debate.

This has been "Music with Oculus" and I bid you a wonderful evening, good night.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF