The Instigator
shailesh09021984
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
toamatt26
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Isn't it enough to be careful frm my side not to stand in the middle of the busy roadbut on footpath

Do you like this debate?NoYes-13
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 12 votes the winner is...
toamatt26
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,711 times Debate No: 42769
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (108)
Votes (12)

 

shailesh09021984

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 PERSON SAYS THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE STOOD NEAR THE SWAMP.

My points against this person are:
1.) It is stupid to think that only one person should follow all the duties while the other is privileged by all the rights in the world. The authority and responsibility relationship says that both the driver and me should follow their duties at par and some part of duty driver should fulfill and some of it me because if only I fulfill my duties but other does not then this leads to chaos and oppressive and careless behavior of the other because today he has splashed swamp, tomorrow he might even kill someone with his rash driving as he might become more rash if it is not checked. I am not intended to put my life in danger unlike that eunuch.
I have already fulfilled my duty by not standing in the middle of the road where the cars go by. Now this eunuch thinks that I should spend more energy and waste resources by not standing near the swamp also. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D.
2.) If we have paid taxes for the road to the government, then we have the right to stand and use the footpath. It is the government's responsibility to repair depressions in the road as we pay taxes for that. Not worrying about whether we had paid taxes or not and not using the facility for which we have paid taxes is a careless attitude towards money which this eunuch does not know.
3.) Actually, I was standing because I was watering my plants near my doorstep which I had the right to do so. This eunuch means to say that I should not have watered my plants? Who is going to water my plants then? This eunuch's father? I guess that this eunuch's father has volunteered to become my gardener but I need skilful people too.
4.) If I was simply walking on the footpath and there was depression on both sides of the road filled with swamp on both sides, does this eunuch expect me to fly over the footpath instead of walking? In that case I would have become a superman and would be ruling the world by now.
5.) According to this eunuch, she should make sure to never enter a building, keeping in mind the way builders use materials to build the building. Ofcourse, it was the commuters fault to use a fly-over which collapsed even though there was a legal right to travel. A small measure of not entering a building at all and living in a slum can take a lot of stress off this eunuch's mind. Perhaps she likes living in a slum and she posting comments from there as living in a slum is not a stress according to her. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D

SO KEEPING IN MIND OF MY POINTS ABOVE, DO YOU THINK I WAS WRONG IN STANDING NEAR THE SWAMP? IF YES, THEN GIVE ME CONCRETE REASONS AS TO WHY.

ALSO, IF U THINK THAT I WAS WRONG, PLS ANSWER TO ALL THOSE 5 POINTS AS TO WHY ALL THOSE 5 POINTS WHICH I MENTIONED IS WRONG.
toamatt26

Con

Before I answer my opponent's questions I will state why his "arguments" are wrong.

"NOW A STUPID PERSON SAYS THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE STOOD NEAR THE SWAMP."
A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before.

"It is stupid to think that only one person should follow all the duties while the other is privileged by all the rights in the world."
Based on your stories, apparently the driver has to follow driving rules while you are privileged by all the rights in the world, to be able to go on "the footpath near the swamp."

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D."

This sentence does not make sense. The word HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is not in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and neither is ROFL, LOL or :D. By putting a colon in front of the capital d, my opponent failed to put any information behind the colon which is a grammatical error. My opponent also starts, which I infer is laughing, while talking about rights and privileges. I believe my opponent has a form of laughing disorder, and should be scheduled to psychiatric evaluation.

" It is the government's responsibility to repair depressions in the road as we pay taxes for that."
The government also should not have put it next to a swamp.

"Actually, I was standing because I was watering my plants near my doorstep which I had the right to do so"
My opponent seems to be confused on what actually happened, because he changes his story throughout the first "argument"

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D"
My opponent plagiarized from another source [1] and therefore should go to jail for plagiarizing. He has failed to state where, in the first argument, he plagiarized letter by letter from the previous "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D" Once again, a grammatical error.

"DO YOU THINK I WAS WRONG IN STANDING NEAR THE SWAMP?"
Yes. Here are my reasons.
1) You shouldn't stand near a swamp
2) You should not go near a moving bus
3) You shouldn't have used the footpath that was near a swamp
4) You shouldn't have paid your taxes that makes roads near swamps
5) You endangered children's lives by standing near the bus.
6) You should never have used the sentence HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D
7) You should have never created this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
shailesh09021984

Pro

"NOW A STUPID PERSON SAYS..."
"A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before."

1.Firstly, I have already patented a word "stupid" so there is no use using the word again.
2.Secondly, if that is wise then the definition of wise is irrational and stupid is rational.
3.Thirdly, it is ridiculous that you need to look at someone"s face to judge him of his IQ level.
a.If that was so then the IQ tests which happen online would have asked for photographs.
b.No wonder why people in the west and democratic people are so prejudiced as they never decide on rationality but on their personal mindsets and whether the person is Indian, black or white, which leads to wastage of talents and their own loss.

"It is stupid to think that only one person should follow all the duties while the other is privileged by all the rights in the world."
Based on your stories, apparently the driver has to follow driving rules while you are privileged by all the rights in the world, to be able to go on "the footpath near the swamp."
1.Did I say that I have the right to stand in the middle of the road where the driver has the right to drive his school-van? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D
2.If I am standing on the footpath then it is my duty as well as a right by not standing on the middle of the road where vehicles frequently go by.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D."

"This sentence does not make sense. The word HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is not in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and neither is ROFL, LOL or :D. By putting a colon in front of the capital d, "."

1.My opponent is careless, rash and stupid. She is a eunuch who is afraid of extensive research. The word, "haha" is in the dictionary if she spends some effort and goes to the site http://dictionary.reference.com... & so is "ROFL" at http://dictionary.reference.com... and LOL at http://dictionary.reference.com... but she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest and gets afraid of searching the net. Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook. Debating is not her cup of tea.
2.The opponent boasted about her knowledge about grammar by teaching me the rules of English grammar but forgot that in chatting we have different rules.
3.I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D.
4.Now, it is not my fault if she is not able to reason out why I am laughing. I have already won the medal of smartest person to debate so according to this eunuch or transgender, a person can be crazy but at the same time, paradoxically smart also to win such medal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D.

" It is the government's responsibility..."
"The government also should..."

Put what? Swamps are created only when there are depressions FYI.

"My opponent seems to be confused on what actually happened, because he changes his story throughout the first "argument""

1.You mean to say that first I claimed that I was sitting near the swamp now I am claiming that I am standing near the swamp?
2.Instead of me going for an evaluation, you should go to a De-addiction Center for getting rid of the habitual consumption of alcohol and drugs, because of which you are hallucinating that I am narrating something else which I did not in reality, else you will not land up in jail, or in hospital, but straightaway in the morgue were your corpse will be kept.
3.I just claimed that I was standing in first debate, then in another I also mentioned that why I was standing. Story was "extended" not "changed" for your information. If you do not ask me then I would not tell you unless absolutely necessary.

"HAHAHAHA" "

"My opponent plagiarized from another source [1] and therefore. ""

For the first time, a person will be penalized FOR COPYING HIS OWN WORDS! LOL! HAHA! I put my hand in my "own" pocket and that is "stealing". LOL! You should goto a mental hospital if I have to goto jail for that. ROFL!
Get your alcohol and consumption of drugs treated and goto a De-addiction enter else they will take you forcibly with your hands and legs tied up and dragging you to the ambulance by kicking you from all sides infront of your entire neighborhood and airing in live on television, and then finally in hospital wiring your head from all sides to give you electric shocks after chaining you to a bed and confining you there for the rest of your life. If you still do not co-operate, then you will not land up in jail, or in the hospital, but straightway in the morgue where your corpse will be kept.

"Yes. Here are my reasons.
1) You shouldn't stand near a swamp"
a.)Why? Is it your father"s property that you can cause loss to it by not letting me stand there?
b.)I have paid taxes so I have the right to stand there.
c.)You did not mention further reasons as to why I should not have stood there.
d.)If I am not standing there then who will water my plants? Your father?
" 2) You should not go near a moving bus"
a.) It is as good as saying, that my plants walked near the moving bus (van to be more precise) as if the plants can "walk" as they were dirtied too by the swamp. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D.
b.) The van came near me, I did not go near the van, FYI! I did not walk to the middle of the road.
"3) You shouldn't have used the footpath that was near a swamp"
a.) As if there was another alternative footpath built in the air. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D.
"4) You shouldn't have paid your taxes that makes roads near swamps"
a.) There is no law currently that excuses you to do so.
b.) Right now, the topic of the debate is that was the person wrong or not in splashing swamp.
c.) I said that both the government and the driver are responsible. If X is driving a bus and comes across a shaky and brittle bridge, which he is warned by the passerby, to which the passengers and owner of the bus give consent to not to drive through but take an alternative, he will be held for death due to negligence if he continues to drive through the bridge, though it was the government"s duty to repair the bridge as he was very well warned too and he also had the right not to drive through but take a detour with the consent of passengers and the owner of the bus.
"5) You endangered children's lives by standing near the bus."
a.) It is also as good as saying that Titanic did not struck the iceberg, the iceberg struck the Titanic, as if iceberg should not have "stood" in the path of Titanic and iceberg will be taken to the court for that. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D
b.) I did not stand near the van (not bus), the van came speeding near me. FYI!
c.) According to you, I should have vanished in thin air as soon as the van came near me and then come back again to that place as soon as it went away. You must be irrationally believing in lot of superstitious magic.
"6) You should never have used the sentence HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL-LOL!!! :D :D :D :D :D"
a.) Because you are stupid enough to understand its true meaning.
7) You should have never created this debate.
a.) This is not your father's site that you can tell me what to do and cause loss to it.

"Thank you".
F___ you!
toamatt26

Con

"Firstly, I have already patented a word "stupid" so there is no use using the word again."
I was using quotes from your own "argument" you did not patent it. If that were true then I patented "A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before." and you are plagiarizing me. Horrible logic.

" the definition of wise is irrational"
Wise - having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things [1] You provided no evidence to show that the definition of wise is irrational.

"My opponent is careless, rash and stupid."
Conduct point. And you did not provide any proof.

"The word, "haha" is in the dictionary"
According to the link provided by my opponent, [2] , the word "haha" does not exist. It is in the form of ha-ha, and therefore
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" does not exist. My opponent is making up words. With that said, he states that I am "careless, rash and stupid." "She is a eunuch who is afraid of extensive research. The word, "haha" is in the dictionary if she spends some effort and goes to the site http://dictionary.reference.com...... " For one thing, my opponent states that I am a she, and therefore, using his own words against him, I say that my opponent is "afraid of extensive research" including pressing on my name, stating toaMATT26, and seeing that Gender : Male. Another addition to prove "haha" does not exist, by pressing [check your spelling] at the bottom of the argument text, it also showed that haha is not a word. By saying that I did not do extensive research, I just proved that "haha" in fact does not exist. I am sorry for my opponent's ignorance and hope he puts a serious argument next round in this useless debate.

"Debating is not her cup of tea."

That may be true, but my opponent provides no evidence. The picture below [3] shows my debate statistics on debate.org. I do not feel the need to brag, but yes indeed, out of 25 debates I have won 22, and three recently finished and are in the voting period. By saying that once again, I am a female, and that I am not good at debating, you are inferring that every 98.85% and below are even worse.
Now, to your debate statistics. You have created three debates, all of which are about this same topic. Although you have won one of your debates, you are still in the 84.22 percentile, [4] and therefore are much lower ranked than me. With that said, the proof shows that "Debating is not [his] cup of tea."

"she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest "
My opponent shows no evidence that shows I am a female and that I grow breasts on my chest. My opponent's rudeness will cost him a conduct point.

"Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook"
My opponent provides no evidence that I ever left my home, and that I do not play with dolls. Every of my opponent's statements are either rude, false, or just don't make sense.

"I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D."

The entire thing does not have any relevance to this debate. My opponent has turned this debate from a question, asking if it was right to stand near a swamp, into an argument and offending with false accusations that I am female. This debate has no point and is useless. I await my opponent's response that will have some relevance to this "debate."

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
shailesh09021984

Pro

<<"Firstly, I have already patented a word "stupid" so there is no use using the word again."

I was using quotes from your own "argument" you did not patent it. If that were true then I patented "A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before." and you are plagiarizing me. Horrible logic.>>

By patenting I mean that I have used it before you did. You said the whole sentence but the words used in it where patented first by me. Plagiarizing you? Are you even worth being plagiarized? HAHAHA! ROFL-LOL! :D :D. You do not even have anything worth being plagiarized. Yes, you are horrible and so are your reasons.

<<" the definition of wise is irrational"
Wise - having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things [1] You provided no evidence to show that the definition of wise is irrational.>>

I said that, "if that is wise then the definition of wise is irrational and stupid is rational.". I used the word, "IF". Do you know what the word IF means as you boast too much about English? I showed the word "if" as evidence but even if you cannot see the proof then you are blind and it is not my fault that you cannot identify the evidence.

<<"My opponent is careless, rash and stupid."
Conduct point. And you did not provide any proof.>>

Deserving conduct for you. And it is not my fault that you cannot see the evidence of your rashness.

<<"The word, "haha" is in the dictionary"
According to the link provided by my opponent, [2] , the word "haha" does not exist. It is in the form of ha-ha, and therefore "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" does not exist. My opponent is making up words. With that said, he states that I am "careless, rash and stupid." "She is a eunuch who is afraid of extensive research. The word, "haha" is in the dictionary if she spends some effort and goes to the site http://dictionary.reference.com......... " For one thing, my opponent states that I am a she, and therefore, using his own words against him, I say that my opponent is "afraid of extensive research" including pressing on my name, stating toaMATT26, and seeing that Gender : Male. Another addition to prove "haha" does not exist, by pressing [check your spelling] at the bottom of the argument text, it also showed that haha is not a word. By saying that I did not do extensive research, I just proved that "haha" in fact does not exist. I am sorry for my opponent's ignorance and hope he puts a serious argument next round in this useless debate.>>

The word does exist and it was explained as a noun and interjection by the definition, "used as an exclamation or representation of laughter, as in expressing amusement or derision". And she has forgot that many words after HAHA as HAHAHAHAHA is an interjection of continuous laughter and so does the word "rofl" and "lol". She does not know that just by selecting the "male" option in the registration or sign up page does not make her a male and I also regarded her as a eunuch and a transgender. The word "Haha" does not exist in MS Word but so does "infront", Kuala "Lampur " (the capital of Malaysia) etc. which are also words but not fed in MS Word software or either nouns, now every noun cannot be fed in the MS Word software and so these words are also nouns. I ignore baseless things like what you said so do not blame me.

<<"Debating is not her cup of tea."

That may be true, but my opponent provides no evidence. The picture below [3] shows my debate statistics on debate.org. I do not feel the need to brag, but yes indeed, out of 25 debates I have won 22, and three recently finished and are in the voting period. By saying that once again, I am a female, and that I am not good at debating, you are inferring that every 98.85% and below are even worse.
Now, to your debate statistics... ">>

You were playing with amateurs until now. That is why the statistics has pulled wool in your eyes. Statistics are not qualitative. I am new that is why my percentile is still not reached the marked. A mouse scaring an ant does not infer that she can fight with a lion.

<<"she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest "
My opponent shows no evidence that shows I am a female and that I grow breasts on my chest. My opponent's rudeness will cost him a conduct point.>>

If she is blind then I cannot help that she cannot see the evidence and neither it"s my fault. What about my opponent"s uncouth behavior where she baselessly told me that I was wrong in standing near the swamp which amounts to defamation? Is that not good enough for provocation? Conduct point should also be for defamation by throwing baseless allegations for which my opponent can be imprisoned rigorously.

<<"Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook"
My opponent provides no evidence that I ever left my home, and that I do not play with dolls. Every of my opponent's statements are either rude, false, or just don't make sense.>>

So, this opponent has herself proved that she is female and does not leave home at all. After all, if she was male then she would have pointed out the same again. As regards for the home, my sentence meant that she should not leave home if she is inside home and if outside then she should return home and stay there. However, she indirectly agreed that she stays at home and never leaves home, which proves that she is a eunuch or a girl as only girls stay at home and plays with dolls. That itself is evident by her statements as she protested that there is no evidence provided that she does not play with dolls instead of why she should play with dolls. No matter how many evidences you give, this eunuch who is my opponent does not understand the meaning and is unable to identify evidences because of her foolishness.

<<"I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D."

The entire thing does not have any relevance to...">>

YOUR POINTS ARE MORE USELESS AND WORTHLESS THAN MINE IN THAT CASE. I asked you why I can't stand near the swamp and you fave decision like judge rather than proving.
It can also be possible that this eunuch has understood this paragraph and is unable to respond because she has ran out of words and to save herself from humiliation she is feigning that she did not understand what I said. The topic of the debate was that whether I was wrong or not in standing near the swamp where the school van splashed me, and if I am opting for debating "for" the topic, then it means that I hold myself in the right position for standing near the swamp. She cannot understand the point of the debate due to her foolishness so it is not my fault. I give counter sites to prove that debates are not necessarily statements but questions too, infact debates are mostly questions but thanks to the ignorance of my opponent who does not even know the basics of the debate and just by winning against amateurs who are more stupid like her thinks that she is the best in debating which is nothing but her overconfidence.
1.http://www.debate.org...
2.http://www.debate.org...
3.http://www.debate.org...
toamatt26

Con

My opponent was off topic this whole debate, only stating hurtful things while inferring that I am female. Throughout this debate he has, through his own ignorance, stated inappropriate words, which I will list below.
"My opponent is careless, rash and stupid."
"She is a eunuch who is afraid"
"she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest and gets afraid"
"Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook."
"Debating is not her cup of tea."
"..."she is unable to catch mice"
"... this eunuch or transgender"
" you should go to a De-addiction Center for getting rid of the habitual consumption of alcohol and drugs"
"you will not land up in jail, or in hospital, but straightaway in the morgue were your corpse will be kept."
" According to this eunuch, she should make sure to never enter a building"
"Perhaps she likes living in a slum and she posting comments from there as living in a slum is not a stress according to her"

Although there is much more, I will end with that. My opponent himself admitted that his spelling/grammar was inferior in a rude way, which is a spelling/grammar point.
".I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D."

For cites? I clearly had more in quantity and in reliability when it comes to sources. My opponent used contradicted his statements with his own sources, so therefore it is not very reliable after all.

And finally, for convincing arguments. The resolution asks if my opponent was right to stand near the swamp, and I gave him answers.

No. You should have not stood near the swamp, because there are many more possible routes to where you are going. My opponent changed the story many times throughout his arguments, by saying he was watering your plants. If you were watering your plants in your own property, You would not need to be on the footpath in the first place. All of my opponent's arguments were rude and irattional, so therefore there is no doubt about it: Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
108 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
7 months later...

This debate is still as dumb as it was then. But I don't know why I still remember this.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
What?
Posted by fazz 3 years ago
fazz
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
@msheahan99: pretty obvious, tbh
Posted by toamatt26 3 years ago
toamatt26
First time you've seen it?
Posted by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
this is the dumbest thing I have ever seen
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
@Toamatt: It was also done for him to get sympathy.
Posted by toamatt26 3 years ago
toamatt26
Shailesh thought that by deactivating his account I would not take a win, and the whole debate would be canceled.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
First off 100th comment.

Also, I don't think Toamatt wins because he deactivated his account. He won cause Shailes was insulting in the debate.
Posted by toamatt26 3 years ago
toamatt26
"I am not even LOOKING at any further comments and I will win soon after I deactivate this account so that the opponent does not win. SO I WON!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!"

I still won..... But in amusement, well of course shailesh beat me there.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
debatinghoe123
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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: Pro should not have made this debate. Reasons? Comments and http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/37343#1360676
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was terrible. Worst debate in history of DDO. Agree with birdlandmemories.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to be trolling the entire time and made no solid efforts to rebuttaling cons arguments but did use relable sources as well as con so both stays at a tie. However, Con gets points for conduct, grammar, and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Awful, awful debate
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con relied heavily on Ad Hominem to win the debate, and very little on appeal to logic, which is what seems to be the grounds of this debate. Because Con didn't strongly attack Pro's contentions, there just ended up being two rounds of very little action. In short, while pro's arguments weren't necessarily good, Con's refutations (and I use that term very loosely) didn't do any hitting back.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an actual debate? Wow. Any faith I had in humanity has left me.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has used sources and had some arguments. However, Pro decided to start to use insults and derail the debate. Pro also had poor spelling and grammar. But pro's rebuttals to con were not addressed by con in R2, so arguments goes to pro.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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: Con took this seriously; Pro did not. Conduct Con. Con spelled correctly; Pro did not. S/G Con. Con provided a cogent line-by-line with ample analysis and substance; Pro did not. Args Con. Con cited evidence; Pro did not. Source Con. Thus, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate reminded me of Youtube's comment section how poor the conduct was. Both sides were hurling insults from left and right, up and down. Ranging from eunuchs, mental hospitals, she-males, and other futile gibes. But since Pro said "F*** you," conduct goes to Con, that was extremely disrespectful to say in a debate. Con receives the grammar point because Pro used words like "haha," "lol," :rofl," and ":D." Source goes to Con for using credible sources. Neither side gets the debate because this was too painful to sit here and read. Good luck to you both in future debates. Try to keep it clean next time please.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
shailesh09021984toamatt26Tied
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: Pro approached this debate in a funny manner by simply having a funny representation from what I understood. Them comes in Con with silly trolling and personal insults making this debate one of the most ridiculous ones I've read. Nevertheless, Pro provided better reasons than Con who trolled with Ad Hominems and personal insults providing some weak arguments. For instance, Con argues, "No. You should have not stood near the swamp, because there are many more possible routes to where you are going." Pro has the right to walk everywhere if not officially restrained from doing so. I'm not sure if Con was also trolling in his arguments, given that they seem incredibly weak. Arguments and Conduct go to Pro.