The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

It is My Opinion That Obama is Stupid

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 55750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Resolved: It is my opinion that Barack Obama is stupid.

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and Closing


I only accept.
Debate Round No. 1


My resolution is that it is my opinion that Barack Obama is stupid.

Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof [1]

We see that if I believe with confidence that Obama is stupid, then it is indeed my opinion that Obama is stupid, and my resolution is true. In order for my resolution to be false, Con must be able to show that it is not indeed my opinion that Obama is stupid.

To fulfill my burden my burden of proof, I will quote myself: "I think he is stupid because he does and says stupid things. To quote the great Mr. Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." If anyone ever wants to know my opinion on the stupidity of Barack Obama, they can reference this opinion post and be enlightened. Good day to all." [2]

Apparently, it is my opinion that Obama is stupid, and my resolution is true. Good luck, Con.



Although I could play even more semantics and win this even easier, I shall leave the definition of opinion that Pro has given untouched.

I will now explain something about grammar and how you define 'it' 'my', 'is' and 'stupid'.

Pro claims that it is 'my' opinion that Obama is stupid.

Let's firstly define 'my':
Belonging to or associated with the speaker

I am sure that Pro would agree to this definition. The issue is that by admitting that both Pro can 'own' this opinion and that it can 'belong' to Pro, it indicates that Pro is sharing this opinion with many others. thus it indicates that the resolution would have been better suited to have used the term 'our' rather than 'my' and every single other person who has the opinion that Pro has would agree with me that this is opinion should neither be considered as belonging to pro nor associated with Pro. it is a free opinion, independent of Pro's reign of terror and enslavement of it. This opinion has every right to belong to anyone it wishes as any time.

Now let's define 'it':
(1) Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified
(2) Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex
(3) Referring to a fact or situation previously mentioned, known, or happening

When we observe the word 'it' in the resolution, there is nothing aforementioned that could indicate what the 'it' cold be replacing in its pronoun form. This is the first error with the resolution. As Pro has the P to both uphold the resolution and defend its meaning, I can win if I merely attack the resolution itself.

Aside from this grammatical and semantic flaw in Pro's argument comes the definition of both 'is' and 'stupid'.

Let me first define 'stupid' before I define 'is' as 'is' is the killer punch in my case against the resolution.

(1) Lacking intelligence or common sense
(2) Dazed and unable to think clearly

This, at first, seems a plausible definition to fit the resolution until we look at the stupidity of the one holding the opinion. This is not ad hominem, this is simply questioning the one claiming to 'own' an opinion all to himself as to explain why he, being stupid enough to have made the aforementioned grammatical errors writing the resolution, would consider himself intelligent enough to judge stupidity in the first place. In fact no scale of judging stupidity whatsoever is supplied. Instead Pro actually refutes the very premise that it is his ('my') opinion admitting that he holds it simultaneously in correspondence with that of Mr. Grump.

And finally, the punchline to my case... The definition of 'is':
third person singular present of be.

(1) (usually there is/are) Exist
(2) Be present
(3) Occur; take place

Clearly, if Obama 'is' stupid this would only be a valid opinion to have at the time of his stupidity. Thus, to think that Pro could possibly have the opinion Obama is stupid and be able to type this resolution out in time for Obama's present stupidity to be of concern to him is absurd. by the time Pro has even formulated the very thought of typing the first letter of the resolution, the term 'is' is already redundant and the term was must replace it.

It is, thus, not only a failure on Pro's part that their BoP in this debate wasn't met but a failure on time itself. The present tense cannot ever be 'had' an opinion about because the instant that one says the 'have' an opinion it has been 'had' about the past.

Thus, I conclude that I have just semantically ninja-leaped myself out of this failed attempt at an axiomatic resolution.

Good luck meeting your BoP Pro (it's my opinion that you will be stupid).
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Con, for such an impressive and spirited reply, even though you called me stupid.

While my opponent's attempts to "ninja-leap" were admirable, they fail on all points.

1. My: Belonging to or associated with the speaker

The definition is correct, and my use of the word is correct. Sharing ownership of something with someone else does not negate its "belonging" to me. If I say, "I love my kids", I am not implying that the kids do not belong to their mother. No rational person with a grasp on the English language would infer that. My boss is my boss, whether or not he is also anyone else's boss. My neighborhood is my neighborhood, no matter who else lives there. To expect someone to use the pronoun "our" every time association with something is shared is unrealistic.

Also, my opponent has not supplied proof that an intangible idea can indeed be shared, instead of being individually distributed in each mind that forms it.

2. It: Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified

It's apparent that Con's argument ignores both the "easily identified" part of the definition, and English grammar. It is clear that the word "it" is a pronoun, and can be used as the subject of a sentence.[1] It's obvious that, in my resolution, "it" is used correctly, and is identified by the object. It's strange that my opponent wouldn't realize this, but it's OK. It could be that Con is not so good with grammar. It's hard to tell.

3. Stupid

As I have already shown that my opponent's previous arguments are invalid, it follows that his conclusions based on said arguments are also invalid. However, even if my opponent's assertions were somehow correct, and I am too stupid to judge stupidity, that is not the issue being debated here. We are not debating the validity of my opinion, only the validity of my claim that I have the opinion.

4. Is

Once again, we are not debating the validity of my opinion. Whether my opinion is correct or incorrect does not change the fact that I hold the opinion, so there is no reason for me bother tearing this argument apart. I have supplied the BoP to excess by not only stating my opinion, but publicly voting for it.

I have consistently upheld my resolution. Thank you, Con, for a mentally stimulating debate.




1. If your opinion that Obama is stupid is not shared with Mr. Grumpy then ti is also not shared with the past you because of the use of the word 'is' referring to the present only and thus both of Pro's round one sources are negated.

2. Pronouns are specifically signed to replace past-used nouns for ease of writing and reading. They are not there to be subjects on their own. The 'it' in the resolution is not 'filling in' for a past used noun and thus is grammatically impossible, as in it shouldn't even exist let alone be flawed.

3. One cannot have an opinion that someone is stupid if the person has zero ways of determining the stupidity of that individual. Pro has failed to provide a single way to determine Obama's stupidity and ,whether valid or invalid, such a method of determining the stupidity of Obama can now be successfully rendered nonexistent by Con due to Pro's failure to meet his BoP.

4. You have used is twice in your resolution. By the time you type the second 'is', the first became a 'was' in relation to it. It is a self-refuting resolution by that factor alone. In addition, it is now impossible for anyone to determine whether or not you have the opinion that Obama is stupid as even you will not know before it's too late. I proved this in round 2 and instead of rebutting what I said Pro has simply negated its validity on no grounds whatsoever.

Pro has consistently failed to uphold his resolution. Thank you, Pro, for a mentally under-stimulating debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
I am so pissed off over the inconsistencies in the votes so far, I am thinking of debating the voters.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
Instead of complaining about the voters, learn to use their idiocy to your advantage. ;)
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
Oh my god. Neutral, you are not allowed to vote on the basis of an argument YOU came up with, that my opponent DID NOT USE. You are supposed to be voting according to what transpired within the debate itself. Please refrain from voting on debates if you do not understand basic voting principles.

To answer YOUR argument, my definition of opinion only required two things: a belief or conclusion firmly held and no substantiating positive knowledge or proof. The definition did NOT require any foundational information. I sourced the DDO opinion post as proof of my "belief firmly held", and my opponent did not challenge this. I presented no positive knowledge or proof of Obama's stupidity, which covered the other requirement of the definition. You can not invent and impose a requirement on me simply because my definition didn't mention it, or else you could impose an infinite number of unmentioned requirements. YOUR argument is invalid, and so is your vote. The integrity of DDO is compromised by voters like you.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
He gv eyu the S&g vote becasu eof ur name..........
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
Fuzzy, the tense of "is" can remain present indefinitely because my opinion can remain the same indefinitely. No evidence was provided to show that my opinion had changed, therefore no evidence was provided to show that "is" needed to change to "was". If I say, "My name is doomswatter", the verb can remain in the present tense until my name changes. "My name is doomswatter" can be true at the same time that "My name was doomswatter" is true. The same applies to my resolution.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
That was interesting.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
Actually, I'm quite impressed with the thought that went into baus' arguments.
Posted by mlibb 2 years ago

You weren't expecting a real debate on this one were you. That was cute.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Unfortunately, Pro's definition does not say an opinion should be based on nothing, just that the proof does not have to be positive knowledge or proof. There is nevertheless a requirement to demonstrate something that lead to the opinion, and in that he has failed entirely to do. The gist of his case is that anything you say is an opinion, when in fact it is merely a statement. My statement is that I believe Obama is stupid, would work. The 'opinion' however, requires some kind of explanation or inference from which the opinion/conclusion is derived. The rest is semantics, but Pro's own definition shot him in the foot.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con insulted Pro, Conduct to Pro. "baus" isn't a word, while "doomswatter" is two words, S&G to Pro. Con proved that "Is" is a present-tense verb while the only source Con had referenced Con in the past, arguments to Con. All other arguments are a semantic wash with no clear winner. Overall, terrible debate. baus, please stop accepting these kinds of debates. doomswatter, don't ever make this kind of debate again.