The Instigator
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2008 Category: Arts
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,744 times Debate No: 3780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (19)

 

beem0r

Pro

====================
Definitions:
====================
D0: Words requiring no definition: it, is, not, necessary, things, them.

D1: To understand : to perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of. (1)

D2: To debate : to discuss or argue about. (2)

D3: Well : in a good or satisfying way. (3)

D4: Good : having the required qualities; of a high standard. (4)

D5: I am the bone of my sword.

(1) http://www.askoxford.com...
(2) http://www.askoxford.com...
(3) http://www.askoxford.com...
(4) http://www.askoxford.com...

====================
Burdens:
====================
B1: PRO must show that there is at least one scenario where a debater can not understand something and still debate it well. These scenarios will be referred to as 'cases' from here on out.

B2: Because the resolution is philosophical in nature, a realistic hypothetical situation can be used as a case for PRO.

B3: CON must show that any cases PRO brings up do not affirm the resolution per the guidelines stated in B1 and B2.

====================
Observations:
====================
O1: A debate that is won has the required qualities [since the point is to win]. The performance from the winner also meets a high standard, since one can do no better than win in a debate.

O2: Steel is my body and fire is my blood.

O3: A debate that is won is satisfying, since it has satisfied the voters or judges. The opponent's performance sets a certain expectation, and a better performance will satisfy this level of expectation (else the other guy would have won).

O4: To show that something is debated well, it is sufficient to show that the debate has been won.

O5: Winning a debate is not the only way to debate something well, as long as the argument is either satisfying or meets some other high standard.

====================
Hypothetical Cases:
====================
H1: It is possible to win a debate by attacking the semantics of the resolution, without a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the resolution. The resolution is still being debated, but it is not understood.

H2: A debater, who has no understanding of what he's arguing, wins due to a forfeiture by his opponent.

====================
Cases:
====================

C1: http://www.debate.org...
In this debate, some debater named Yraelz decided he could win as CON by arguing that the debate was a witch, therefore it should be voted against and burned.
He shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the significance, explanation, and cause of the debate being a witch.
However, this performance satisfied myself, Yraelz, and probably anyone else who read it. Thus, he debated this issue well, even though he had no understanding of it.

I will leave it at that for now, and save my other weapons for later.
Yraelz

Con

I thank my opponent for extending this amazing debate towards me, I will be refuting each of his main contentions.

===============
DEFINITIONS:
===============
I agree to all of the definitions except for the definition of debate. I feel it is better defined as simply an argument instead of a an argument and a discussion.

===============
BURDENS:
===============
I must disagree with my opponent burdens. He says he must simply show one case however the resolution is worded as a general rule. Thus the resolution does allow for flukes. I believe my opponent must prove this as a general rule in order for the burdens to be fair in this round.

I have created over a thousands blades.

==============
OBSERVATIONS:
==============
"Winning a debate is not the only way to debate something well, as long as the argument is either satisfying or meets some other high standard."

I agree with this statement of my opponents however I must also argue that winning a debate does not necessarily mean it was debated well. For instance one can forfeit every round and still win providing one's opponent does the same.

I contest that debating well in this situation would be the ability to hold one's ground against a debater who does understand.

=============
Hypothetical Cases:
=============
This is most likely true. I believe it is rather easy to win with semantic based arguments if one has no idea what the debate is intended to be about. However in order to attack the semantics you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution. Thus even in my opponents case some level of understanding is required.

Unaware of loss.
Nor aware of gain.

==============
Cases:
==============
It is true, I have one the debate in which my opponent speaks of. However I did not win this debate because I accused the debate and my opponent of being a witch. Those acts were done to humor the audience. I won in part on 3 voting issues:

1. I offer my opponent a constant viable alternative thereby rejecting the resolution.
2. I offer a voting issue geared around the idea that my opponents case rejects logic and this leads to horrible harms.
3. I offer the debate.org community a chance to set a precedence against illogical debate cases that should have no winner.

Furthermore my opponent in this debate tells you one part of the debate but neglects to mention the last round in which I blatantly state,

"I presented the entire witch argument as a practical joke. As I pointed out it was a semi-logical proof. It should be noted that I completely understood the witch argument in its semi-logical way and that it had no complete logical intention behind it."

Thus I obviously understood the witch argument.

Your move.
Debate Round No. 1
beem0r

Pro

I accept the revised definition of debate. Reflected below is the revision.

D2: To debate : to argue about.

My opponent disagrees with the burdens I provided in R1. He claims that it is not fulfilling the resolution for me to simply show one instance of something being debated well without the person debating it having an understanding of it.

It seems I must now define a term I thought rudimentary enough to not need one:

D6: necessary : required to be done, achieved, or present; needed. (5)

(5) http://www.askoxford.com...

I must only show that understanding something isn't a REQUIREMENT to debate it well. If it is possible to debate something well without understanding it, then understanding it isn't necessary for debating it well.

This burden is not unfair, since it is exactly what follows logically from reading the resolution and applying definitions where necessary.

My opponent claims he has created over a thousand blades. I call his bluff; one cannot create over a thousand blades without first being the bone of his or her sword, as well as having a steel as his or her body and fire as his or her blood. Since my opponent has none of these attributes, we may fully discount his argument that he has created over a thousand blades.

My opponent makes an argument about what constitutes debating something well, claiming that winning is not enough, one must hold one's ground against a debater who does understand.

For the sake of this debate, I will accept my opponent's criteria for what constitutes debating something well. We now both agree on this.

I assume that next, my opponent attempts to describe his >1k blades, claiming they are unaware of loss, nor aware of gain. This is much like me describing my plasma TV: meaningless, since I don't have one. I must state, though, that if I'd created over a thousand blades, I would have made them unknown to death, nor known to life.

Since my previous cases did not fit this new definition of debating something well, you may consider them dropped. Congrats to my opponent for taking down some of my points.

This means I have to go through the trouble of making more points, something I made clear that I would do in that last line of my R1.

====================
Hypothetical Cases:
====================
H3: Some resolutions are skewed in a way that one of the debaters has a significant advantage. It is very possible for this to lead to a debater who doesn't perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic to in fact hold his ground against an opponent who does.

H4: Debaters have varying levels of ability when it comes to logical reasoning. A debater who does not have an understanding of the topic could hold his or her ground against a debater who does by pointing out logical fallacies in his or her opponent's arguments, creating threads of logical reasoning that confound his or her opponent, or other means of debating the topic without staying focused on points that require a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic.

H5: A debater who understands the topic can be unmotivated, and may not always debate with everything they have. Thus, it is very possible for a debater with no understanding of the topic to hold his ground against his unmotivated foe. To give an extreme example, someone with an understanding of the topic might not even bother making any solid points. He or she may not even bother to utilize his or her understanding at all, and thus, a debater without understanding of the topic could hold his or her ground against this opponent.

H6: A debater with no understanding of a topic can be told exactly what to say by someone who does. Thus, against an opponent who has an understanding, this debater would be on even ground, and could easily hold his ground [albeit with the help of someone else]. This debater is still debating, since he is the one arguing.

---
D7: To argue : to exchange diverging or opposite views heatedly. (6)

(6) http://www.askoxford.com...
---

As you see, arguing does not have to do with the creation of the ideas, but the exchange with the opponent. Therefore, in H6, the one with no understanding of the issue is the one arguing, not the one feeding him arguments to use.

H7: In the same vein as H6, one can argue using information from sources such as web sites, etc. This does not require an understanding of the topic. It is possible in this way for a debater without understanding of the topic to hold his ground against a debater who has an understanding of the topic.
====================
Cases:
====================
Since it is rather difficult to show that a debater did or did not perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of the debate topic, my hypotheticals will be doing the work for me.

I believe that will be enough.
Throw away your fears, and take me on!
Yraelz

Con

My opponent seems to have to come an epic misunderstanding, I will clear this up later. For now I will content myself with rebutting his first arguments.

=========================
BURDENS:
=========================

To begin with, my opponent once again argues the burdens, stating that he only has to prove one instance. I will agree to this if my opponent in turn agrees that we will be talking about an average human being here.

As he says, "I must only show that understanding something isn't a REQUIREMENT to debate it well. "

This of course begs the question of who it is required for. Thus I am going to put forth the idea of the average human.

My opponent is completely wrong about not being able to create over a thousand blades without being the bone of his sword (did you mean bane?! x.x), steel as his body, and fire as his blood. In fact all that is really required is access to ultimate blade works. Something which I will undoubtedly show I have at a later point.

========================
CASES:
========================

So now let us go on to each of my opponents hypothetical cases and prove how their is a certain requirement of understanding in each one.

H3: My opponent, the esteemed Beem0r, argues that some resolutions are skewed towards one side or another. Thereby a debater can still win if he has a skewed resolution. This is true however my opponent has agreed that debating well includes, "holding ones ground against a debater who does understand." Thus in this scenario the debater is not holding any ground, he is simply winning because of a skewed resolution.

Furthermore my opponent dropped a point from the last round, I stated,

"However in order to attack the semantics you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution. Thus even in my opponents case some level of understanding is required."

The debater is still going to have to understand the words of the resolution otherwise the debater may as well have dropped each argument, something my opponent and I agreed does not constitute as debating well even if the debater does manage to win.

It is rather obvious that my opponent is not a dinosaur.

H4: My opponent offers three examples of ways in which a debater of superior logic can still debate well.

"by pointing out logical fallacies"

>> So now the logical fallacies become part of the debate, thus the debater who does not understand the topic still has some understanding of the logical fallacy which he is now debating. Keep in mind this resolution says, "It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well" the debater understands things in this scenario.

"creating threads of logical reasoning that confound his or her opponent"

>>So now the threads of logical reasoning are part of the debate, which is understood by the debater who does not understand the other points in the debate. Thus the debater is still understanding the part of the debate that is making him/her win.

"or other means of debating the topic without staying focused on points that require a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic."

>>Great. This is still going to require an understanding of these other points which the moment they are mentioned become part of the debate. Thus the person is still going to have some understanding of the debate. Keep in mind my opponent has to prove no understanding under this resolution.

And once again in all three of these the debater is going to have to understand the words.

Withstood pain to create many weapons.

H5: "He or she may not even bother to utilize his or her understanding at all" Thus in this scenario the debater that doesn't bother using his or her understanding at all is the equivalent of a debater with no understanding. Furthermore the debater who understands and loses to the debater who does not understand is not debating well as this would be the opposite of our definition. Therefor beating the debater that is not debating well does not prove one is debating well.

Furthermore the debater is still going to have to at the very least understand the words of the resolution otherwise that debater will be debating outside of it and will not be debating it at all.

Furthermore the actual words the debater is saying in round, the actual debate, will have to be understood.

H6: I disagree with my opponents definition. Under it anything could be classified as arguing. For instance providing a computer was using a "heated" voice it could be arguing, in other words it is possible to argue with inanimate objects under my opponents definition. In this scenario all the person is doing is serving as a medium through which the other person is debating.

Furthermore the person serving as the medium is still going to have to at the very least understand how to pronounce the words, if not he words themselves.

Waiting for one's arrival.

It should be noted that my opponent most likely wants me to win this debate.

H7: Arguing using information from a source is still going to require the reading comprehension of the source, in other words an understanding of those words. Furthermore one is going to need to understand what the debate is about textually in order to research it. Finally if you do research you are going to inevitably gain some small amount of understanding.

================
Analysis:
================

In my last round I pointed out:

"you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution."

My opponent in this round completely ignores this point and instead offers 5 new hypotheticals. Let me offer a small analogy....

If we consider that this situation in itself was a small resolution, something like:

Topic: Jesus vs. Dogs who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Dogs"
Pro: Here are reasons why Jesus is good in a fight
Con: Here are reasons why cats are good in a fight, and would in fact win against Jesus

Clearly, Pro is the only one who has supported his side of the resolution. Con was supposed to argue that Dogs would beat Jesus, but he argued that Cats would instead.

The same is true in our current case. I offered a substantial reason why understanding will always be required yet my opponent's 5 counter reasons have absolutely nothing to do with my reason. Thus my reasoning still stands rather firm and disallows a win for him.

I believe that will be enough.
Eat your MUDKIPZ!
Debate Round No. 2
beem0r

Pro

First off, let me apologize for any horrendous typing errors that I make this round; I'm typing using a somewhat broken keyboard. My arrow keys are missing, and several of my keys are sometimes unresponsive, so I'm relying on red squigglies to inform me of my errors.

My opponent claims I have come to a misunderstanding of epic proportions. I'll get to that in a sec, when I see it.

For the burdens, my opponent agrees with the burdens I initially set up, with one stipulation: that the resolution refers to an 'average human.'

Quite vague wording, so I will go further into defining what his apparent meaning was here.

===============
Burdens
===============
We have agreed that I must show one case or hypothetical scenario in which something can be debated well without the debater having an understanding of it. I believe my opponent's stipulation is meant to prevent me from applying rare or inhuman traits to this hypothetical debater, something I have not done yet anyway. My hypothetical debaters so far have been people with very plausible traits. I have not made any hypotheticals that are highly improbable, and will not do so. If I have interpreted his words correctly, then I accept the terms. If not, then I do not. As PRO, I simply have to show that it is possible to debate something well without understanding it. I do not have to show that it's possible for an alligator to do it, for a Mudkip, for a severe retard, or for the 'average human.'

In reference to the thousand blades, I apologize for being so skeptical at first. However, let me point out that my opponent has not yet provided evidence of the things he claims to have done [such as creating a thousand blades, quite a feat]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but my opponent has instead provided an extraordinary lack thereof. Luckily he claims that he will show us at a later point that he has indeed done these things.

==================================
"J00 dropped my point" - Yraelz
==================================
Yes, I did, because I conceded the point it was there to make. Let us examine.

Me: Arguing semantics is a way to win a debate without understanding the actual topic
Yraelz: But then, the semantics are what's being debated, and the debater needs to understand the semantics to debate them.
Me: *drops the point, since it is indeed the semantics being debated here, and continuing this point would require circular logic*

In ANY other context, when the words of the resolution are not what's being argued, Yraelz's point here is irrelevant. Yes, a debater does have to understand the words used in a resolution. However, the wording of our own resolution limits the scope of the 'things' to be understood to the 'them' that is being debated. Since the words are not debated in most debates, it matters not to our debate whether the debaters understand the words or not.

This might be a valid point if the resolution read: "It is not necessary to understand things to debate other things well"
Since to debate anything well, you have to understand some certain things. Such as how to use the language you're debating in. such as how to use your voice, or how to type, or how to use sign language [depending on the medium of debate]. But I am arguing that you do NOT have to understand the actual topics you debate. You might have to understand the words therein, or the letters in the words, or the shapes that make the letters, but you don't have to understand the actual things you're debating to debate them well.

DEFENDING H4:
'logical fallacies'
The logical fallacies would become 'part of the debate,' but they are not necessarily being debated. You must argue ABOUT something to be debating it, arguing USING something is not debating it. For example, I used the word Razzmatazz in this sentence. However, I am not debating razzmatazz, even though it is part of this argument.

'Threads of logical reasoning'
As long as the threads of logical reasoning aren't being argued about, they are not being debated, and therefore whether they are understood or not is irrelevant.

Simply being included in or used in a debate does not mean something is being debated. See razzmatazz above. I'm not arguing _about_ razzmatazz, but I just argued using it. See D2 at the beginning of PRO R2.

And as long as the words are not being argued about, whether or not they're understood is irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

DEFENDING H5:
My opponent claims that this does not amount to either party debating well. However, one of the membrs of the debate did in fact understand the topic. My opponent and I have already agreed that debating something well is having the ability to hold one's ground against a debater who does understand.
Since the debater in H5 does understand [but chooses not to use his understanding], holding one's ground against him in a debate does in fact constitute debating something well. He fits perfectly into the definition of debating something well my opponent and I both agreed on.

DEFENDING H6:
My opponent argues against my definition of argue, though he does not provide his own definition.

He does not really back up his objections to my definition, and provides no alternatives, so I urge you to continue using my definition of argue.

In response to "In this scenario all the person is doing is serving as a medium through which the other person is debating." : No, that isn't all the person is doing. At least based on the definitions of debate and argue presented in this debate, this person is also debating whatever these arguments were about.

Also, I'm sure everyone already knows this, but if a dictionary says "exchange diverging or opposite views heatedly." it does not allow you to place whatever definition of heatedly you want in its place. You must use the context-specific definition. Just like breaking a promise isn't shattering it into small pieces, heatedly exchanging diverging views does not mean doing so in an oven.

to clear up any misconceptions of what heatedly means, here.
http://www.askoxford.com...
Look at the verb definition number 3. Obviously, that is the sense in which 'heatedly' is meant, since it even specifically states in an example that it's what's referred to when someone speaks of a 'heated' argument.

And yes, the person doing the debating will have to understand how to pronounce, spell, type, or sign the words he's using, but once again, as long as he's not arguing about how to pronounce, etc. the words, whether or not he understands it is completely irrelevant.

My opponent says I probably want him to win, but this is simply untrue, along with most of my opponent's claims in this debate.

DEFENDING H7:
As long as reading comprehension is not being debated, it matters not if the debater has an understanding of it.
And to research for something, one must only understand the words used in the resolution, one does not need to understand the actual topic of research.
For example, going CON for abortion. One must only Google "Arguments against abortion," copy, and paste. No understanding of the issue at hand needs to take place. In fact, the debater in this case doesn't even need to know what abortion is.

==============
Yraelz's Analysis
==============

I showed why I conceded Yraelz's point in its specific context [he only used it in a specific, relevant context in R1] and I showed how it was invalid to apply it to the whole debate, as my opponent did last round[it was an irrelevant point when semantics was not being debated].

==============
fin.
Yraelz

Con

Agreeing with burdens.

I am going to use a single example to show why some understanding of the topic is going to be required in each hypothetical my opponent has put forth.

My example will be "dogs". The debates will all be focused on debating about "dogs".

So before I go on to evaluate each hypothetical I will first show many different ways a person could understand "dogs".

a. A person could understand that "dogs" are animals.
b. A person could understand that "dogs" is also a word.
c. A person could understand that "dogs" is made up of 4 letters.
d. A person could understand that "dogs" is of the English language.
e. A person could understand that "dogs" sounds like dawgs.
f. A person could understand that hearing the sound -dawgs- commonly refers to the word "dogs" which typically refers to animals of the canine type.

There are more but I will leave it at this for now. My point is simple, there are many many ways to understand what "dogs" are. Now let us examine my opponents points.

H4: Logical fallacies.

My opponent is attempting to prove that if someone attempts to prove a logical fallacy in the debate that it is not part of the debate.

So here is how the debate would go.

==========
Pro: Dogs like dog food. Dogs are good.

Con: This is a slippery slope fallacy. Simply because dogs like dog food does not mean they are good.
==========

Thus it is readily apparent in this example that the slippery slope fallacy is now part of what is being debated. Furthermore it is apparent that con is going to need to understand at the very least the pronunciation of the words which he is debating with. He is also going to have to understand the meaning of a great deal of those words regardless of whether he understands the meaning usually associated with the word "dogs". In conclusion a fallacy will become part of a debate when it is brought into the debate, thus it is essential that the debater understands it in some way to initiate it.

Note: My opponent says razzmatazz is not being debated in this round. This is not true, we are currently debating whether razzmatazz is being debated in this round. My opponent is using this mild example to attempt to show that each separate point in a debate is not what is being debated, however in doing so he is proving that each separate point is indeed being debated. Thus we are indeed debating whether razzmatazz is actually being debated right now. =)

H5: My opponent is attempting that debating against a lazy debater and winning constitutes debating well. I have a couple main points.

A. I agreed with the definition of holding one's ground against a debater who does understand under the pretense that winning on forfeited rounds or against crappy debaters would not actually constitute debating well.

B. My opponent is taking that understanding debater and essentially making him equal to a debater who doesn't understand or a debater that forfeits his or her rounds. Thus it can be seen that I really do not agree with this skew of my opponents definition.

C. Finally my opponent himself has stated that debating well consists of a satisfying presentation or another high standard. Thus in this case neither debater would be doing such a thing and neither would be debating well.

However my opponent has still let my other argument stand thus I will be attacking him with it also. The debaters, who are not understanding are still going to debate about something in round. Which means that whatever they choose to debate about will require an understanding of those words, those sounds, and those ideas whether they debate well or not.

=========
Pro: Dogs are typically horrible beasts. I have think they could probably shoot laser beams.

Con: Dogs aren't horrible beasts! They make little eggs and give them to starving children!
=========

Obviously Pro isn't using his understanding of what dogs are and con has no idea to begin with but that doesn't change the fact that they both understand how "dogs" is spelled and pronounced, thus a limited understanding is still required.

Also as they are arguing that dogs are horrible or not they must both understand what horrible is.

I have no regrets this is the only path.

H6: Through agreeing that under his definition a computer could debate my opponent has effectively conceded his point. It is readily apparent that a computer is incapable of debating as a computer is inanimate. Thereby we can see that my opponents definition is rather flawed.

If we are to accept my opponents definition then we must also except the fact that both people are debating jointly as it would not be possible for the second debater to be "debating alone".

Furthermore, yes, all debaters are still going to require an understanding of what they are debating in the sense that they will have to understand how to pronounce, spell, type or sign the words.

My opponent goes off of this line of thought to attempt to prove that the debaters are not debating about the pronunciation, spelling, typing, or signing of those words. This idea is fallacious at best, let's examine the situation.

==========
Pro(1): Say this to the Con.

Pro(2): (I don't know what dogs is..... but okay -turns to con-) Dogs are man's best friend!

Con(1): I negate! A cat is far superior!
==========

So while it is true they are not debating about the pronunciation, spelling, typing, or signing they are still debating about the words. This is especially true in the case of Pro(2), considering that he does not know what dogs are, he is debating (with the help of Pro(1)) the word dogs. Thus as he is debating a word, he falls under our current resolution when he understands aspects of that word, like pronunciation.

Furthermore it should be noted that words are legitimate attributes of any idea. Without words or language it would be rather difficult to think. Thus humans created words in order to describe the things that they saw. Thus words, from our average human perspective, are an attribute of any idea.

H7: All true. The person is still going to have to understand that abortion is a word though, and that abortion is spelled in a specific way.

Furthermore this does not fall under my opponents resolution at all, he is attempting to say that debating is simply arguing heatedly, if someone is simply copying and pasting from a website then they are not arguing or doing anything heatedly.

Here is an example of a debater with no understanding about the subject being debated.

=========
Pro: DOGS ARE MAGNIFICENT, I TYPE REALLY BIG BECAUSE I'M COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING!

Con: (Goes to a computer and sits down....... Thinks a bit, realizes he does not understand anything about the debate topic. Stares blankly at the computer for a while trying to think of what he could type in to start understanding.... ) If only I understood those words that he used, if I did then I would understand just enough about this debate to get started...... -sigh-
=========

=========
Conclusion
=========

I agree that understanding the words of what you are debating is not a big thing to understand. In fact for the average human understanding the words is rather easy. However it is still a small ounce of understanding, and a small ounce of understanding is all that is needed to prove my opponent wrong when he states, "It is not necessary to understand thing to debate them well."

Thus I must urge for a vote in favor of CON in order to CONdemn my opponents fallacious position. Thank you.

My whole life was "Unlimited Blade Works."
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 31 through 35 records.
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
It's a meme.

Yraelz broke my combo by continuing the other version of it [another character uses it in the video game, the same first 3 lines, but slightly different after that].

I wanted a really epic final point, so I figured I'd use Unlimited Blade Works right before introducing it.

Also, for related lulz, http://animedesho.animeblogger.net...
Posted by PublicForumG-d 6 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Can you explain the random "thousand blades" "firey lava blood" comments?

xD
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
Because then I'd have to prove that I've debated it _WELL_, something which Yraelz could easily make an argument against.
Posted by Johnicle 6 years ago
Johnicle
why doesn't pro just say... I don't really understand this debate... vote pro.......
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
HAHAHA You're awesome dude! I totally look forward to this debate!
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
studentathletechristian8
beem0rYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
beem0rYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
beem0rYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
beem0rYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
beem0rYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mattowander 6 years ago
Mattowander
beem0rYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Josh 6 years ago
Josh
beem0rYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 6 years ago
jiffy
beem0rYraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by sillycow 6 years ago
sillycow
beem0rYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 6 years ago
Renzzy
beem0rYraelzTied
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:30