The Instigator
greatkitteh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XDlol
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
XDlol
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 78050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

greatkitteh

Pro

Rules:
1. You may debate in engish or German.
2. Ich garantierte , um die Debatte zu gewinnen. Con kann nicht streiten. Jeder Verstoß gegen diese Regel ist ein 7 -Punkt- Fehler. Der Wähler muss Con Penallize , wenn Con macht jedes Argument .
3. Any violation of rules means a 7 point forfeit.
XDlol

Con

My argument:

BOP is on con to prove how kim jong un is not his best freind

Conduct notice:

1. It is unfair for Pro to post rules in a different language. He must give some kind of English translation for it to be relevant. Pro stated the debate can be in english OR german. Therefore, assuming there will be debaters who only speak english, it is only fair if he gives an english translation. Since pro did not do that, his second rule is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
greatkitteh

Pro

By accepting, Con already Accepts the rules. Therefore, The rule, no matter how fair, Is Law. Con is bound to rule two if I give a Translation.

Transaltion:I guaranteed to win the debate. Con can not argue. Any violation of this rule is a 7 -point error. The voter must Con Penallize when Con makes every argument.

Source:


Thus, Con is Bound to this rule, by accepting already has agreed. If Con Uses Any argument, I will get a 7 point victory. Without Arguments, It is concession, and I win anyway.

If Con rejects the rule, Then Con is backing down on Con`s debate promise, And I would get Conduct. Since Con put the BOP on Con`, Con MUST Provide an argument. Rule 3 says violation of any rules is A 7-point forfeit, so the voter must vote pro.
XDlol

Con

Nice try...

However conduct is measured on BOTH sides. Currently, my opponent has very poor conduct by tricking his opponents or has not provided a translation in round 1. It is up to the voters to decide which arguments were better of "Kim Jong Un is my best friend" and my opponent has yet to fulfill his bop.

It is up to the voter to decide which is a fair debate and not, not my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
greatkitteh

Pro

Rebuttals:
1.) Rule One Says the Debate can be done In English OR German,Thus, The rules can be posted. CON, Also Said on round 1 THAT the BOP was on CON, Thus, CON, Must provide the argument, Or it will count as Concession

2.) Until airmax is finished with Counter-measures to Instigator advantage, I Can Use instigator Advantage Anytime.

3.) CON has ARGUED that I am showing poor conduct by tricking Opponents, Which is an argument. Thus, Con has Forfeited on all seven Points.

4.) RULE 2 APPLIES TO CON ONLY, Therefore , Conduct on rule 2 Is Mesured SOLELY on Ckn.
XDlol

Con

1. Even though debates can be done in English or German, it is my opponent's responsibility to translate it in english. This is because, since this debate can be in English or German, so assuming that the the other person that accepts knows only one language, my opponent MUST post in both languages. Especially the rules, otherwise it is unfair

2. Agreed, however it is up to the voters or the moderators to decide who wins the debate. Not my opponent

3. and 4. If you make a rule, it applies to BOTH opponents, not including the BOP because that is how debates work. My opponent makes a supposably untrue claim, and my opponent MUST show evidence to win the debate.

Since both rules must apply to both debaters, my opponent technically accepted and argued too. If my opponent denies this and states that the rules only apply to me, then it is the voter's DUTY to mark off conduct for my opponent.

Also my opponent has yet to fulfill is BOP
Debate Round No. 3
greatkitteh

Pro

1.) I have in round 2, Whilst my Oppoment did not . Upon Accepting on the devate in round 1, CON AGGREED To all the rules before the translation. not only that, But CON IS ARGUING, so Con has forfeited on 7 points

2.) Con has completely Conceeded on this point.

3.) That Is Untrue. In (1) Debate.org, There Are MULTIPLE Debatres With rules like:
(Con must waive the final Round, Pro Must Not post on round 5, etc.) Rule 2, Was SPECIFICALLY aimed at con, Con has Argued, Thus CON, Forfeited on all Seven points



4.) There is writteh evidence in round one; That con said, (2)"Bop is in ckb to prove Kim Jong un. . .best friend." Thus, CON Must SOLELY Provude the BOP. Rule two said, With credible evidence, That CON May not provide arguments, Con did, Thus, Con Had a Seven Point forfeit. CON Also, Must SOLELY, Profill the SELF-INPOSED BOP. Con did not, But Instead conceeded on round 2.
XDlol

Con

1. Pro must translate in first round

2. Because its irrelevant

3. This is not the same since those rules are there for a logical reason. Not for an automatic loss (eg, you cant post on final round because otherwise it would be an unfair debate) Pro failed to argue his point

4. It is up to pro to fulfill is BOP

conclusion:
Pro failed to fulfill his BOP and wasted his time and round arguing utter nonsense about the rules, when it is clearly up to the voters to determine what is fair.
Debate Round No. 4
greatkitteh

Pro

1.) Con waited Untill Round 4 to declare that, And Con cannot make any rules. Con Has agreed TO BOTH Rule 1 and 2, So Con Is bound to it. Con Also Is Arguing, Thus Forfeiting seven Points.

2.) Con has dropped and Gave up on this point.

3.) con, Lost Contention 2, Which said I May Use Instigator Advantige Untill the counter-Plans by Air max are done. They are Not done, Thus I CAN Point Ules directed by Con.

4.) CON SAID, In round one, That the BOP is on Con. Con, Thus must SOLELY Profill the BOP, Which Con has not, instead using a Kritik. Con also, CANNOT Impose rules, Because as Con Utterly Lost Contention 2, Con Agrees only I can use Instigator advantige. Con also argued, Yhus loses on all seven points.

5.) Kim Jong un is my best friend, Because My friend Named Himself Kim Jong Un in COC, Thus, Kim Jong Un is my best friend. (1)

(1) My testimony I just posted.

Con Has Forfeited On all seven Points and Did not profill the BOP, And backed down on rule ONE, TWO, AND THREE. Thus, Con forfeits on alk seven Points.
XDlol

Con

My opponent is bound to his own rules and it is up the voters to decide what rules are valid

I am not imposing rules, I am simply saying it is not up to you to decide who wins or loses, it is up to the voters. In fact, my opponent is also arguing and replying, therefore he has broken his own rules.

This is argument (notice how my opponent is making arguments?) is a pathetic attempt to prove your BOP. Simply stating something and providing no evidence does not fulfill your BOP. My opponent has yet to show actual evidence instead random claims that may be true or false.

My opponent also breaks his own rules
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: salam.morcos/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: What con did was basically a kritik. Neither debater really noticed that. In a kritik, the challenger (Con who's running the K) challenges the rules of the debate as unfair. While I'm not so worried about the use of a different language, it was the fact that a very unfair rule was disguised. Con establishes a violation and a link by stating that this would make this debate unfair. I wish that con provided the negative impacts of this type of debating. No alternative was provided (would have been nice but not essential). As a result, con was able to establish that this debate is unfair. Pro failed to present an argument. So per the role of the ballot, I have to award this win to con. In a K, it's a yes-no vote. Initially I awarded 7 points, but I've decided to change my vote not to award points for S&G and sources. The violation wasn't that severe to warrant it.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The report was in response to the initial vote, which awarded sources and S&G. Those points have been removed. The rest have been justified by this RFD, though it could probably be clearer how the conduct point is justified.
******************************************************************************
Posted by XDlol 1 year ago
XDlol
My bad i meant pro and i basically said that the entire debate
Posted by XDlol 1 year ago
XDlol
trolld'
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Death23// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro intentionally conceals an unconscionable debate condition in a foreign language and argues that the voters should enforce it. I will not enforce this condition, and Pro's deception is inexcusable. https://en.wikipedia.org...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The rule structure of the debate was challenged in R. It's unclear why those rules cannot be challenged, as Con did. As soon as the rule was challenged, the applicability of the rule to the debate comes into question. If a voter agrees with the conduct violation cited by Con, even if it's on the basis of the rule structure of the debate, the voter is allowed to make that determination.
******************************************************************************
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Let me know if you want me to expand on my RFD.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
You said the BOP was on you.
Posted by XDlol 1 year ago
XDlol
I didnt even argue about KJU in the first place. And pro broke his own rules. I just said that BOP is on you, I didnt even make an argument. Plus his rules are invalid
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
There is a way around your rules, GK. It's quite simple really. Con cannot argue. Argue:to contend in oral disagreement; dispute [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. So long as he does not contradict you, Con can debate.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@GK

Please, let's do this. I don't care about winning or losing -- it'll still be fun. Please?
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
o.O, @Tejretics You found a way around my rules.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
greatkittehXDlolTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins on the theory shell. Con challenges the basic mindset behind Pro's Rule 2 and argumentation, arguing that there is an unfair grounds in the debate itself, thus the resolution should preferred over the rules. I think that's sufficient to negate. The S&G point also clearly goes to Con. Pro had multiple spelling errors, misspelling "Con", "penalize", "concede", "written", "imposed", "fulfill", "all", and "in". Additionally, Pro completely changes all punctuation, randomly capitalizing words and using commas instead of full stops. Pro's grammar was also extremely bad, missing determiners and articles frequently. The word "on" is frequently added unnecessarily, alongside many prepositions. It really hurt readability. As such, I award S&G and arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
greatkittehXDlolTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: What con did was basically a kritik. Neither debater really noticed that. In a kritik, the challenger (Con who's running the K) challenges the rules of the debate as unfair. While I'm not so worried about the use of a different language, it was the fact that a very unfair rule was disguised. Con establishes a violation and a link by stating that this would make this debate unfair. I wish that con provided the negative impacts of this type of debating. No alternative was provided (would have been nice but not essential). As a result, con was able to establish that this debate is unfair. Pro failed to present an argument. So per the role of the ballot, I have to award this win to con. In a K, it's a yes-no vote. Initially I awarded 7 points, but I've decided to change my vote not to award points for S&G and sources. The violation wasn't that severe to warrant it.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
greatkittehXDlolTied
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: Pro intentionally conceals an unconscionable debate condition in a foreign language and argues that the voters should enforce it. I will not enforce this condition, and Pro's deception is inexcusable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability