The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
iamadragon
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/25/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,119 times Debate No: 9035
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (107)
Votes (9)

 

mongeese

Pro

All rules detailing this debate here:
http://www.debate.org...

My team:

1. Link, Hero of Twilight (street-level character)
http://zelda.wikia.com...
Canon: Legend of Zelda video games series (more specifically, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess)
Link is a swordsman at age 17. He is very adept at using the sword, and has a whole mess of other weapons at his disposal. He bears the Triforce of Courage, and has the ability to transform into a wolf.

2. Kirby (street-level character)
http://kirby.wikia.com...
Canon: Kirby: Right Back at Ya!
Kirby is an 8-inch tall pink blob with eyes, arms, a mouth, and feet. His main ability is that he can turn his mouth into a vacuum, eating his enemies and taking on their powers as his own.

3. Midna
http://zelda.wikia.com...
Canon: Legend of Zelda video games series (more specifically, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess)
Midna is a Twili. She has been transformed into an imp by Zant. Her powers include turning into a shadow, taking the form of other beings, and using the Fused Shadow to transform into a dangerous Twilight creature.

4. Yugi Muto
http://yugioh.wikia.com...
Canon: Yu-Gi-Oh! Second Anime Series (between the Battle City arc and the Orichalcos arc)
Yugi is a kid with a deck of Duel Monsters cards that contain powerful magic. He's good at puzzles and games. He possess the Millennium Puzzle, containing the spirit of Yami Yugi, also known as the Pharaoh or Atem. He also has the Millennium Ring, Necklace, Eye, and Rod

5. Seto Kaiba
http://yugioh.wikia.com...
Canon: Yu-Gi-Oh! Second Anime Series (during Dawn of the Duel arc, before Kaiba enters the Shadow Game)
Kaiba is the president of KaibaCorp, a company involved with Duel Monsters. He has his own deck of powerful Duel Monsters cards. He holds the Millennium Eye. He also has his own private jet and helicopter.

My opponent's team:

1. A rock.
2. An atom.
3. mongeese (UTW participant.)
4. Logical-Master (UTW participant.)
5. MTGandP (judge.)

My strategy:

1. Kirby eats mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP in a single gulp, transforming into Debate Kirby. As this ability is rather worthless in a battle of life and death, and Kirby has very limited vocabulary, Kirby gets rid of this ability.
2. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the rock, which Kirby then eats.
3. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the atom, which Kirby then eats.

Victory to Team PRO!
iamadragon

Con

mongeese has posted my team, but I'll do so again anyway, just to make everything look nice.

1. A rock.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(geology)
http://www.thelifeofdavid.com...
The philosophical, profound nature of the existence of the rock fuels part of my argument.
I view existence as a tier system. In a battle, we seek to bring an opponent down one tier. This is what constitutes defeat.
For any living opponent, a defeat (in general terms) is being killed. For anything that has a life, defeat is the loss of that life. What about, however, something that doesn't have a life in the first place? It stands to reason that the way to defeat a non-living object would be to make it completely non-existent. More on this later.

2. An atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I think what I just said about the rock applies to the atom as well, but that's not the main importance of the atom as a team character. How can an atom be defeated? How can it even be found? That's the question, and I'll expand later.

3. mongeese.
http://www.debate.org...
The most important character on my team. More later.

4. Logical-Master.
http://www.debate.org...
Logical-Master has incredible knowledge on anime and other types of series from which characters in these battles are usually used, so he is very useful.

5. MTGandP.
http://www.debate.org...
He knows how to program stuff. He's also a judge, so don't upset him. Don't be rude to him. You might lose conduct points.

Character Contentions:
1. What are the limits on the size of what Kirby can swallow? The source does not specify. It appears to be infinite, and therefore, not in accordance with the rules of the debate.
2. Yugi and the Millennium Ring. Can Yugi use the Millennium Ring? To quote my opponent's source, "The strong people who managed to survive the ring's power are: Mahado, Ryo Bakura, and Dark Marik." [1]

Counter Strategies:
1. It seems to me that if Kirby could swallow three humans in one gulp, he would have done so to a lot of his enemies in the TV show–thus, it seems to me, so far, that Kirby would not be able to swallow all three at once. Also, my opponent states Kirby has a very limited vocabulary. Is it enough to understand commands from my opponent?
3. The Millennium Ring is about the size of Flavor Flav's clock necklaces. [2] [3]

[2]http://sinitiainen0.tripod.com...
[3]http://www.soulless.ca...

It is not a very "fine" instrument. How could something so large possibly point out an atom? The answer: it clearly can't.

2. First of all, I doubt Kirby can swallow this rock. It is massive. So, this point is already refuted. However, I'll go on to explain why Kirby's swallowing of the rock is ultimately irrelevant.

Say Kirby did swallow the rock.

What does that mean? The rock now exists inside of Kirby. The rock still exists. Therefore, it is not defeated.

Strategies:
1. The passage of time. It seems, now, that Team PRO will be unable to defeat the rock, as it always exists and is gigantic, or the atom, as it always exists and is seemingly impossible to find. Thus, as time passes, the atom and the rock will remain, but all other mortal, living characters, will grow old and die.
2. Frankenstein. As you have noticed, mongeese is a part of my team. The team captain must issue commands to all of his team members. Without the team captain, the team is rendered useless. Therefore, mongeese cannot be defeated by any of mongeese's characters, because to do so would create a paradox. mongeese cannot render his own team useless by ordering his own destruction without forfeiting the battle.
3. The power of a judge. Is my opponent going to risk destroying MTGandP? He must, in order to win, but such could be construed as utter disrespect towards a judge, possibly warranting a loss in conduct points.
4. The power of the tournament creator. Same thing as above, except with Logical-Master. Destroying Logical-Master could be construed as a highly, highly punishable offense.

[1]http://yugioh.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Okay, first, to address my opponent's questions and counter-strategies and whatnot.

"The philosophical, profound nature of the existence of the rock fuels part of my argument.
I view existence as a tier system. In a battle, we seek to bring an opponent down one tier. This is what constitutes defeat.
For any living opponent, a defeat (in general terms) is being killed. For anything that has a life, defeat is the loss of that life. What about, however, something that doesn't have a life in the first place? It stands to reason that the way to defeat a non-living object would be to make it completely non-existent. More on this later."
Incorrect.
"12) Being knocked out, rendered unusable, or killed is considered defeat. People who are knocked out, rendered unusable or killed cannot be used any more during a match." [1]
Technically, because the rock is unusable, it is already defeated.

"1. What are the limits on the size of what Kirby can swallow? The source does not specify. It appears to be infinite, and therefore, not in accordance with the rules of the debate."

See Video 1 (1:10). Quite a large range, but far from infinite.

"2. Yugi and the Millennium Ring. Can Yugi use the Millennium Ring? To quote my opponent's source, 'The strong people who managed to survive the ring's power are: Mahado, Ryo Bakura, and Dark Marik.'"
Given that people who are capable of using one Millennium Item are capable of using many, and Atem is one of the most powerful spirits in the entire anime, he would certainly be able to unlock the powers of the Millennium Ring.

"1. It seems to me that if Kirby could swallow three humans in one gulp, he would have done so to a lot of his enemies in the TV show–thus, it seems to me, so far, that Kirby would not be able to swallow all three at once. Also, my opponent states Kirby has a very limited vocabulary. Is it enough to understand commands from my opponent?"
Kirby cannot swallow excessively large objects, like the monsters usually imported by King Dedede. However, he will eat the small ones.
Kirby cannot speak very well, but he is capable of being instructed, as Tiff does constantly in the show.

"3. The Millennium Ring is about the size of Flavor Flav's clock necklaces."
What? As interesting as this is to know, it serves no purpose to this debate.

"It is not a very 'fine' instrument. How could something so large possibly point out an atom? The answer: it clearly can't."
The answer is magic. It always is. If Yugi wants to know where the atom is, then the Millennium Ring will point in the general direction of the atom. Sure, the location would not be exact, but I would be able to narrow the atom's location down to a few square feet, allowing Kirby to easily eat it if necessary.
If that does not work, I can always have Link ride on Kirby's Warp Star and hang Kirby off of the side using the Clawshot. Link can then use Kirby as a vacuum-cleaner, taking him all over New York City, eating everything he possibly can. The atom stands no chance.

"2. First of all, I doubt Kirby can swallow this rock. It is massive. So, this point is already refuted. However, I'll go on to explain why Kirby's swallowing of the rock is ultimately irrelevant."
Oh. You're using a giant rock. By my opponent's picture, it seems that he is using Ayer's Rock. However, Ayer's Rock is extremely large. I doubt that it would actually fit in New York City, especially when it is 1,142 ft. tall [2], and the highest point in New York City is 1,250 feet high [3], Ayer's Rock would have to be located in a large expanse with no building or construction that would tilt Ayer's Rock out of the zone allowed. I doubt that this is even possible.

"2. Say Kirby did swallow the rock.

What does that mean? The rock now exists inside of Kirby. The rock still exists. Therefore, it is not defeated."
However, the rock would be rendered unusable by Team CON, and therefore, the rock would be defeated.

"1. The passage of time. It seems, now, that Team PRO will be unable to defeat the rock, as it always exists and is gigantic, or the atom, as it always exists and is seemingly impossible to find. Thus, as time passes, the atom and the rock will remain, but all other mortal, living characters, will grow old and die."
Solution:
Link uses Bomb Arrows to break Ayer's Rock down into smaller pieces that can be consumed by Kirby. Because eating the rock makes it unusable, the rock is defeated once Kirby eats said smaller pieces.
Or, Midna could levitate Ayer's Rock, and move it out of New York City, instantly defeating it.

"1. The passage of time. It seems, now, that Team PRO will be unable to defeat the rock, as it always exists and is gigantic, or the atom, as it always exists and is seemingly impossible to find. Thus, as time passes, the atom and the rock will remain, but all other mortal, living characters, will grow old and die."
For one thing, Atem does not age while in the Millennium Puzzle.
For another, I already can defeat both the rock and the atom.

"2. Frankenstein. As you have noticed, mongeese is a part of my team. The team captain must issue commands to all of his team members. Without the team captain, the team is rendered useless. Therefore, mongeese cannot be defeated by any of mongeese's characters, because to do so would create a paradox. mongeese cannot render his own team useless by ordering his own destruction without forfeiting the battle."
You misunderstand the role of the team leader.

"7. The team leader may not directly participate in the competition, but may only facilitate. The role of the team leader is to explain what the team would do and why it would win against the opposing team." [4]
So, you see, I do not command my team. I just explain why it would win. And it would win, whether or not I am defeated mid-way through the battle. Of course, I could be left as the last person to eliminate, thus allowing me to issue commands for after I am defeated.

"3. The power of a judge. Is my opponent going to risk destroying MTGandP? He must, in order to win, but such could be construed as utter disrespect towards a judge, possibly warranting a loss in conduct points."
MTGandP is not judging this debate. [5]
Plus, I would like everybody to know that I mean MTGandP no disrespect, and I am sure that he understands that I am being required to defeat his hypothetical self, which I am sure he would accept.

"4. The power of the tournament creator. Same thing as above, except with Logical-Master. Destroying Logical-Master could be construed as a highly, highly punishable offense."
Highly punishable offense? Technically, he's already agreed to let you use him in Ultimate Team War, so he has probably acknowledged that his hypothetical self is quite likely going to be defeated in some way, shape, or form. Plus, he's set up the rules that command me to eliminate him.

Now, for a recap:

1. Kirby effortlessly swallows MTGandP, mongeese, and Logical-Master, turning into Debate Kirby.
2. Kirby gets rid of his Debate ability.
3. Yugi locates the atom using the Millennium Ring.
4. Kirby eats the atom.
5. Link breaks down Ayer's Rock into much smaller pieces using Bomb Arrows.
6. Kirby eats the smaller pieces that used to make up Ayer's Rock.
7. Kirby leaves New York City, eliminating Kirby and all of Team CON.
8. Team PRO wins!

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.infoplease.com...
4. http://www.debate.org...
5. http://www.bracketmaker.com...
iamadragon

Con

"Technically, because the rock is unusable, it is already defeated."

Here's the definition of unusable:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Neither of those really provides a clear answer.

What does it mean to "use" something?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

"1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ." (side note: that site is awesome; you can double click on any word in a definition and find a definition for that word.)

Certainly, a rock can be "used." I can use a rock for many things. More importantly, I can use the rock in such a way that does not require any outside influence on the rock. I could use it to hold something down. I could use it for scenery. Anyway, I'm getting a bit off-topic, but generally, rocks can be used.

Now, in the context of the battle, I am using the rock. I'm using it simply by having it on my team. I'm using it in a battle where I am trying to maintain my characters before you fail to maintain yours (meaning, keep my characters undefeated longer than you can keep yours undefeated.)

The rock is there; I want the rock there because it's on my team; therefore, I am using the rock. The rock is being used. The rock is usable.

Now, applying this to my philosophy: the rock, being a non-living thing, is being used by me simply by existing. As long as the rock exists, I am using it. Therefore, it is not being rendered unusable, and therefore, it has not been defeated.

"See Video 1 (1:10). Quite a large range, but far from infinite."

Hilarious video, but where's the limit?

"Kirby cannot swallow excessively large objects, like the monsters usually imported by King Dedede. However, he will eat the small ones."

OK, I think that'll work.

"What? As interesting as this is to know, it serves no purpose to this debate."

I said that to provide an easier-to-understand idea of how large the "pointers" on the Ring are.

"The answer is magic. It always is. If Yugi wants to know where the atom is, then the Millennium Ring will point in the general direction of the atom. Sure, the location would not be exact, but I would be able to narrow the atom's location down to a few square feet, allowing Kirby to easily eat it if necessary."

Alright. Now you'll have to explain why the atom has been defeated if it's been swallowed.

"If that does not work, I can always have Link ride on Kirby's Warp Star and hang Kirby off of the side using the Clawshot. Link can then use Kirby as a vacuum-cleaner, taking him all over New York City, eating everything he possibly can. The atom stands no chance."

Is there any limit to Kirby's stamina?

"Oh. You're using a giant rock. By my opponent's picture, it seems that he is using Ayer's [sic] Rock. However, Ayer's Rock is extremely large. I doubt that it would actually fit in New York City, especially when it is 1,142 ft. tall [2], and the highest point in New York City is 1,250 feet high [3], Ayer's Rock would have to be located in a large expanse with no building or construction that would tilt Ayer's Rock out of the zone allowed. I doubt that this is even possible."

I just looked back over the LM Classic thread [1], and no height stipulation was every decided upon either by Logical-Master or by us... so, I'm going to go ahead and say that there is none. In fact, you suggested [1] a mile above the highest object in the city. A mile is 5280 feet. [2] The highest point in NYC plus the height of Uluru is 2,392 (mental math) feet, which is far less than a mile.

"However, the rock would be rendered unusable by Team CON, and therefore, the rock would be defeated."

Refuted above. I am still using the rock.

"Link uses Bomb Arrows to break Ayer's Rock down into smaller pieces that can be consumed by Kirby. Because eating the rock makes it unusable, the rock is defeated once Kirby eats said smaller pieces."

A few things.

1. Link does not have an unlimited number of Bomb Arrows. I believe the most he can carry in Twilight Princess is 30 bombs per bag + 3 bags = 90 bombs. Are 90 bombs enough to reduce all of Uluru into an eatable size?
2. I showed why the rock is still rendered unusable.
3. Law of Conservation of Mass. [3] Breaking the rock into smaller pieces does mean that Kirby would have an easier time swallowing them all, but the total mass remains unchanged. Can Kirby really swallow so much? Where's the limit?

"Or, Midna could levitate Ayer's Rock, and move it out of New York City, instantly defeating it."

Rule 15 [1]: "15) Teleporting out of NYC is prohibited."

I don't believe Logical-Master ever clarified on this rule. Someone, later in the thread, suggested that the rule implies that a team member cannot be defeated simply be being forcibly removed from NYC. I'll apply the rule the same way.

"For one thing, Atem does not age while in the Millennium Puzzle."

But he is trapped in the Puzzle without Yugi, "unusable" in the sense that a living character would be unusable.

"So, you see, I do not command my team. I just explain why it would win."

This is somewhat of a semantical argument, and, I believe, a direct twisting of the rule's intent. The rule clearly means that a team member cannot physically assist his team in battle.
Anyway, here's another rule [4]: "6. Team members are absolutely loyal to the team leader..." Besides the obvious implication that killing the team leader would result in not being loyal, these rules go hand-in-hand to show that the team members only act when ordered. Without a team leader, they don't do anything.

"Of course, I could be left as the last person to eliminate, thus allowing me to issue commands for after I am defeated."

Finally, without the team leader, how can mongeese's team win? It isn't even mongeese's team. I think that in this kind of a battle, it's a clear implication that the team leader guides his team to victory and thus, obviously, must be alive at the end to claim victory.

I have refuted all of my opponents refutations; thus, my original strategies are legitimate and prevail.

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

My opponent makes the argument that his rock is usable. However, we have to look into the context of L-M's rule. Any character's unconscious body can be "used" for many things. However, the rock is essentially a dead body from the start. In fact, it was never alive. It was automatically eliminated.

You see, if something alive were turned into stone, it would be considered defeated. Therefore, something that started out stone would start out defeated.

"Now, applying this to my philosophy: the rock, being a non-living thing, is being used by me simply by existing. As long as the rock exists, I am using it. Therefore, it is not being rendered unusable, and therefore, it has not been defeated."
Even a living thing can be used in that context while unconscious. Therefore, this philosophy does not hold water.

As for your tier theory, technically, the rock already starts at the tier of "defeated." Therefore, it is already "defeated."

"Alright. Now you'll have to explain why the atom has been defeated if it's been swallowed."
You can no longer use it. Things that Kirby has swallowed are trapped in his body forever. You can't use it anymore.

"Is there any limit to Kirby's stamina?"
Yes. He gets tired after a long period of vacuuming. However, given that my opponent is trying to stall out for a period of years, Kirby will have plenty of recovery time, so it's not really a concern.

Logical-Master: "How does 200 feet above the tallest object in the city sound?"
This eliminates Ayers Rock. There's no way there's an expanse in New York City big enough to hold Ayers Rock that wouldn't already slant Ayers Rock out-of-bounds.

"1. Link does not have an unlimited number of Bomb Arrows. I believe the most he can carry in Twilight Princess is 30 bombs per bag 3 bags = 90 bombs. Are 90 bombs enough to reduce all of Uluru into an eatable size?"
Kirby could simply eat one of Link's bombs and become Bomb Kirby. Bomb Kirby is capable of making bombs out of nothing. Therefore, Link can just use Kirby's bombs for his bomb arrow.

"3. Law of Conservation of Mass. Breaking the rock into smaller pieces does mean that Kirby would have an easier time swallowing them all, but the total mass remains unchanged. Can Kirby really swallow so much? Where's the limit?"
There isn't really a limit for how much Kirby can eat. There is also not a limit for how much a human can eat. The only difference is that Kirby can inhale things faster than a human, and can digest things much faster than a human. So, although there isn't a real limit, there's no real limit to anybody's consumption. Also, it is limited by how fast Kirby can inhale.

"I don't believe Logical-Master ever clarified on this rule. Someone, later in the thread, suggested that the rule implies that a team member cannot be defeated simply be being forcibly removed from NYC. I'll apply the rule the same way."
There was a question about whether or not sumo-kills were allowed. The question was never answered. Therefore, sumo-kills are allowed. This is a sumo-kill. Note that it is not teleportation, but levitation.

"But he is trapped in the Puzzle without Yugi, 'unusable' in the sense that a living character would be unusable."
He's able to project himself somewhat within some range of the Millennium Puzzle, as he did when he rescued Solomon Muto when he went to retrieve the Millennium Puzzle in the first place. Therefore, he would still be "usable." See Video 1 (1:55).

Also, Link, being a video game protagonist, does not need to eat, and does not age over time. Therefore, he would be able to outlast Ayers Rock in a standstill.

"This is somewhat of a semantical argument, and, I believe, a direct twisting of the rule's intent. The rule clearly means that a team member cannot physically assist his team in battle."
Wrong. The rule basically separates the team leaders from the battle. The idea of "commands" isn't true. By "loyal to the team leader," it is basically saying that team members stay on their side unless required. My role is to explain how Team PRO can beat Team CON.
Finally, Yugi can always use the Millennium Rod to take over the hypothetical mongeese's mind. Therefore, I am on my own team, and am unusable by Team CON, so I no longer have to kill myself. Remove me from the list of people that Kirby swallows.

"Finally, without the team leader, how can mongeese's team win? It isn't even mongeese's team. I think that in this kind of a battle, it's a clear implication that the team leader guides his team to victory and thus, obviously, must be alive at the end to claim victory."
Wrong. The team leader explains how his team would win. He doesn't have to be alive at the end.
Plus, Yugi's got me back on Team PRO using the Millennium Rod now, so I don't have to worry about this paradox anymore. To clarify things, I can always be knocked unconscious to be "defeated" without dying at the end.
Or, there's another solution. In Super Mario Galaxy, Luigi was inexplicably cloned to explain his being both the protagonist and an assistant [1]. That may be the situation we're in. I am my own team leader, while you have a clone of me. Therefore, that clone is not the real team leader. I am the team leader.

Now, one thing that my opponent has not done is protest Kirby's leaving New York City, so I will consider this point conceded, assuming that I can get everything else done.

The revised strategy:

1. Yugi uses the Millennium Rod to take control of mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP.
2. Yugi uses the Millennium Ring to ascertain the position of the atom.
3. Kirby eats the atom.
4. Link puts a bomb on the ground.
5. Kirby eats the bomb, transforming into Bomb Kirby.
6. Kirby puts a bomb on the ground.
7. Link uses the Gale Boomerang to transport one of the bombs to some point on Ayers Rock, where the bomb explodes, turning part of Ayers Rock into fragments.
8. Steps 6 and 7 are repeated until Ayers Rock has been reduced to pieces no bigger than an ordinary watermelon.
9. Kirby eats the many pieces that used to make up Ayers Rock.
10. Kirby leaves New York City.
11. mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP all leave New York City.

Team PRO wins!

Now, for alternate strategies:
1. The rock and the atom are already defeated, as explained above.
2. Midna uses psychokinesis to levitate all of Team CON and move them out of New York City, defeating them.
3. Everybody waits. Because Link and Atem do not age, as time goes by, Ayers Rock is eventually eroded by wind and rain, and all parts of Ayers Rock are blown out of New York City by a breeze.
4. mongeese, Logical-Master, and MTGandP can all be eliminated in a variety of ways, including consuming by Kirby, slaying by Link, and banished to the Shadow Realm by Yugi.

1. http://www.mariowiki.com...
iamadragon

Con

Logical-Master's rule regards to something that is unusable. You still haven't refuted the core of my argument–I'm using the rock. Therefore, it is not unusable. Therefore, you haven't defeated it.

"the context of L-M's rule... 'used' for many things."

This is where the tier theory comes in. I'll explain:

A living character is used as long as it is alive. None of its purposes are accomplished if it dies. However, a non-living character, as I am using, is used as long as it exists. Its purposes are always being accomplished, unless you remove it from existence.

It comes down to what the character is being used for. Obviously–really, obviously–any living character's uses revolve around its being alive. This is not the case for a nonliving character.

"You see, if something alive were turned into stone... something that started out stone would start out defeated."

Explained above with the tier theory. Plus, the conclusion really just doesn't follow.

"As for your tier theory, technically, the rock already starts at the tier of 'defeated.' Therefore, it is already 'defeated.'"

Uh... no. First of all, you can't just say that and expect it to hold. Second, I addressed the relevant tier arguments above.

My opponent appears to have contradicted himself with his descriptions of Kirby:

"Things that Kirby has swallowed are trapped in his body forever. You can't use it anymore."

"There isn't really a limit for how much Kirby can eat... digest things much faster than a human."

A couple of things before I delve into the contradiction, I'd like to point out that as long as the rock exists, it's in use. Therefore, my opponent's first argument doesn't hold. Second, I'd appreciate sources for the claims about Kirby's digestive ability and about objects becoming trapped in his body forever.

Next, the contradiction. If Kirby is digesting all of these things, then that explains why there wouldn't be a real limit for how much Kirby can eat. HOWEVER, that contradicts my opponent's claim that objects become stuck inside Kirby forever.

If objects become stuck inside Kirby forever, and there isn't a limit to what he can eat, then there isn't any limit to the amount of matter he can inhale; thus, Kirby is limitless and illegal.

"This eliminates Ayers Rock... already slant Ayers Rock out-of-bounds."

I think CON's argument here is very deceptive. Look at this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

Logical-Master's quoted statement was at 7/18/2009 4:40:47 PM. Next, my opponent himself, said, "200 feet? How about a mile? 200 feet is hardly enough to allow for an epic aerial battle to the death." at 7/18/2009 5:11:09 PM. AFTER THAT, Logical-Master said, "Let me think it over. In the mean time, lets say that maximum battlefield height stipulations be determined prior to the debate by both debaters." at 7/18/2009 5:14:15 PM.

So Logical-Master never definitively decided on a height stipulation.

Second, my opponent hasn't definitively shown that Uluru would be slanted out of bounds. It doesn't matter, though, because there is no height limit.

"Bomb Kirby is capable of making bombs out of nothing."

That seems to defy the laws of physics. Specifically, the laws of conservation of matter and (maybe) energy. [1] [2] Could this ability also be considered limitless? There's no limit on Kirby's bomb creating ability.

"There was a question about whether or not sumo-kills were allowed. The question was never answered. Therefore, sumo-kills are allowed."

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. The rule was not clarified. Thus, we cannot definitively say if a "sumo-kill" is allowed or not–I'm arguing that it isn't using reason, but your argument that it is allowed is simply illogical.

"This is a sumo-kill... teleportation, but levitation."

teleport: to transport (a body) by telekinesis. [3]

There is a list of Midna's abilities and traits in my opponent's source. [4] One of them is to perform telekinesis.

In the TP games, Midna seems only to have her main powers while in the Twilight. In the normal (Light) world, she is simply a shadow. Does Midna even have her levitation abilities in the Light world? Even if she did, how can a shadow physically–key word, physically–levitate an object?

It would seem that Midna's only way to actually move Uluru would revolve around telekinesis. Moving Uluru using telekinesis would be teleportation. Teleportation is illegal.

"He's able to project himself somewhat within some range of the Millennium Puzzle, as he did when he rescued Solomon Muto when he went to retrieve the Millennium Puzzle in the first place. Therefore, he would still be 'usable.' See Video 1 (1:55)."

I guess that seems to work. Around 3:00 in the same video, though, he says that his story might have been a little bit embellished. Perhaps the Pharoah did not physically save him, and the grandfather was actually safe but simply had a vision? I also wonder if the Pharoah's projection of himself revolved around the circumstances–someone being there to "activate" his presence?

"Also, Link, being a video game protagonist..."

First, that seems to raise some questions about limits. Second, that's completely unwarranted and ridiculous. Why can't video game protagonists age?

In Ocarina of Time, Link ages seven years when he pulls the Master Sword out of his pedestal. [5] This shows two things: 1. That Link can age, and 2. that video game protagonists in general can age.

"Wrong. The rule basically separates the team leaders from the battle. The idea of 'commands' isn't true."

You have to actually argue the point. You can't say "wrong" and "that isn't true" and expect it to hold.

"My role is to explain how Team PRO can beat Team CON."

The rule also says facilitate.

facilitate: to assist the progress of (a person).

You are supposed to assist the progress of your team–plus, you are the team leader. Thus, it's accurate to say you are commanding your team.

command: to direct with specific authority or prerogative; order. [7]

Take into account that the members' only prerogative is the team leader, and that the team leader is the only specific authority, and it sure looks like the leader is commanding the team as its head.

"Finally, Yugi can always use the Millennium Rod to take over the hypothetical mongeese's mind."

This is completely nonsensical. First of all, it's not a hypothetical mongeese. It is mongeese. Second, if mongeese can't think, then he can't actually issue any kind of order, and Team PRO stops being a team and becomes a random bunch of five characters who don't really do anything.

"In Super Mario Galaxy..."

This isn't a clone. This is mongeese.

"Kirby's leaving New York City"

Of course, 1. It doesn't seem Kirby can swallow Uluru, 2. That means mongeese is defeated, which creates a paradox.

I have refuted all of my opponents refutations. Now to quickly address one point at the end:

"2. Midna uses psychokinesis to levitate all of Team CON and move them out of New York City, defeating them."

Thanks, that actually shows that you already conceded Midna can only use psychokinesis, which is illegal.

I have not addressed anything else at the end, because it's all been explained above. To address everything again would waste hundreds more characters but would only be repetitive and redundant.

Anyway, my original strategies stand. Team CON wins.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]http://zelda.wikia.com...
[5]http://zelda.wikia.com...
[6]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[7]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Okay, so the entire argument around the atom and the rock becomes this: if you believe that non-living things have to no longer exist to be defeated, you side with my opponent on this issue. If you are already convinced that non-living things are already defeated, you side with me. We have both presented numerous points on the issue. All I would be doing would be repeating all of my points.

However, my opponent makes the generalization that living things are only used if they are alive. This is a generalization. It is possible to "use" a living character's dead body to exist. Therefore, my opponent is taking the entire concept of being "usable" out of context.

"Second, I'd appreciate sources for the claims about Kirby's digestive ability and about objects becoming trapped in his body forever."
Well, where do you think the objects went? They're obviously still inside of him, or they don't exist anymore, thus defeating your non-living things.

"If objects become stuck inside Kirby forever, and there isn't a limit to what he can eat, then there isn't any limit to the amount of matter he can inhale; thus, Kirby is limitless and illegal."
However, there is a limit to the amount of matter he can inhale. He can only inhale the matter that is within the limited range of his inhalation.
If I am not allowed to use Kirby's "limitless" swallowing ability, I can do this differently. Kirby is capable of ejecting matter out of his mouth rather than swallowing [1]. Therefore, he could inhale and eject out of New York City pieces of Uluru one at a time, still accomplishing the same effect.

"That seems to defy the laws of physics. Specifically, the laws of conservation of matter and (maybe) energy. Could this ability also be considered limitless? There's no limit on Kirby's bomb creating ability."
You assume that the laws of physics actually apply to video games.
The limit is that Kirby can only produce one bomb every few seconds. This would be comparable to asking how many punches Superman can throw over time. Because he requires no subsistence, he can throw an unlimited number of punches. However, he is still legal, as MTGandP, the creator of UTW, has used him multiple times. The idea of an unlimited ability doesn't seem to apply to all abilities, really.

"What? That doesn't make any sense at all. The rule was not clarified. Thus, we cannot definitively say if a 'sumo-kill' is allowed or I'm arguing that it isn't using reason, but your argument that it is allowed is simply illogical."
However, you have no evidence that sumo-kills are illegal. You only claim that that was the implication. Since the question was never answered, and everything is technically legal by default unless shown otherwise, sumo-kills are legal. Otherwise, there is no way to defeat your atom, and it therefore has the unlimited ability of being undefeatable.

"In the TP games, Midna seems only to have her main powers while in the Twilight. In the normal (Light) world, she is simply a shadow. Does Midna even have her levitation abilities in the Light world? Even if she did, how can a shadow physically - key word, physically - levitate an object?"
In the Light world, she can still become solid, as long as she is with Wolf Link, which I can have Link transform into. Also, Midna used her powers in the Light world to move the piece of bridge from the Gerudo Mesa to the Bridge of Eldin. Therefore, Midna could easily move Uluru.

"It would seem that Midna's only way to actually move Uluru would revolve around telekinesis. Moving Uluru using telekinesis would be teleportation. Teleportation is illegal."
Teleportation out of New York City is illegal. However, I can use Midna to send Uluru up into space, just above New York City, which is legal, because we have no established height limit. Midna would then release the rock, and it would either orbit away from New York City or burn up on reentry. Also, any bits and pieces that do make it back to the ground would be very tiny, especially since the rock would break apart upon impact, and I could easily have any character move tiny pieces physically.
To clarify one thing, the rock would not hit any of my team members, as Yugi could use the Millennium Necklace to predict where the rock would land.

"I guess that seems to work. Around 3:00 in the same video, though, he says that his story might have been a little bit embellished. Perhaps the Pharoah[sic] did not physically save him, and the grandfather was actually safe but simply had a vision? I also wonder if the Pharoah's[sic] projection of himself revolved around the circumstances–someone being there to "activate" his presence?"
If the Pharaoh still has the power to create visions, then he is still "usable." Also, as long as there are circumstances under which the Pharaoh can project himself, then he can reside safely in the Millennium Puzzle to outlast Uluru.

"First, that seems to raise some questions about limits. Second, that's completely unwarranted and ridiculous. Why can't video game protagonists age?"
The fact that Link does not age normally is not an unlimited ability. Link is just completely immune to natural aging, and immunities are not illegal. Second, if I left my game on for years on end, with thousands of days going by in-game, Link would not age a bit.

"In Ocarina of Time, Link ages seven years when he pulls the Master Sword out of his pedestal. [5] This shows two things: 1. That Link can age, and 2. that video game protagonists in general can age."
Ah, but they still can't age "normally." They can only age by plot events like the Master Sword. In a battle, like this one, Link could stall for as long as he wants, provided that he stays in a place where he can't be reached, or is with an enemy that cannot damage him. Therefore, Link would outlast Uluru, as well.

"You have to actually argue the point. You can't say 'wrong' and 'that isn't true' and expect it to hold."
There is no indication in the rules of any commands.

"The rule also says facilitate."
For one thing, facilitate is a transitive verb [2], which means that it doesn't even fit in the sentence. "Facilitate" was probably supposed to affect the subject of "the debate." Assisting the progress of the debate would only need to involve explaining, not directing.

"Take into account that the members' only prerogative is the team leader, and that the team leader is the only specific authority, and it sure looks like the leader is commanding the team as its head."
Ah, but is there any indication of ordering anybody around? I only explain how my five guys would beat your five guys. That is my role. I don't actually direct anybody. I explain their skills.

"This is completely nonsensical. First of all, it's not a hypothetical mongeese. It is mongeese."
Then explain how I'm both the team leader and a team member. The only real solution is a cloning.

"[I]f mongeese can't think, then he can't actually issue any kind of order, and Team PRO stops being a team and becomes a random bunch of five characters who don't really do anything."
Okay, I can just have Yugi erase my mind using the power of the Millennium Ring (as done by Bakura in Episode 35), so that I forget that I am a team member, but I can still remember that I am a team leader. Therefore, I can command my team safely.

Finally, one other thing. If I leave New York City, I am defeated. However, at that point, neither my opponent nor I would be in New York City. Therefore, it stands that I would no longer be a team member, but team leaders are allowed to be outside New York City, so leaving would free me from my opponent without death, which creates no paradox.

I have no characters left to go through my strategies, but just remember that because my characters can outlast my opponent's, I can't lose. Thank you.

1. http://kirby.wikia.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
iamadragon

Con

"Okay, so the entire argument around the atom and the rock becomes this: if you believe that non-living things have to no longer exist to be defeated, you side with my opponent on this issue. If you are already convinced that non-living things are already defeated, you side with me. We have both presented numerous points on the issue. All I would be doing would be repeating all of my points."

My opponent has essentially conceded the argument. I hope the audience and judges understand clearly what has happened now. My opponent didn't refute anything I said above and gave up instead. This is a debate, not a "who do you agree with?" competition. Votes go to he who argues his position better, even if a voter doesn't agree with the viewpoint. This is why the categories for with whom you agree before and after the debate in the voting ballot aren't actually worth points.

"However, my opponent makes the generalization... concept of being "usable" out of context."

Actually, what I'm doing is the *exact* opposite. I'm looking 100% in context. In the context of the battle, all living characters' usages only work while the character is alive. Similarly, in the context of the battle, the rock's usage works while it exists.

"Well, where do you think the objects went? They're obviously still inside of him"

In which case, Kirby's swallowing becomes limitless and illegal.

"He can only inhale the matter that is within the limited range of his inhalation."

Irrelevant limit.

"Therefore, he could inhale and eject out of New York City pieces of Uluru one at a time, still accomplishing the same effect."

First, you would have to break it into manageable pieces. Second, how long would that take? Uluru is massive. Kirby would have to swallow each small fraction individually, then make a long trek from the rock to the outskirts of NYC�€"also, Kirby walks way more slowly when he has something in his mouth�€"and back and forth.

Third, the rock is in the air. Kirby would have to fly all the way up to the rock to get a piece. Since he can't fly with objects in his mouth, wouldn't he die when he fell from such heights with pieces of rock in his mouth? Yes, he would.

My opponent provided 1,250 feet as a number for the highest object in NYC. We can just use 1,000, since that's easier.

If Kirby falls 1,000 feet at an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s^2 (gravity) [1], then using Galileo's kinematic equation [2]:

final velocity ^ 2 = initial velocity (0)^2 2 x acceleration (32.2) x distance (1000).

Kirby would hit the ground with a speed of root(64,400) ft/s, which is about 255 ft/s. Kirby would be destroyed.

"You assume that the laws of physics actually apply to video games."

We aren't in a video game. You're using video game characters–but in the real world.

"This would be comparable to asking how many punches Superman can throw over time."

No... throwing a punch is not creating matter. You haven't shown that there's a limit to Kirby's ability to create matter. This is an important lack of a limit–Kirby is illegal.

"However, you have no evidence that sumo-kills are illegal... sumo-kills are legal."

Why are they technically legal? When Logical-Master outlawed teleportation out of New York City, it's very possible that the intention was banning forced removal from NYC. This is especially evident through his wording of the resolution about exit from NYC–he calls it "leaving" NYC. Leaving implies a consent/choice in the action.

"Otherwise, there is no way to defeat your atom, and it therefore has the unlimited ability of being undefeatable."

Just because you haven't come up with a way, doesn't mean there isn't one.

In fact, this should count as conceding the point–I showed why your only strategy doesn't work, and you seem to believe that there is no other way to defeat the atom. Really, no other way. You have conceded the battle with that statement.

"In the Light world, she can still become solid, as long as she is with Wolf Link, which I can have Link transform into."

Source? I don't remember that.

"Also, Midna used her powers in the Light world to move the piece of bridge from the Gerudo Mesa to the Bridge of Eldin. Therefore, Midna could easily move Uluru."

Psychokinesis. Illegal.

"Midna would then release the rock, and it would either orbit away from New York City or burn up on reentry."

Haha, very creative. I'd like to just point out that my opponent is getting ridiculous with the height limit, though. "Space," meaning outer space, is not New York City. The height limit applies to what can reasonably be called New York City–I don't know what this is exactly, but it certainly doesn't include space, or any height high enough where my opponent's strategy can feasibly work. If it's defined as below the atmosphere, then the strategy about burning up doesn't work.

"If the Pharaoh still has the power to create visions, then he is still 'usable.' Also, as long as there are circumstances under which the Pharaoh can project himself, then he can reside safely in the Millennium Puzzle to outlast Uluru."

First of all, you didn't address my arguments regarding the necessity of a separate entity, or even the environment of the sacred tomb and the pyramid, to activate the Pharaoh's power. Second, Uluru is FAR larger than the Millennium Puzzle. The Puzzle would easily erode/rust away before Uluru–but even so, if Uluru erodes, how does that remove it from existence? Law of conservation of matter. It still exists.

"Second, if I left my game on for years on end, with thousands of days going by in-game, Link would not age a bit."

Link is not "in-game" in these battles. He's in the real world. Thus, your strategy doesn't work.

"There is no indication in the rules of any commands."

Uh... I just explained why there was. You didn't really make an argument. Anyway, look at your own language earlier in the round–you speak of "having" your characters do things. Sounds a lot like a command. Sounds a lot like a team leader, without whom the team wouldn't be a team.

"'Facilitate' was probably supposed to affect the subject of 'the debate.'"

Probably? That doesn't really make an argument. Considering how the previous sentence said that the team leader may not directly participate "in the competition," facilitate clearly referred to the competition, which is the battle.

"Ah, but is there any indication of ordering anybody around? I only explain how my five guys would beat your five guys. That is my role. I don't actually direct anybody. I explain their skills."

Refuted above.

"Then explain how I'm both the team leader and a team member. The only real solution is a cloning."

What? It's all right there. You're on my team, ordering your team around.

"so that I forget that I am a team member, but I can still remember that I am a team leader."

LOL, you're taking selective memory to new levels there. You can't just forget what you want to forget. Anyway, mongeese would obviously question why the opponent only had four characters and realize that he was the last one.

"Finally, one other thing. If I leave New York City, I am defeated. However, at that point, neither my opponent nor I would be in New York City. Therefore, it stands that I would no longer be a team member, but team leaders are allowed to be outside New York City, so leaving would free me from my opponent without death, which creates no paradox."

First of all, if you leave, you're defeated. Thus, you can't do anything with regards to the battle. Second, how do you know that team leaders can't leave the field? No source. Third, the rules states that leaving constitutes defeat. This can be applied to anyone.

I have refuted my opponent's arguments.

Short conclusion: My opponent conceded the points about the rock and atom, and I refuted his other strategies anyway.

Victory to Team CON.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LeafRod 5 years ago
LeafRod
This is a classic. I'm still proud of myself.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Ah, I see. I probably should have pointed that out.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
When I first read Con's character list, my immediate thought was that the rock and atom were disqualified because they couldn't be "defeated." When I read the debate thread to confirm this, I reviewed the rule on character eliminations:

"12) Being knocked out, rendered unusable, or killed is considered defeat. People who are knocked out, rendered unusable or killed cannot be used any more during a match."

Technically, the second condition applies to the rock and atom. There exists a state in which they are fulfilling Con's purpose (e.g. within the battlefield) and a state in which they are not (e.g. outside the battlefield). While they aren't alive or conscious, they are usable.

I don't agree with Con's stance that his rock could be reduced to a single pebble and still be considered usable, but instead viewed it as a large defended to be dismantled. Had the stone been significantly destroyed, it would have become unrecognizable and "unusable" in my opinion.

You may have had better luck simply saying that the rock is not a "character" in any sense of the word and thus not viable for inclusion on a team. The same argument may have applied to each of his team members, actually.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
What was your take on the dispute of whether or not the rock is disqualified at the beginning because it is technically already dead and unconscious?
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Well, this was definitely the strangest of all the UTW's I've read. I also realize I haven't read the tournament UTW's, so I'll have to go through those. Anyway, my RFD:

To start, all the characters are "usable," only to different extents. That said, Con's team is essentially just the rock. He specified nothing about the atom, so I don't mind assuming it would be eaten or naturally washed/blown/moved out of the arena over time. The human characters were irrelevant (Team Pro has a leader; Mongeese may also be on Team Con but that doesn't negate this fact). So, it's the rock vs. Team Pro.

Ridiculously enough, it's actually a close "fight." The human opponents are useless, Midna isn't allowed to teleport it out of New York (that includes space...come on), and they all age (it's a real-world New York, not a game). Since I don't believe Kirby is free to create an infinite amount of bombs, there is no working argument against the rock.

Unbelievably, the battle goes to the stone, or what's left of it.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Yep, the struggle to take down Ayer's Rock.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I agree. :D
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
Haha, man, this was so awesome.
Posted by iamaphoenix 8 years ago
iamaphoenix
Eh, I already responded to burningpuppies101's ideas, but thanks anyway for his RFD. Thanks to feverish as well, and mongeese for the good debate.

Had I won, I probably would have forfeited the next round, honestly. I joined this thing at the last minute for the laughs of using an absurd team. I also lucked into facing mongeese. Definitely worth it. Thanks again to everyone.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll think it over before round 3. :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
mongeeseiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
mongeeseiamadragonTied
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