The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

MassiveDump is imabench

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 51585
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

I believe MassiveDump is imabench. He claims to be "the best troll"--which is the former known title that imabench held, and all of MassiveDump's arguments are similar to imabench--serious on serious debates, hilarious on hilarious debates.
I dare you, con, to disclaim this inference I made...
philochristos

Con

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Tonight, we are debating a very serious topic. It's a topic that affects us all. So please, if you would, furrow your eyebrow as you read this, scratch your head, put your hand on your chin, or take whatever necessary steps are necessary to ensure your greatest degree of concentration.

It is impossible that MassiveDump is the same person as Imabench because there are things that are true about one that are not true about the other.

According to the indiscernibility of identicals (which is just an elaboration of the most fundamental law of logic--the law of identity) if two entities are actually the same entitiy, then whatever is true of one must be true of the other. They must share every property in common.

Consider Superman and Clark Kent. Although Lois Lane mistakenly thinks that Superman can fly and Clark Kent cannot, Superman and Clark Kent are nevertheless the same person. If it happened that Lois Lane was correct that Superman could fly but Clark Kent couldn't, then it would be impossible that they could be the same person.

Consider also the morning star and the evening star. As we all know, they are both the same entity, namely, the planet Venus. But people haven't always known that. The reason we know they are the same entity is because everything true about one is true about the other. If there were just one thing true about one that was not true about the other, then it would be impossible that they could be the same entity.

My opponent will try to establish that MassiveDump and Imabench are the same person by pointing out many things that are true about one that are also true about the other. That's all he'll be able to do. But that is insufficient to carry his burden of proof. The reason is because all it takes is just one thing that is true about one but not true about the other to render it impossible that they could be the same person. They could have the same name, same mother, same address, some opinions, same looks, same smell, same girlfriend, same IP address and still not be the same person as long as there's one thing that is true about one but not the other.

So my burden of proof is pretty light. All I've got to do is name one thing that is true about one but is not true about the other. But I'll go beyond that and name three:

1. MassiveDump has bright orange hair, but Imabench does NOT have bright orange hair.

2. Imabench had a show called "The Weekly Stupid," but MassiveDump did not.

3. MassiveDump is a Christian, but Imabench is not.

4. Imabench has deactivated his account, but MassiveDump has not.

There ye have it.


Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

1. MassiveDump has bright orange hair, but Imabench does NOT have bright orange hair.
What? How do you know? And couldn't they have dyed their hair?
Sources please. -.-

2. Imabench had a show called "The Weekly Stupid," but MassiveDump did not.
So...? What does this prove? Maybe MD doesn't want attention from the moderators and get banned--again.

3. MassiveDump is a Christian, but Imabench is not.
How do you know? Sources sources please.
And what religion is imabench, exactly?

4. Imabench has deactivated his account, but MassiveDump has not.
NO, HE GOT BANNED! imabench did not deactivate his account, he got banned for profanity!
He doesn't like this place and "the new mod. policy", as stated below, so he leaves/gets banned...but is he serious? Could he be serious?
His last posts were "I can die happy", Yes im still leaving on Tuesday because ...the new moderation policy..."
But was imabench REALLY serious? He posted it on 3/30/2014 8:10:26 PM....and then MD posted his on 3/31/2014 8:01:52 AM....imabench "can die happy"....He probably went to sleep content, checked his other stuff, then made a new account with another funny name and then posted ">inb4 April Fool's." inb4 = in before.... but what does that mean? This mysterious message still leaves me pondering, "in before April Fool's". So let's leave that hanging.

Now, for my own arguments...
see here? http://www.debate.org...
He states "Currently, my Elo is 4,658" (which is almost true, his elo increased to 4,715), while imabench's elo is 4,248. While you may argue 400-500 elo makes a gigantic difference, MassiveDump has yet to reach even 1/5 of the total number of the debates imabench did, so that makes a big difference. They're both in the 4,000's, though, so their debating skills are practically the same.

http://www.debate.org...
Finally, both imabench and MassiveDump love Frozen. While imabench's account is closed and I cannot tell if his favorite movie is frozen, he comments "I can die happy....because of the reason posted above", indicating to the movie Frozen. He was in a horrid mood that day, based on his post, but Frozen turned his mood COMPLETELY around. A dramatic change, I'd say.

BTW Same is defined as "identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned", or "the same person or thing." http://dictionary.reference.com...
people is defined as "a human being, whether man, woman, or child"
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Your argument about Clark Kent is invalid. Within this http://www.scholastic.com..., it tells of a principal who is hypnotized to think he is "captain underpants" and "has lots of superpowers", and looses his weird personality and superpowers when hit with water. Are they the same person? If you are talking about the fictional character the two boys made versus the principal, of course not! However, we are talking about the principal--without hearing the snap of a finger, and the principal again--with the snap of a finger. He is the same person, except with a "bipolar disorder". Very bipolar indeed.
Another better example would be, if I was incredibly jolly and happy, merry and jubilant, humorous and all-awesome in the first round, then in the second round, I was very somber, monotonous, serious, and not-cool-at-all, I am still 9spaceking! My name is still 9spaceking! I am still me, the same person I was, just having a bad day. (A really bad day, I say, if there's a change THAT dramatic. Kind of like Gru from Despicable Me 2 when he is going to meet the woman and then learns that he cannot. He is happy before, super happy, then he is sad, extremely sad, but despite his moods, he is still, the same person.
Good luck.
philochristos

Con

My case:

In the last round, I gave four reasons for why it is impossible for Imabench and MassiveDump to be the same person, so let's see how Pro responded.

1. Different coloured hair.

Pro doesn't deny my claim. He only asks for a source and suggests the possibility that he dyed his hair. Here is a video dated 5/24/2013 showing MassiveDump with his red hair. youtube.com/watch?v=b5B2eb8JtVY

Here's an episode of The Weekly Stupid dated 5/3/2013 showing Imabench without red hair. youtube.com/watch?v=Kr-ABOnP5rI

And here is another dated 8/30/2013 showing Imabench without red hair.

If they are the same person, that would mean he died his hair red, then blonde again within just a few months. While possibly, surely it is not reasonble to believe, and Pro needs to come up with something better than mere possibility to undermine my arguments.

1.a. Since I went to the trouble of posting video sources, I might as well also point out that MassiveDump and Imabench do not look like the same person, and they have different voices, as is evident in the videos. It is plainly evident that they are not the same person.

2. The weekly stupid

Pro doesn't refute this point. He just rhetorically asks what it proves. I already explained what it proves. By the indiscernibility of identicals, it proves they are not the same person.

3. Christian.

Again, Pro doesn't dispute the point. He just asks for a source. MassiveDump announced that he is a Christian. http://www.debate.org... said that unless Jedi-ism is an option, he does not care for customizing the religion section of his profile. http://www.debate.org...;

4. deactivated account.

Pro corrected me, saying Imabench was banned. I take the correction, but that doesn't refute the point. If one was banned and the other wasn't, then they're not the same person. Everything else Pro said is irrelevant to this point.

Pro's case

As I pointed out in the last round, Pro could name a dozen different things that Imabench and MassiveDump had in common, but it wouldn't prove his point. The only way they can be the same person is they have everything in common. Pro only named two things they have in common. That is not sufficient to establish his case even if both things are true.

But, they are not true. First, he claims that their debating skills are "practically the same." But his own statements contradict the claim that their debating skills are practically the same. He says that MassiveDump has yet to reach 1/5 the number of debates that Imabench has, yet their ELO's are very close. If MassiveDump can reach the same ELO with 1/5 of the debates, then he's clearly a better debater. So they cannot be the same person.

Besides, "practically the same" is not sufficient to claim they are the same person. If they are the same person, then their debating skills would be exactly the same.

Second, Pro claims that both MassiveDump and Imabench love Frozen. While he chides me earlier for not providing sources, Pro provided no sources for this claim. In fact, he admitted that he couldn't.

But as I've already pointed out, it's insufficient to claim they are the same person anyway. Lots of people love Frozen. It doesn't mean we're all the same person.

The indiscernibility of identicals.

Pro attempts to deny the indiscernibility of identicals by coming up with a supposed counter-example, namely, that of a bipolar person. This argument of Pro's is self-refuting. If the indiscernibilties of identicals is false, then it will be impossible for Pro to prove that Imabench and MassiveDump are the same person. When Pro points to the similarities between them in his attempt to show they are the same person, he is assuming the indicernibility of identicals. So by denying the principle, he is refuting his own argument.

But his counter-examples don't work anyway. The first example he gives is of a bi-polar person. The fact that what is true of one personality is not true of the other personality only means there are two personalities. It doesn't mean there are two different person. To be bi-polar means that one person has two different personalities, and Pro admits that "He is the same person."

The second examples is of a person who is happy one moment, but unhappy the next moment. Since we are talking about two different moments of time, this is not a counter-example to the indiscernibility of identicals. If the same person were happy one moment and sad the next, it will be true that "He was happy at time = 1" and that "he was unhappy at time = 2." If he was both happy and not happy at the same time and in the same sense, then that would serve as a counter-example.

There can be no legitimate counter-example to the law of identity because it is a fundamental law of logic without which reasoning would be impossible.

Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Man this is a hard debate to win! Time to take out the final ultra evidence...
http://www.debate.org...
The last straw of evidence I have in my possesion.
I'm sorry if you all expected a better argument, but if you read my debates, you'll all see I'm barely prepared for any of them. So unless con forfeits the third round, there is a narrow to no possibility of me winning.
"Has everyone lost their minds? And calendars? This is an April Fool's Day joke. Bench will be back Wednesday if not tomorrow." MassiveDump says. But how could he possibly know? Bench's account was closed, so there is no way they can PM each other by Debate.org means. Even if they knew each other personally and had email accounts, this comment is very suspicious.

You know the game Epic Mafia, where villagers have to find out who's mafia and lynch them before mafia can kill them all off? Well, this game has a lot of "Counter-Claiming", "False-claiming", and finally... "Third-person claiming". Although I don't think one person can play as two different people at the same time, let us assume they can. A smart person would not reveal himself as mafia, if they were mafia on both two character roles, and thus, if this smart person accidentally made a mistake and hinted that he knew something of the other character he was playing as, this brings some suspicion to him. This is a similar case. Imabench is "mafia", possibly the "godfather", the leader of the mafia and super important. As the "cop" (moderators) find out about him, he quits the game, suiciding at the same time.
But let us assume some more--what if the mafia could return as revenge?
So MassiveDump accidentally reveals "Bench will be back Wednesday", hinting he has something to do with the other user, possibly the same person!
You might argue I have a weak point. Yes, I do, I acknowledge that. But what's mind-blowing is his reply to this peticular quote, which is "*cough* still here." HMMMMMM....What could that possibly mean?
Another user named ESocialBookworm replies "lol.. acknowledged", as if he knows about this secret--the secret that MassiveDump is "still here" as imabench. There couldn't possibly be no one knowing this secret, of course, so it makes sense that some people know, and this person, ESocialBookworm, accidentally spoiled it.
Unless you have some other weird explanation for the "*cough* still here.", then I still have evidence that imabench is living on, in a different identity--MassiveDump.

But again, it's the final straw--destroy it and you destroy all fans' hope that MD is bench. Well, at least my evidence. I can't think of any more.
Very well-done debate, incredible counter-examples.
If you win, I bow to you.
philochristos

Con

Pro has dropped all his arguments in the previous round, and he has neglected to respond to any of my defenses of my earlier arguments. By dropping all attempt to refute my arguments, Pro has essentially conceded the debate. He admits this the one argument he makes in this round is weak and that if I succeed in refuting it, then I should win the debate.

Pro's argument essentially is this:

1. If MassiveDump knows something about Imabench, then MassiveDump IS Imabench.
2. MassiveDump knows something about Imabench.
3. Therefore, MassiveDump IS Imabench.

The first premise is false, and the second premise has not really been demonstrated.

Let's look at the first premise first. There are many ways one person could know something about another person. Perhaps Imabench told MassiveDump what his intentions were. Or perhaps MassiveDump has interacted with Imabench enough to be able to make accurate predictions about him.

Now, let's look at the second premise. MassiveDump's statement does not indicate that he knows exactly what Imabench is going to do. In fact, it indicates just the opposite. He says, "Bench will be back Wednesday if not tomorrow." If MassiveDump is Imabench, there would be no "if" about it because he would know exactly when he's going to be back according to his own intentions.

Moreover, Wednesday has passed, and Thursday is almost over, and Bench has not returned, which proves that MassiveDump did not know what Imabench was going to do. His statement about Imabench was false.

But even if MassiveDump had been correct, that would show no more than that MassiveDump made an accurate prediction. If the weatherman accurately predicts the rain, that doesn't mean the weatherman IS the rain. It would be no surprise to anybody if Imabench returned because he's been here a long time and obviously liked it here. Anybody could've predicted the same thing. One doesn't need to have private access to Imabench's mind to make such a prediction. So if Imabench happens to show up before the day is over, that will still not prove Pro's point.

It should be noted that Pro provided no sources for his quotes. In previous rounds, he indicated that lack of sources equates to lack of evidence. By his own standard, his final argument can be dismissed.

There ye have it. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.


Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
lol
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Lol, well dang, I suppose this is why I never became a detective.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Now that the debate is over, no. I am not.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
RiskTaker was RationalMadman, lol
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
actually, the source of the quotes IS my "final straw"....-.-
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
aw man MD wasn't bench like I hoped....Oh well.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Are you Catholic?
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Technically, bench is Catholic.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
well, risktaker is not a troll, so....
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
If anyone is Imabench, it's Imabench.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
9spacekingphilochristosTied
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: i can certify that I am not MassiveDump.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
9spacekingphilochristosTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Too strong of a bias to cast more than a null vote on this.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
9spacekingphilochristosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In R3, Pro concedes all of the previous arguments; perhaps the best move, considering the weakness of his R2. He replaces it, however, with an even flimsier argument based on an ambiguous forum post. Con convincingly demonstrates the enormous leaps of logic in Pro's argument, and the unverified assumptions behind it. Arguments clearly go to Con.