The Instigator
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
mistavega
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Mistavega is the one epic omnipotent ruler of ownage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/8/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,781 times Debate No: 9980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent, bow to the judges, and assume the en garde stance.

My opponent posted the following, referring to modern civilization:
"There in that civilization there is but one epic omnipotent ruler of ownage and his name is I, which is me, which is AWESOME."
http://www.debate.org...

I will show this to be incorrect. First, a definition or two, just to keep us on track.

----------
Mistavega: http://www.debate.org...
Civilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Epic: heroic; majestic; impressively great: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Ruler: a person who rules or governs; sovereign. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Ownage: an instance of owning something; an instance of dominating something; the acquisition of control over something. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Awesome: inspiring awe http://dictionary.reference.com...
------

I posit two arguments against my opponent's claim.
1) My opponent is not mentioned in Google under his title
2) My opponent has a very unimpressive record on here.

1. Google.
I looked up my opponent by his title.
http://www.google.com...=
No results. I tried searching for his name. I found a Myspace profile, and a twitter account. Nothing on the internet that I could find mentioned his title.

This is hardly awesome or epic; my opponent, were he omnipotent, should have been able to make me find a more impressive definition. He did not; though it does not follow that he IS not, it at least casts doubt upon it.

Were he the One Epic Omnipotent Ruler of Ownage, surely modern civilization would know? His title should be all over Google, if his claims are true. As his title is not even mentioned, I can conclude that they are not true.

2. Record.
My opponent has been a member of DDO for a week. As of this posting, he has not begun any debates, or made any "friends." His entire output has been three mildly amusing posts in the forums. Although I encourage him to grow and develop his debating skill here, and welcome him to Debate.org, one must admit that his record here is hardly awesome.

With that, I turn this little debate over to my opponent. I hope he has fun with his first debate here, and I look forward to his response.

To my opponent; best of luck!
mistavega

Pro

Before I begin I must make one thing abundantly clear to the humble audience as I don't want to be automatically disqualified for conduct. I have a condition known as "coprolalia", which basically makes me say, or type malicious hateful remarks, But involuntarily of course. I will try my utmost hardest to edit these remarks, but in my editing most of the time I make more uncontrolled offensive remarks. Under this handicap I ask the audience to disregard all of my offensive conduct as irrelevant. Thank you for your understanding, for more information click the wiki link, imbeciles.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I flip the bird to my opponent, flip the bird to the judges and assume a posterless position with my hands down, much like Anderson slvia vs. Forrest griffin, because in the end the judges aren't going to matter, because I'm wining this convincingly in a KO fashion. This isn't competition at all.

Firstly, I'd like to counter rebut all of my opponents half butt poorly thought out arguments, then reinforce the position of me being "the one omnipotent ruler of ownage in the modern gaming civilization" in my own arguments.

MY opponents arguments are as follows:

1) My opponent is not mentioned in Google under his title
2) My opponent has a very unimpressive record on here.

My opponents arguments are fundamentally flawed. My sad pathetic uncivilized chess-playing Neanderthal opponent has grossly taking out of context of what I meant by " the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage." When I stated the position of being the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage, I was talking about being so in the gaming civilization. When I say gaming civilization I don't mean a literal civilization I mean a large community of people who play video games. If you refer to the original thread that started the debate, which theme was centered around gaming, you can clearly see I was talking about being the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming civilization, which is the modern gaming community.

Referal to the original thread: http://www.debate.org...

For one of two reasons my opponent has mislead the audience. Reason one he intended to purposefully mislead the humble audience by using Bill O'Rielly type tactics, by using half truth, mixed with fallacious fabricated lies to persuade the audience in his personal opinion. Reason two would be my opponent is obviously illiterate in reading comprehension. That reason alone should be reason enough for me to win by default.

"1) my opponent is not mentioned in google "

MY opponent did not google my title correctly. If he did he would of came up with 25,000, as displayed by the bottom link.

http://www.google.com...=

"2) My opponent has a very unimpressive record on here."

There is absolutely no correlation between me being the omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming community and my record on debateorg, so this argument in its entirety is completely and utterly irrelevant. It should be disregarded and forgot about like a putrid diaper thrown in a trash receptacle.

Round 2 I'll establish why I'm the omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming community. This took longer then anticipated and I'm pressed for time, off to work I go.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Con

I would like to remind my opponent that, ultimately, this debate will end up in the hands of the voters; they are the ones who will judge the winner of this debate. Discourtesy to them is not a wise strategy for winning, and will almost invariably lose conduct points for the rude debater.

I reccomend, if my opponent truly suffers from this rare mental illness, that he employ a translator or editor to remove the foulness from his posts; perhaps his psychiatrist would be willing to aid him in this regard. I would note in passing that my opponent has given no evidence for his actually having this condition; that his posts contain insensitive and insulting remarks in contexts and applications that seem suspiciously normal to be produced by a mental disorder; and that even an actual case of coprolalia is insufficient grounds for uncalled for rudeness in a formal debate.
_____________
REFUTATIONS:

First, the context of his original remark was clearly referring to modern civilization. Following is the complete text of the post:
"Ah you primitive mongrels amuse me with your prehistoric "board games"

You need to join the prestiges ranks of the rest of modern civilization and play "video games"

There in that civilization there is but one epic omnipotent ruler of ownage and his name is I, which is me, which is AWESOME."

He may have been referring to the subset of modern civilization known as the modern gaming community; however, such were not his exact words. There was no mistake in context here; if there was an "one epic omnipotent ruler of ownage" extant in the modern gaming community, he would by definition be extant in modern civilization, as the former is a subset of the latter.

He then provides his own google search, attempting vainly to find a way to give his title some credibility. However, the search he provides is for 'epic omnipotent ruler of modern gaming civilization', without the quotation marks that tell Google to look for the entire phrase together. As a result, he finds not 25,00 as he incorrectly stated, but about 16,100 results. Only one of these mentions him, or his claimed title: the result for this very debate on Google. ONLY HERE, in the ENTIRE INTERNET, is my opponent's full title even listed.

Searching for his exact title as I did, as a phrase, gets one result: this debate.

Notice also that he has changed his title from the one mentioned in the original post and the resolution of the debate; from "epic omnipotent ruler of ownage" to "epic omnipotent ruler of modern gaming civilization." This will not aid him, as even if he confirms that title, he will still not have affirmed the resolution. I ask him to please keep his arguments on topic.

Last, my opponents handwaves my second argument, hoping it will go away. Yet, he clearly claimed to be "epic" and "omnipotent."

Were he truly epic, I contend that his record would reflect that state of awe-inspiring majesty. A record where he has not even attempted a debate after seven whole days of membership cannot be considered very heroic; zero wins and zero attempts is scarcely an impressively great record for any endeavor. On these counts then, he fails to be epic.

Were he omnipotent, why has he not taken every available debate and won instantly? For a truly omnipotent being, winning debates should be as simple as factoring pi to the nth place.

Were he omnipotent, why does he suffer from a mental disorder? Why is he making excuses for something it is easily within his power to control or eliminate? If he is truly omnipotent, why does he have such a hard time writing simple English?

My opponent has given no indication of being either omnipotent or epic. These portions of his claim are clearly false.

_______________
THIRD ARGUMENT:
"...You can clearly see I was talking about being the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming civilization, which is the modern gaming community."
My opponent claims to be a person of supreme importance in the modern gaming community. The term "ownage" seems to indicated a superior ability in winning video games; the terms "omnipotent" and "epic" indicate a recognized superiority over other gamers.

To research these claims, I searched for video game champions, both international and American. Neither his real name, his assumed name "Mistavega," nor his title were anywhere to be found. Until he provides us with solid proof that he is in fact, the wold's supreme videogamer, I hold his claim to be negated on this front as well.
________________
CONCLUSION:
We still await the first indication that he is of any importance in the gaming community. He has backed up none of his claims.

Until he provides us with proof of his:
a) Omnipotence
b) Epic qualities (as opposed to coprolalia, which is a very UNepic quality)
and
c) Supremacy as a videogamer;
I hold the resolution negated.

Vote Con!
mistavega

Pro

mistavega forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Con

Disappointing.

"mistavega forfeited this round."

This is probably the best argument that my opponent has, on second thought. I commend him for his originality, but chide him for his unnecessarily short reply to my arguments. I do not consider his R2 to have covered my points adequately. And, as my opponent was online just a dew hours ago, he could at least have posted a brief explanation of why we was forfeiting this round; as he did not do so, I suggest that he no longer cares enough to argue this and has conceded this debate.

As my points are all unrefuted, my arguments unanswered, I strongly urge a Con vote.

----------
I wish my opponent all the best in his future debates here on Debate.org, and hope he enjoys them more than he did this one.
mistavega

Pro

Opening statements:

Wow I must say, I'm truly astonished on how remarkable my opponents argument is, for a heaping pile of cow manure. Seriously that was about as compelling as my five year old nieces arguments on why she should stay up past her bed time. Yes I am comparing his arguments to that of a five year olds.

I dub my opponent "Captain Obvious", America certainly needs more patriots like him, we can all appreciate his valiant efforts and behold them benevolent in our hearts. I very well know that discourteously to the people who ultimately decide who the winner of this debate is going to be is a bad decision if my intentions were to actually win this debate. I obviously struck a chord in my opponents gaping mangina. His feelings are hurt. Perhaps after this debate is over I should send him a soft pillow made out of fabric softener along side complimentary heart shaped chocolates, with a corresponding "I'm sorry" postcard. I made clear to my opponent that I have the condition know as coprolalia. If he can't disregard the offensive remarks because hes to much in tuned with his emotional side, then so be it, that's his problem. As for the rest of the reasonable intelligent human beings viewing this debate, I'm sure they can cast aside petty insults and look at the actual context of the debate as a whole when deliberating their judgments. Also, I don't have to defend the position of me having coprolalia, that's an issue that is completely irrelevant to me being the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming community. But even if I did defend the position of me having coprolalia, I think it would be completely absurd. Does my opponent expect me to post medical documentation for a petty internet debate? I also think that my opponent making accusations about a mental disorder that he obviously knows nothing about is completely and utterly preposterous. My opponent is not a professional psychiatrist, so he cannot say what is normal and not normal for someone who has coporaliala.

Oh yeah and uhh, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

--------------------------------

My Arguments:

Although I accepted this debate I never agreed to my opponents claims of me being the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage. If you look at my opening statement from round one you can see clearly with crystal clear transparency, like full HD LED TV's, that I agreed that I was the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage of the modern gaming community and not the more general " epic omnipotent ruler of ownage". Although my opponent is correct about not taking out of context about what I said in his thread centered around gaming, he did not understand my meaning about what was actually said. Sometimes what you say and what you mean are two different things completely. When it comes down to it, what matters the most is what is actually meant and what I meant by that post in my opponents thread was that I was the epic omnipotent ruler of ownage in the modern gamming community. That is the position I will defend, now brace yourself!

http://www.livecliq.net...

There you go proof enough

---
Opponents arguments:

My opponent is obviously a douche bag, don't listen to his arguments, just listen to mines, even if I'm not backing up any of my claims.

---------------

Conclusion

Next time I enter a debate I will stop procrastinating and try not to rush everything 40 minutes before I go to work. I'm obviously not being serious about any of this, but I could've made it more interesting if I would've sat down and did it right.

Anyways, vote pro because I‘m awesome
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
You vote for yourself in literally every debate ASB and created multi-accounts to do so.

That you have the gall to say something to chrys is ridiculous
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
why vote for yourself
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
At lest, if you must forfeit a round, post a short note explaining your absence. It is far more polite to your opponent, and loses you less points with the voters.

Yes, technically, not posting in a round is always a forfeit; not always held against you by the voters, but still bad form. See here, no.5: http://www.debate.org...

And, no I can't refute anything, but be careful of trying to pull off stunts in the last round; one is not permitted to introduce new arguments in the last round in any sort of formal debate. This debate is just for fun, and none of your previous "arguments" hold water anyway, so as you please! :)

It's been fun...
Posted by mistavega 7 years ago
mistavega
I actually never forfeited anything, I just didn't post an argument in time. Don't worry though I'll definitely have something for the third round, especially since you can't refute anything.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
"owanage"? If you are omnipotent, doesn't that include the ability to spell?

I patiently await your opening arguments.
Posted by mistavega 7 years ago
mistavega
Argument*

oops, hehehe
Posted by mistavega 7 years ago
mistavega
The omnipotent ruler of owanage has been busy pawning nubs on a rountine basis. Don't think you're off the hook. My arguement will be in.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Not very... :)
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Lol are you serious?
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
I canceled this out of mercy for you. It would be your first debate, and I didn't want to ruin your time on DDO by completely destroying you in your first debate.

"No second chances." -The Doctor

Defend yourself.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
ChrysippusmistavegaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used too much bad conduct while Conmade contentions blowing away Pro's defense!
Vote Placed by mistavega 6 years ago
mistavega
ChrysippusmistavegaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
ChrysippusmistavegaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 6 years ago
VoodooChild
ChrysippusmistavegaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
ChrysippusmistavegaTied
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:40