The Instigator
NiamC
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
socratits
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

My DDO username is NiamC

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
socratits
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 56255
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

NiamC

Pro

The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC".
Ok, accept this debate if you dare.

By accepting, you are acknowledging the debate title.
Any violations of conduct I.e. poor civility or forfeiting a round will result In a 7 point loss.

1st round is acceptance only.
socratits

Con

I accept. Thanks for chaging the settings. You have the BOP to prove that your name is, "is 'NiamC'. " as stated in your resolution for R1.
Debate Round No. 1
NiamC

Pro

I will keep my opening argument not too long, but not too short either. Let's go!


Debate.org

Debate.org or more commonly, DDO, is the site (this site) in which I have the USERNAME of my account which is situated as "NiamC".

USERNAME
A user name is defined as:




      1. "an identification used by a person with access to a computer, network, or online service.
      2. "a sequence of characters that identifies a user when logging onto a computer or Web site —called also user ID"


http://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://www.google.co.uk...

By looking at these above definitions, it is clear so far that the word and term "Username" would apply to my Username on the website "debate.org / DDO", as being "NiamC". This is because I use the User ID (User Identification) to login in to my account which is appointed to "NiamC". Therefore, we can see that my "User ID" would be the same as my "Username", and therefore my "User ID" is "NiamC".

I haven't actually shown that my Username for this website is "NiamC". I shall do so now:

As you can see, on the user drop down menu on the Debate.org website, it shows the name of "NiamC". Now this is one point of proof. To also help prove that the account of "NiamC" is my account and no-one else's, the drop-down menu at the top of Debate.org website(for someone who is logged in to this website) will show at the top of that, the username of your account (if you have one), and no-one else's. Hence it will only show one username; my username would show as NiamC. My opponent's would be socratits, because his User Identification is socratits.

To also prove that the account with the Username identification of "NiamC" is mine, I have found and will show a screen-shot of an email sent to my email address (linked to my DDO account) of niamc*****n@gmail..... which was sent by DDO administration with the purpose of requesting me to verify my account activation.

In this photo, it clearly shows that this email was sent from DDO administration, the recipient of this email (mail), the purpose of this email (I have blurred out part of my email address for privacy/protection), and the username of the designated DDO account is shown. This is conclusive proof that my account is NiamC and that the owner of this account, is me.

To also show that my account would be authentic in identity to me, I say that my real name being used in my account name, is far more than coincidental. The C in the end of my username NiamC, has been used because the "C" is meant to be my Birth surname, which has C as it's first letter. I will use a photo of part of my birth certificate to legally prove my identity, which would furthermore prove that I am the owner of the username on my DDO account "NiamC".
P.s. sorry that the photo is big.


CONCLUSION
I have fulfilled the BOP (which was on me).
I have shown that the DDO account with the User Identity (Username) of NiamC, belongs to the bearer with the name of me (see picture above). Therefore, I have proved that my DDO account username, is NiamC. I rest my case.
I will extend my argument in the next round. I look forward to my opponents response.
Sources used:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

https://www.google.co.uk...

http://i1372.photobucket.com...

http://i1372.photobucket.com...

http://i1372.photobucket.com...
socratits

Con

To be honest, I didn't read all of your rebuttal because it is irrelevent. Your resolution stated in R1:

The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC".

If one looks at where the comma is placed, the sentence itself suggests that your username is, is NiamC. You argued for the name NiamC, however, that is not your burden of proof. Your burden of proof is showing that your name is, is NiamC (including the second, "is.").

To clarify, you used the comma as a vocative case, because there is no other grammer rules that allows you to place a comma in that sentence. Precending the comma, you state what your username is. Following the comma is the modifer of your preceding statement, which is your name, is NiamC.

To put it in perspective, here is an example of a vocative case (http://www.grammar-monster.com...):

I know your sister, Jason.

One will notice that the name addressed is Jason and is after the comma.

Likewise, The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC" follows the same example as above.

Thus, you need to prove that your name is, is NiamC. You have not yet done so.

Lastly, the quotation marks in your statement makes it read such that your name is actually, is "NiamC' due to where you placed that comma.

Debate Round No. 2
NiamC

Pro

Ok, let’s go. If I may say, you did not actually rebut any of my arguments, but only against my grammar.

“To be honest, I didn't read your entire rebuttal because it is irrelevant. Your resolution stated in R1:

I didn’t make any rebuttals...

If you meant my argument, then I’m afraid that you should have read it all, because it is relevant, despite what you say. I shall prove so later.

“If one looks at where the comma is placed, the sentence itself suggests that your username is, is NiamC. You argued for the name NiamC, however, that is not your burden of proof. Your burden of proof is showing that your name is, is NiamC (including the second, "is.").

“To clarify, you used the comma as a vocative case, because there is no other grammar rule that allows you to place a comma in that sentence. Preceding the comma, you state what your username is. Following the comma is the modifier of your preceding statement, which is your name, is NiamC.

I see what you have done; you had almost convinced that I made a terrible grammar error, which would jeopardise my whole argument. But alas! You are wrong.

Let me start by reiterating my resolution:

“The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC".

You have used a semantics tactic to attack at my resolution, thus attempting to make me have changed my argument. You say that because of the comma, which preceded the “is”, I would have to argue that my username is, is NiamC (instead of just NiamC).

You then provide evidence by posting a link to a website which explains about the use of commas and you then explain that a vocative case was used.

To be sure on whether you were right about this or not. I decided to do some research of my own by consulting the internet and by asking some of my English teachers and friends.

If you want proof, ask CJKallstar.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu...

I found out that my resolution would mean that I would have to argue that my username of DDO is in fact, NiamC. Not “Is NiamC”. I shall explain why.

“The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC".

The fact that I had put a set of speech marks around NiamC e.g. NiamC” would clearly indicate that the username would only be “NiamC” and not Is NiamC. Why else would I put speech marks around NiamC? Therefore, it would be obvious that I am implying that my username would only be NiamC.

I had also used the comma before “is” as a clause separation and would therefore not be a vocative case.

My argument

Because I was able to refute my opponent’s rebuttals, I will use my arguments from the previous rounds (which were not rebutted at all). I will summarise my argument from the last round:

1) I was successfully able to show that my DDO username is NiamC logically.

2) To prove that “NiamC” was my actual argument, I provided evidence that the account with the User Id of NiamC was mine. For this I provided a screenshot.

3) To help prove that the account with the User Id of NiamC was mine, I provided a screenshot of an account verification email, proving that I am once again the only owner of the account with the user Id of NiamC.

4) I then provided evidence about why it would make sense for why my username for DDO to be NiamC- my name is Niam.

I rest my case.

Conclusion

I would like to say that my opponent has only provided rebuttals aimed towards the grammar of my argument, and not towards the actual argument itself, which I think is quite a silly thing to do really. My opponent tried to use the tactics of Semantics (which is quite irritating and annoying for me), but I was able to refute and negate his rebuttals, which would once again validate my previous arguments.

Because of this, I have fulfilled the BOP.

I somewhat enjoyed this debate, and I thank my opponent for this.

Vote NiamC

socratits

Con

I don't need to rebut your r2 as stated, its irrelevent when you argue for one thing but you meant the other. In this case, NiamC vs. is NiamC.

Continuing on with your argument, you provided me with a link to purdue owl of which you provide no further reference, thus making me scroll through the 15 different rules to assume which one you wanted me to look at. First of all, you could have at least saved me the trouble of refering to which case. You'll notice that I was able to provide a link and a location to my argument within the link provided. You, on the other hand, clearly tell me to refer to these pages and to this person on what I am assumed to be a member of DDO. After looking through the 15 rules, I've come to realize that your link supports my argument.

6. Use commas to separate two or more coordinate adjectives that describe the same noun. Be sure never to add an extra comma between the final adjective and the noun itself or to use commas with non-coordinate adjectives.

Seems to me you conceded to my argument.

Also, theres no point to ask CJKallstar when the link YOU provided conceded to my argument.

Again from what I stated in R2, the quotation marks can be read as part of the username when used in conjuction with the comma. i.e. your username is: "NiamC" instead of NiamC. Additionally, seeing how it's a username and not of a legal name, quotation marks could be used as a sign of uniqueness in a username. i.e.e 1337 vs Leet.

I had also used the comma before “is” as a clause separation and would therefore not be a vocative case.

What Are Clauses? (with Examples)
A clause is a group of words that includes a subject and a verb.

Read more at http://www.grammar-monster.com...

I'm sorry I didnt know "is NiamC" was a complete sentence.

If people agree with the fact that "is NiamC" is a complete sentence, then I will agree, it is not used in a vocative case. If people disagree with the statement that "is NiamC" is a complete sentence, then my statement that the comma was used as a vocative case stands.

My argument (NiamC's arugment)

Because I was able to refute my opponent’s rebuttals, I will use my arguments from the previous rounds (which were not rebutted at all). I will summarise my argument from the last round:

1) I was successfully able to show that my DDO username is NiamC logically.

2) To prove that “NiamC” was my actual argument, I provided evidence that the account with the User Id of NiamC was mine. For this I provided a screenshot.

3) To help prove that the account with the User Id of NiamC was mine, I provided a screenshot of an account verification email, proving that I am once again the only owner of the account with the user Id of NiamC.

4) I then provided evidence about why it would make sense for why my username for DDO to be NiamC- my name is Niam.

I rest my case.

Rebuttal

1) Yes, you did show that your name was NiamC, but the argument was about your name being, is NiamC. That is why I didn't bother rebutting your arguments when you were stating about something completely different and irrelevent.

2) See 1.

3) See 1.

4) See refutations above.

Yes, Pro rests his case in acknowleding that he hasn't proved his BOP that his name is, is NiamC. Instead, he went on to attack me on the basis that I didn't rebut any of his arguments made in R2, of which, we all know that his arguments were irrelevent to this debate. Furthermore, his refutations to my arguments made in R2 were weak in that he provided "evidence" by providing me with a link to 15 comma rules without refering to what he was talking about. To me, this shows that he doesnt actually understand the rules but was just hoping that he can appeal to higher authority and long pages to win this debate.

Conclusion

I find it comical that NiamC is complaining about the debate about what HIS OWN NAME IS. I find it hilarious that he had the courage to personally set up a debate about his own name, one that is usually impossible to accept, and then complain that con is using semantics to try to win this debate. To be fair, I wouldn't have used semantics if this debate wasn't so ridiculous in nature. However, in no way did he say semantics was not allowed in this debate.

I'm not even going to post a thing about voting for con or summarize my arguments. To me, this was more of a troll debate just by the absurdity of the topic. All I want the voters to take home is to realize what this guy is doing. He made a debate topic aruging that his own name is NiamC. Seems to me he is looking for free wins.

In conclusion, you don't have to vote for me (con), but definitely dont vote for pro. You would only feed the troll.




Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
Oooookay.... So.... First, I would like to say good job to both of you, this was a fun(ny) read. :P However, this debate wasn't the most germane of debates lol. It went from a debate about NiamC's name to one about grammar. Conduct is tied, both were very civil to their opponent. Grammar is also tied, though this debate was basically about the use of commas, that would have to have been part of my "convincing arguments" points because in the actual debate, I didnt see any grammatical or spelling errors. Moving on to the arguments, that is tied as well, I'm sorry to say. Because Pro's opening argument was that his username on DDO is NiamC, and Con didn't refute that, I would've given the points to Pro; *but* since Con drove this debate into one of grammar, this I overlooked this, as Con says it is irrelevant and Pro indirectly agreed to argue grammar over the actual topic by refuting Con's arguments and not extending his, which were unrefuted. The 3 points awarded for convincing arguments is also a tie. This is due to the fact that neither side convinced me why they were right and he arguments were off topic. However, if Pro would've pointed out that in his resolution he used a "that", I would have given him the points. Con's arguments for Pro placing the comma in the wrong place *almost* convinced me, if i had not reread the resolution. Since he is technically incorrect, these points shall not be awarded to him. Reliable sources, IMO, were tied too, soooo.... Yeah. Again, great job to both parties!
Posted by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
I can't believe this....

As a grammar Nazi, my head literally exploded. Just sayin'.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
This is gonna be funny. How are you gonna refute grammatical errors?
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Ok
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
The following exception(s) occurred:

You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria.
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
It wont let me. Can you change the settings?
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Ok
Posted by socratits 2 years ago
socratits
I would like to accept this debate, please.
Posted by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
Really??? You're really doing this????
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kinsky 2 years ago
kinsky
NiamCsocratitsTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I have read this debate. With a baccalaureate, I can tell you that cons grammar understanding was not good in this situation, given the other factors of the preposition and argument. This is why I am awarding sandG to pro. Like a vulture, con tries to tou the evil tactics of semantics against pro. This is why I am awarding conduct to pro. The only sources which con had showed, were about grammar. Pro provided more legit ones, because they were his own (this wouldnt work in someone elses case).
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
NiamCsocratitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that according to pro's grammar, he wasn't defending the resolution. Pro failed to ever argue the resolution and loses arguments. Pro also loses S&G, because Con proved his grammar was incorrect. Since Con used pro's sources against him and had good sources of his own. He wins on sources.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
NiamCsocratitsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT goes to Pro, because of Con's sarcastic remark in his final round, "I didn't know that was a sentence" or something to that effect. I know it's a bit picky of me, but I think good conduct is very important, and offhanded sarcastic remarks towards one's opponent is disrespectful. As far as ARGUMENTS go, I understand the concept of Framer's Intent, but in a debate like this, I feel like semantics are acceptable. Con's final round definitively showed that "this" doesn't exempt Pro from his grammar mistake in the framing of the debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
NiamCsocratitsTied
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: In debate there is standard called, "Framer's Intent" it is the intent behind the wording of the debate resolution, there are many possible ways to have shown he was wrong without going outside of the origanal intent of the resolution. I will be giving the conduct to Pro, because, Con took this debate and destroyed the original intent. Also, by admitting that he had not read anything Pro had stated that also was a conduct lose, you never go into a debate half halfheartedly. Also, I will be giving arguments to Pro as he fulfilled his burden of proof. As always, I will explain my RFD if needed.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
NiamCsocratitsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not a fan of this debate for reasons pointed out by Con, that it a clear win for Pro. However, I also did not like Con playing the semantics game to garner the win. As such I am awarding no points for this debate, as its sort of a pointless resolution even though Pro had strong arguments compared to Con debating semantics.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
NiamCsocratitsTied
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: I have two choices in this decision. I can either decide to agree with Con and say that Pro has shown that he is NiamC, and not either username is NiamC or username "NiamC", or I can state that Pro's resolution doesn't equate to what is written in R1 and therefore that the resolution is so vague and uncertain that I would presume Con. Hence, in either case, I'm voting Con.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
NiamCsocratitsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this was certainly an interesting debate ? it is a classic case of a truism debate being turned into a semantical argument. I could waste time writing a multi-part RFD, but ultimately it is clear Con demolishes Pro in arguments, basically rendering them all moot by making a compelling (and funny case) that Pro, per his resolution, is defending that his username is 'is NiamC'. Thus arguments go to Con. I'm not awarding any other points - although I could award conduct to Con due to Pro starting a truism debate, I don't think it is needed.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
NiamCsocratitsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL. I generally don't like voting for people based on technicalities, but I'm less sympathetic when it comes to truism debates such as this. Con made a convincing case that Pro's unfortunate addition of a comma does, indeed, imply that Pro is trying to argue that her username is "is NiamC", which Pro refuted herself by showing that her username is "NiamC". Pro does deserve a conduct point, however, for her valiant attempts at clawing out of her way out of this.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
NiamCsocratitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: con pointed out that pro made an otherwise impossible-to-win debate. Indeed, even troll arguments will fail against pro's case, as nobody can prove that pro's username isn't NiamC. For this reason I will not be looking at arguments (because nothing would have won, at least, nothing logical), and furthermore, the debate boiled down to "niamC vs Is NiamC"...which NiamC tried to refute using the fact that he used quotation marks to strengthen the idea of using his real NiamC username rather than "is niamC". Even though this pushes the tides back upon Con, it must be noted that this debate was pretty much impossible to win, being a troll topic with serious arguments (huh weird eh?), so I award conduct to con because he didn't make this ridiculously-hard-to-win debate. Will explain this vote further if needed to.
Vote Placed by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
NiamCsocratitsTied
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: RFD in comments