The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
BananaPhilosopher
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,347 times Debate No: 51263
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

-- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con (this debate is essentially a challenge game for Con). If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default, so please, no disputing a rule after accepting the debate --

Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them.

Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent

*Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance

*Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with a lower case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes.

Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted
Rule 6: Shared burden of proof

Have fun, it should be entertaining ha
BananaPhilosopher

Con

i AcCePt.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Nobody has broken any rules yet, so it is still anybody's game. The reason I think Con will lose this debate, is that besides the rules outline, it is anybody's game. However, the cards are stacked against my opponent. Therefore, it is more likely that I will win than Con. Also, remember, even if Con follows every rule, that doesn't mean he wins automatically, it only means that he has dodged a definite loss. Another reason I think I will win this debate is that I am more experienced than my opponent. He only has 3 debates under his belt, I have over 200. He may have a higher win percentage, but this is due to a small sample size. Another reason I will win this debate is because I believe I am better looking than my opponent. This is suggested by the fact that I am confident enough to post a picture of myself as my DP, while his DP is of a cartoon, which is probably a reflection of his drawn out love life. Another reason my opponent will lose this debate, is that if he wins, I will kill myself. I'm sure the voters don't want a man's blood on their hands, so because one is not compelled to automatically vote for Con, even if he follows all the rules, the voters will vote for me, as most people don't want an innocent person to die. Therefore, since I will kill myself if I lose, and most people are caring and sympathetic and don't want that to happen, they will vote for me, and I will win. Therefore, since I will win, it follows deductively that my opponent will lose. Thus, my opponent will lose this debate.

Also, I taught Chuck Norris the round house kick, and had the most interesting man in the world tell me I am the most interesting man in the world. A logician agreed, but he got fired. It is a shame really, as he was really bright.

last argument:

P1: If chicken Mcnuggets taste amazing, Con will lose the debate

P2: Chicken Mcnuggets are tasty as hell

C: Con will lose dawg!!
BananaPhilosopher

Con

eVeRy PoInT rAiSeD wAs EiThEr CoMpLeTeLy IrReLeVaNt, CoMpLeTeLy IlLoGiCaL,
oR aN aD-hOmInEm InSuLt.

cOnSiDeRiNg ThIs Is A fOrMaL dEbAtE sItE, tHaT aLoNe, I bElIeVe, WiLl AsSuRe My ViCtOrY.

Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Response To My Opponent's Claims


My opponent simply stated that I committed all these logical fallacies, but didn't explain how I committed them. Ironically, they were bare-assertion fallacies my opponent was committing by engaging in the accusations. Also, simply calling my arguments irrelevant and illogical is hand-waving.

Why My Opponent Will Lose The Debate: He Broke Rule 4

My opponent broke rule 4, therefore, he will lose the debate. How did he break rule 4? Well, every other letter in the debate is not a capital letter, with a lower case letter in between. I will bold and underline the back to back lowercase letters in his last round:
"eVeRy PoInT rAiSeD wAs EiThEr CoMpLeTeLy IrReLeVaNt, CoMpLeTeLy IlLoGiCaL,
oR aN aD-hOmInEm InSuLt.


cOnSiDeRiNg ThIs Is A fOrMaL dEbAtE sItE, tHaT aLoNe, I bElIeVe, WiLl AsSuRe My ViCtOrY."


The lower case "t" in the second line (or first line, depending on how the user views it) is followed by a lower case "c" in the second line (or third line, depending on how the user views it).

Possible Rebuttal

My opponent my say that the rule that every other letter has to be a capital letter with a lower case letter in between only applies to each line individually. However, that would be clearly false, as I said that part of the rule applies to the debate as a whole in my opening round
Here is rule 4 repeated:


"Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters..."

Since I specifically stated that every other letter must be a capital letter, with a lowercase letter in between with regards to the entire debate and not each line individually, then that possible rebuttal would clearly fail..



Conclusion


Since Con broke rule number 4 by having two back to back lower case letters in the debate, and the only possible rebuttal to it fails by default, then a full 7 point loss occurs, and I will win this debate.


Thank you for playing.
BananaPhilosopher

Con

"eVeRy LiNe MuSt StArT
wItH a LoWeR
cAsE lEtTeR,
aNd My OpPoNeNt CaN
cHoSe As MaNy LiNeS
aS hE/ sHe WiShEs."

mY
oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS,
sEeMiNgLy StAtInG
iN tHe AbOvE
sTaTeMeNt
tHaT
tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS
tO
eAcH
lInE
iNdIvIdUaLlY.
i PoSiT
tHaT
bEcAuSe It Is AmBiGuOuS,
iT sHoUlD
bE
lEfT
tO
tHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS
aS
aN
inFrAcTiOn. In ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg;
mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTeS
iS IrReLeVaNt, BeCaUsE
i CoUlD
hAvE
jUsT
aS
mUcH
dEbAtInG
eXpErIeNcE
aS
mY
oPpOnEnT
oUtSiDe Of ThIs SiTe. FuRtHeR, ExPeRiEnCe Is IrReLeVaNt To ThE
vErItY
oF
aN
iDeA.
sAyInG
yOu'Re BeTtEr LoOkInG
tHaN
mE
iS IrReLeVaNt, AnD
aN iNsUlT, MaKiNg It An Ad-HoMiNeM
iNsUlT.
tEaChInG
cHuCk NoRrIs ThE
rOuNd HoUsE
kIcK
iS
iRrElEvAnT
tO
oUr DiScUsSiOn, NoR
iS iT
pOsSiBlE
sInCe He'S
dEpIcTeD
uSiNg ThE
rOuNd HoUsE
kIcK
iN tHe MoViE
bReAkEr! BrEaKeR! (d) WhIcH
wAs MaDe In 1977, 10 YeArS
bEfOrE
yOu ClAiM
tO
hAvE
bEeN
bOrN (
oN
yOuR
pRoFiLe, WhIcH
i PrEsUmE
iS
a ReAsOnAbLe SoUrCe SiNcE
yOu UsEd MiNe AgAiNsT
mE).
p1 Is UnPrOvAbLe By NaTuRe. YoU
cOuLd HaVe EaSiLy HaD
a HeArT
aTtAcK,
cAuSiNg YoU
tO
fOrFeIt EvErY
rOuNd, Or SoMeOnE
cOuLd HaVe HaCkEd YoUr CoMpUtEr AnD VeRbAlLy FoRfEiTeD
fOr YoU,
rEsUlTiNg In My WiN,
eTc.
p2 Is CoMpLeTeLy SuBjEcTiVe.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Response To My Opponent's Claims
Con says that what I said was ambiguous, but this is clearly false. I outlined in my last round exactly what I said. I will repeat rule 4, and explain why my opponent is wrong in saying that the rule stating that every other letter must be a capital letter with lower case letters in between only applies to each line individually:

"Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with a lower case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes."

As you can see, rule 4 is split up into two sub-rules:

Sub-rule 1 (which is underlined): Every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, and this holds for the entire debate (meaning, not each line individually, but the debate as a whole (hence the "entire debate").

Sub-rule 2 (which is italicised): Every line must start with a lower case letter

My opponent's argument is fallacious because the part of the rule he quoted pertaining to each line individually only dealt with the sub-rule 2, which states every line must start with a lower case letter. However, sub-rule 1 CLEARLY states "with regards to the entire debate".

Since Con broke the rules, he will lose the debate. He clearly broke the rules several times.


My Opponent Broke The Rules Again

In Con's last round, he doesn't have every other letter being a capital letter:


"mY
oPpOnEnT's ReSoLuTiOn Is AmBiGuOuS,
sEeMiNgLy StAtInG
iN tHe AbOvE
sTaTeMeNt
tHaT
tHe CaPiTaLiZaTiOn RuLe ApPlIeS
tO
eAcH
lInE
iNdIvIdUaLlY."

I bolded and underlined the infraction. Not every other letter is a capital letter, with a lower case letter in between. And remember, the only part of rule 4 that applies to each line individually is the part about each line starting with a lower case letter. The part about every other letter being a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters clearly applied to the debate as a whole, as I said "entire debate" and there was nothing pertaining to that sub-rule regarding each line individually.

Clear breaking of the rules.

Here is another one from the last round:

"n ReSpOnSe To My HaNdWaViNg;
mY NuMbEr Of DeBaTe"

There are two lower case letters back to back, the rules specifically state that this cannot happen anywhere in the debate as a whole!


**The Nail In The Coffin!**

If we buy my opponent's argument that rule 4 applies to each line individually, he STILL loses!

"...iT sHoUlD
bE
lEfT
tO
tHe VoTeR's To DeCiDe If It QuAlIfIeS
aS
aN
inFrAcTiOn"

He has a lower case "i" right next to a lower case "n" IN THE SAME LINE!

It doesn't matter what my opponent says, he will lose this debate, and an automatic 7 point loss for Con entails he broke on of the the exclusive rules for Con.




BananaPhilosopher

Con



I lose by your understanding as well as my own. Who's understanding was more correct is no longer relevant. I take back what I said about con's position being easy. It's tedious, time consuming, and as a result, incredibly aggrivating. I was less logical and less thorough than I normally would be just to get this ordeal over with. I hope to in the future debate you on a topic with some actual substance to it..
Until then, to relieve some of my general aggravation, you suck and I hope your internet lags for the rest of your life.
Thanks for the debate. I can't say it wasn't fun.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lol yeah...
NEXT TIME RT DOES THIS THING....
HES DOOMED.
muh hahahaha!
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
It doesn't expressly prohibit it, so I can't see why not. By using another language, you haven't broken any rules. If you're going to debate him on the subject, I think that'd be a fun angle to use. Another thought I had was posting only in binary code. It says nothing about numbers, so I think that may work as well.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I wonder if foreign languages are allowed to be used in this debate...
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
No. I'm just really bad at logical reasoning.
You should see my debates...I've only won ONE so far which my opponent didn't forfeit.
nevertheless I figured out a way to finally beat RT at this stupid game! Next time he does this, he's doomed! muh-hahha!
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Your vote was based upon a statement made in jest, while the rest of his was riddled with ad-hominem insults. In the aspect that I lost, you were correct. Thank you for voting for the winner. Nonetheless, it wasn't for the reason you listed. You may be the worst voter on this site. It's actually astounding how consistently your logic is sub-par. I'm beginning to think you do this just to get a reaction.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I spotted an error in the starting point! I know how to win now!
Muh hahaha....if Rational Thinker dares to start another one, I'll accept it and win!
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
This debate is nearly impossible to win, rational thinker! It's too hard for con to post anything good before making a silly mistake, which causes them to lose all 7 points!
I doubt even imabench could have won this thing (before he left), whether he was serious about the argument or being the biggest troll in DDO.
Ok maybe imabench could have tied you with his massive popularity...but otherwise no one else can win.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I'm ready.
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Done. I'll literally copy and paste your resolution. Let me know when you're ready to accept and I'll post the debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Why not? Start the debate... I'll accept.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Rational_Thinker9119BananaPhilosopherTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: R.T.'s too smart. But BP knew what was going on.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Rational_Thinker9119BananaPhilosopherTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Since the rules do not apply to the voters, we may still vote with an accurate RFD. First and foremost, S&G clearly go to Pro, even though it was a rule of the debate, that is a handicap that Con needs to over come. Conduct goes to Con because Pro left a rule ambiguous despite doing this same debate a number of times already. Arguments go to Pro because Con started following the new semantics of the rule which gives authority to the legitimacy of the rule.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Rational_Thinker9119BananaPhilosopherTied
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: ...
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 2 years ago
Aceviper2011
Rational_Thinker9119BananaPhilosopherTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: like I said this is so stupid.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 2 years ago
Matt_L
Rational_Thinker9119BananaPhilosopherTied
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: Rule 4 was broken, so rule 1 must be enforced.