The Instigator
BananaPhilosopher
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

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 7 votes the winner is...
BananaPhilosopher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 51352
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

BananaPhilosopher

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 an upper 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
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I aCcEpT tHe DeBaTe
Debate Round No. 1
BananaPhilosopher

Pro


I believe my opponent will lose because his task is tedious and time consuming, and he has been allotted only 5 minutes to write each round. He may claim this was unfair, but he garnered 6 wins himself using a variation of the same tactic. The time allotted to write your arguments is disclosed before you accept, and by the definition of the word itself, this is a rule he must adhere to. If he contests this rule, or attempts to argue it’s unfair, then according to rule 1, having broken rule 5, he’d automatically lose.


I only said I’d copy your resolution, not every rule of the debate. And regardless, you had all information disclosed before you accepted; if you were opposed to the rules, you should have been more careful. This seems only fair since you would have had more time to prepare yourself for your own resolution.


Happy Debating. :)


Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BananaPhilosopher

Pro


I further believe con will lose this argument because he’s done this debate a total of 7 times now, with a general feedback of distaste from most people. He’s been repeatedly accused in these debates of using this resolution to boost his stats, and those who agree with that sentiment will vote for me simply because they believe he shouldn’t be able to continue to do so.


He may argue that I’ve done something unscrupulous by giving him so little time to reply, asking voters to vote against me because of this, but I’ve only made the “game”, as he calls it, more challenging. If he wasn’t up for the challenge, he shouldn’t have accepted. It shows the time you have for each debate before you accept.


I further argue he will lose because he forfeited his last round. This is a clear loss for round two of the game, meaning I get the win for that round.


Rational_Thinker9119

Con

If I just cared about boosting my stats I wouldn't have accepted this debate in the first place lol People are reading into it all wrong.

Anyway, I wasn't aware of the 5 minute limit until after my opponent's first round (which was my fault).

Pro won fair and square. Good Job! My social experiment still yeilds the same results, the Con side always loses ha
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
" People accept these debates expecting a fun debate, but instead find themselves in a trap they cannot win."

Then they are idiots because the opening round clearly outlines this "trap". Therefore, if they are expecting something different, they need to learn how to read.

"You've done this on the side that cannot lose four times, not once."

Well, the side can lose, it is just very hard. Yes, I have done it four times, but I have no problem doing this debate again while being Con three more times. Would that make you feel better?

"Banana had an good reason to challenge you, not just to get easy unfair wins."

I didn't do it just to get wins. If all I cared about was wins, would I have accepted this debate with the cards stacked against me? I don't think so.

" I see no evidence you didn't do this to get easy wins, as i'm sure you know you have 4 wins from the side that cannot lose."

The evidence is simple. If all I cared about were adding debate points to my record, I wouldn't have accepted this debate. I would accept more debates with this resolution where I am Con as well.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
@Rational
----
- People accept these debates expecting a fun debate, but instead find themselves in a trap they cannot win.
- You've done this on the side that cannot lose four times, not once.
- Banana had an good reason to challenge you, not just to get easy unfair wins.
- I see no evidence you didn't do this to get easy wins, as i'm sure you know you have 4 wins from the side that cannot lose.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Fair enough.
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
I tried to make two points actually: first, that you wouldn't accept your own debate as con, and second, that you couldn't win against your own resolution. The latter, I proved; whether it coincidentally coincided with your point is irrelevant. On the former point, however, you quite effectively proved me wrong.
You're question ignored the fact that I might be okay with being wrong. Some points end up being proven wrong. I'm okay with that.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Also Actionsspeak, do you know the old saying "it takes two to tango"? How can I be stooping to a level that the people who accept my challenges AREN'T stooping to?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
What point were you making exactly BananaPhilosopher? All you did was prove my point; Con will always lose. If you were trying to make a point that I was just trying to gain debate points by doing these debates and that I wouldn't accept this, then guess what? You failed HARD. So, please, what point were you making?
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Then I take it back, it seems you haven't stooped to the level of Rational.
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
It wasn't about revenge, but I can see why you'd think it was. I was making a point.. Nonetheless, I now wish I hadn't accepted as well. Looking back, it wasn't the best decision. But hey.. hindsight. :p
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Rational_Thinker,
When are you doing to go back to actual debating instead of setting up near impossible challenges to increase your win total? Also sad to see that BP would stoop to your level to get revenge from the loss you gave him.
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
And if you're wondering where the evidence for that is, you need only look to your first comment, wherein you used the title to a children's cartoon as justification for vote bombing, in opposition to the resolution for which you voted against me when he hosted the same debate. And my motives are irrelevant. I posted a debate, he accepted. Flawless demonstration of straw man. I won, but my motives weren't pure. Your intellect is astounding.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 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: Haha, very smart move by Pro, tricking even RT into losing at his own game. Arguments to Pro for coming up with it. Conduct as well because Con forfeited, as I'm sure Pro had planned. However, I agree with Con; he wasn't doing those debates to boost his win count as much as he was doing it just to see how different people reacted.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: It feels you, BP want revenge for this kind of debate setup by RT, because you think he did it to rack up points. However, in reality, he was only doing it as a fun "experiment", to see how different people would react. While some are quite serious, following all his rules, other people attempt to argue whether the rules are right or not. This is true, and someone eventually has to win. (Someone like imabench, possibly?) I can even imagine you grinning evilly at the screen, laughing out loud at RT's ridiculously looking font "I aCcEpT". Seriously, this is just...revenge. Oh well.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Con forfeits.
Vote Placed by MrDelaney 2 years ago
MrDelaney
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Con broke the rules, which results in a 7 point loss. Con conceded, and even said "Pro won fair and square," as well as "I clearly lost." It doesn't get much more clear cut than that. All point should go to Pro.
Vote Placed by loveu157 2 years ago
loveu157
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: he is winning so pro is not winning,
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 2 years ago
WheezySquash8
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 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: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
BananaPhilosopherRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Forfeiture, Concession. That 5 minute point is a fine addition to this sort of debates.