The Instigator
Brainmaster
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

My opponent has just lost the game.

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 8 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 16999
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

Brainmaster

Pro

The Game is a mental game where the objective is to avoid thinking about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which, according to the rules of The Game, must be announced each time it occurs.

You are playing the game even without consent or knowledge.
Ore_Ele

Con

I cannot lose the game, because I am not playing the game. The game can say that everyone is playing, however the game has no authority to do so, and no power to force it. I can say "every penny in Bill Gates' bank account belongs to me," but that does not make it a fact.

Pro has to prove that something that has authority over me is forcing me to play the game. If we adhere to Non Aggression Principle and Self Ownership, I have absolute authority over my body and my mind. Nothing else has authority unless I willingly give it away. If it is forcefully taken, it forfeits its right not to be aggressed against, so I can forcefully retake without further violations.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 1
Brainmaster

Pro

R1. You are always playing the game, and no consent is required to play. Lack of consent means nothing.

R2. The rules of the game mean that you are always playing the game. Authority is irrevelant. You can only set off losing by not playing.

Thank you.
Ore_Ele

Con

Pro has merely re-stated his arguement. He says, "Authority is irrevelant," but it actually is highly relevant. As pointed out with my Bill Gates' bank account example, simply saying something does not make it true. The games "says" I'm playing, but in no way does it prove that I am. By going back to the game to show that I'm playing is using circular logic, much like saying The Bible is God's word because it says so.

This fallacy should be clear to those reading.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
Give me a shot at this.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Those were the rules to "the game," not the rules to the debate. By accepting the debate I only accept the rules of the debate.
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
If you don't understand, you just lost the game.

I obviously stated the rules clearly.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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: Pro failed to defend his position and simply restated it in the second round. This is the first time I have actually seen anyone win the game but con managed to do just that.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: By thinking of the game, you lose the game. Whether or not you actually care that you have lost the game, and whether you have lost the game are two separate things.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started with a "heads I win tails you loose" statement which means he actually won because thinking about the game constitutes a loss. Con was clearly thinking about it because was arguing against it. However... Pro did not make any of these arguments, and made no rebuttals to Cons counter. In other words Pro did not convince me that he won, I did, so Pro did not make the stronger argument. Failure to acknowledge a reasonable counter argument and just reiterating the rules looses conduct.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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: OreEle proved you cannot be playing the game. PRO failed to argue against the nonaggression principle
Vote Placed by badger 5 years ago
badger
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by joshizinfamous 5 years ago
joshizinfamous
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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: Pro had an easy W but lacked definitions. Coulda killed him on it.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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: Pro should have argued from a definitional standpoint not simply make an assertion.The game is defined in such a way, this is different than making a claim of money. However Pro did not clearly frame this argument 3:1 OreEle.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
BrainmasterOre_EleTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The game is not subject to the non agression and self ownership principles.