The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

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 7 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,608 times Debate No: 5824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

wjmelements

Pro

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rulse already posted.
This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me.

1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.

2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn.

3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate.

4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null.

5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.

7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate.

(End Foundation Rules)

1. CON cannot make rules that use the following words: a, an, it, my, your, is, am, I, me, you, opponent, instigator, PRO, CON, resolution, win, lose, are, can, or, if, then.

2. CON cannot limit PRO's ability to speak English.

3. CON must us proper spelling and grammar.
Harlan

Con

1. The person with the user-name "wjmelements" may not limit the ability of "Harlan" to speak English, exempt any rules already set forth.

2. The person with the user-name "wjmelements" may only make rules in the form of double-negatives, from this point forth.

3. From this point forth, all nouns used by the person with the user-name "wjmelements" must be plural.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

[Side note (allowed by foundation rule 4): Pronouns are not nouns. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu... ]
1. CON cannot determine which words that PRO cannot say.
2. Anyone not PRO cannot use any of the following words: person, people, user-name, user, name, wjmelements, Harlan, words, word, letter, count, total, rules, rule, any, no, not, can, will, void, may, mammal, illegal, legal
3. CON cannot make rules that do not concern whaling activities in countries that mainly speak Mongolic languages.
Harlan

Con

1. The guy who started this debate is limited to saying things pertaining to the whaling activities in Japan.

2. The year that the Japan whaling association was founded (1959), minus 1946, is the maximum number of words that the guy who started this debate can use per obstruction.

3. The guy who started this debate must have at least 1 obstruction that rhymes with "Japan", the country that is a member of the international whaling commission.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

In the last round, rules 1, 2, and 3 all used the word "is", a violation of rule 1 from round 1.
Therefore, the debate is won by me.

1. Whaling activities in Japanes countries don't not effect whales.

2. Japanese countries aren't not against whaling.

3. "Napan" never didn't rhyme with words like Japan, which incriminates whaling acivites.
Harlan

Con

[I concede that I broke the rule, but I will in turn point out a rule broken by my opponent. In his 2nd rule above, he uses the term "whaling", which, having checked the dictionary, is verifiably a noun. It was not plural, and he therefore broke my third rule in round #1, therefore I lost, and then afterwards you lost. We have now both lost the game, according to foundation rule #3]

-Whaling in Japan may be described with this adjective: lame.
-Whaling in Japan bores.
-He looked at that whaling ship in Japan.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Correction, the plural word there, was "countries".
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
No, I was reffering to you're second rule: "Japanese countries aren't not against whaling." In this usage, it is a noun. This word could also be a verb or an adjective, but here it is a noun
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Used in context, 'whaling' in R3 is an adjective that describes 'activities'.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Allright, well that makes sense. Also, thinking of a simple way to apply debate analysis... The rules state that if one of us breaks a rule, we lose. Since we both automatically agree to that, than to acknowledge that you have broken a rule would be to concede, because of your agreement.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"But why are you applying the format of a debate to something that is obviously not? "

PRO's words from R1: "This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me."

See the word "debate" and note that it is posing off a debate in which the terms I'm talking about applied.

"You're like a computer"

Not really. This is simply a matter of miscommunication my friend. Please look back at what I said in my initial response towards you.

I quote: "If you provide no reasons, I'll either decide based on my own judgment or call it a tie and not vote."

Specifically note my words "decide based on my own judgment." That is what you want me to do, right? After all, in any game, there is to be a winner. If both you and PRO agree that there needs to be no actual debating done here, I am willing to vote based on that mindset, hence me claiming that I would vote based on my own judgment (though without reasons from either of you, it is quite likely that I may consider this a tie and not vote at all).
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
But why are you applying the format of a debate to something that is obviously not? You're like a computer: "Cannot. compute...non-debate....must. apply...standard. debate. analysis...error...self. destruct. in...t. minus...3...2...1..." KABLAMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Voting for you on that basis would assume that you actually provide a reason (as I said that providing reason would be how I voted), hence treated this as a debate. If you provide no reasons, I'll either decide based on my own judgment or call it a tie and not vote. That said, the same applies to PRO. I'll vote for him if he provides a reason while you do not.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Logical master, if it bothers you that this is not a debate, don't vote. This is a game we are playing... using an online debate format as a medium. Technically, you would be right, but technicality in this case is boring.

If you vote for me on that basis I am disowning your vote.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
PRO has yet to actually argue in this debate. If this doesn't change in the next round and CON actually manages to provide a reason as to why he wins or ties, I'm voting CON.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
You cannot defeat me.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by PieofLife 8 years ago
PieofLife
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by jr98664 8 years ago
jr98664
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
wjmelementsHarlanTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23