The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

My opponent will not be able to win 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,621 times Debate No: 53132
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I believe my opponent will not win this debate. He will argue that he will win this debate. Round one is for acceptance and no one may post new arguments within the last round. Forfeiture brings an auto-losing of all 7 points. Breakage of any rules results in a full 7-point forfeiture.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


So far, so good. No one has broken any rules yet.
So, what makes me so sure that my opponent won't win this debate? Well, I have a bunch of reasons.

1. He only wins against dumb noobies
At first, it seems I have no chance of winning. Mighty Teemo has racked up a 100% win percentage, and he has a respectable elo of 2,823. However, a closer examination reveals all his wins were against dumb noobies all with below 2000 elo. See some profiles of the noobs he won against:, These all show Teemo's victories, yes, but these are all dumb noobs. I am considered one of the worse debaters on this site, yes, but at least I have over 30 wins, unlike those dumb noobs who challenged Teemo.

2. I more effectively use up my characters
4000 characters are allowed in arguments. I have far more characters than Teemo, with a grand 286 just in the first round in comparison to the minuscule 9 characters Teemo used as acceptance. Sure, he can use up more characters this round, but the first round gave me an advantage and a clear showing that I made more effort in my argument than Teemo's.

3. Teemo is about to die, while I am happily bouncing about
Teemo is 110 years old. Scientists hypothesize that humans can only reach the age of 120 years old due to cell division limits, and I doubt they will breakthrough anything within 10 years. See this source:

4. Teemo will have a hard time catching up
So far I have three points before this point. Teemo will have to refute them all within a limited amount of time, and because he is 110 years old, he is most likely too tired in bed to type up his rebuttal.

5. I am serious about this debate and agree with it strongly
Why is this important? Because I haven't lost any of my "school uniform" series of debates. It was because I was serious and I agreed strongly that I could research it easily, be interested, and post strong rebuttals and statements to win against my opponents. I was so powerful that I blew away my opponents, and they forfeited. My strongness in this debate could have an effect on my opponent's demeanor, and because he is 110 years old, he is most likely to have a heart-attack from reading such a strong argument, and he would forfeit all the rest of the rounds, forcing the win to me.

6. I am a troll, and if I decide to go all wacky, troll arguments are very hard to win against
Troll arguments occasionally have more than one meaning hidden in them, and usually they lack in logic and evidence. However, they are very powerful, as demonstrated by many of imabench's argument, in real serious debates, they can be used effectively to debunk arguments. One great example is my troll debate concerning school uniforms. I state that "an evil genius scientist is plotting to take over the world", and give "evidence" by showing the similarity of the children. Yes, the evidence is just coincidence. Yes, the burden of proof is on pro to prove that there really is an evil genius scientist inventing some weird uniform in order to turn students into his minion robots. On the other hand, it must be noted that troll arguments are very funny and the evidence really doesn't have to make a lot of sense. While Teemo could attempt to use serious arguments to contrast my troll arguments, I could still manage to strengthen my argument. One example I'll give is that school uniform debate. Had my argument been debunked in that way, I could say "my evil genius is my brother. It's lucky I'm an incredible actor. He believes in me, and I have to do this debate in secret. However, I cannot stop him on my own. The government must ban school uniforms!" And this would make a lot of sense and be very humorous compared to the opponent's argument, and the voters would more than likely decide me as the winner.


You did not say I could make rules required for you to follow. Because of such, I will now make them.

All of these rules only apply to "9spaceking"

1. you may not be pro in this debate
2. Your username on DDO may not be "9spaceking"
3. You may not use any words,links or post any arguments. This rule only applies to the user "9spaceking"
4. You may not break any of these rules, nor change them
5. you may not make any new rules.
6. you may not make any further post, you are required to forfeit.
7. You must also use the rules you created in round 1.
8. You may not post any comments on this debate.
9. You may not post any pictures.
10.You must follow the rules you made in round 1 of this debate.

Breaking any rules will result in a 7 point forfeit


1. I also face higher elo debaters such as phlliy1. Furthermore, you face various noobs as well. Most of your debates are "troll" debates, which is why you have alot.

2. I am using my characters to refute and make rules. This is an excellent use of them.

3. The age presented on my account is false. I did so for the fun of it. You are unable to prove I am 110 years old.

4. I am not 110 years old. Furthermore, as you can see, I am already debating this, meaning I have caught up.

5. I am not 110. Furthermore, dedecation does not mean a win. The Toronto maple leafs are dedicated, they didn't even make it to the playoff season. I am also very dedicated to all debates I accept, this is one of them.

6. You just said you are serious about this debate. Because of such, you being a troll does not effect the debate whatsoever.

Why will I win this debate?

First of all, my opponent is no longer allowed to debate. He is forced to forfeit. Because of such, he is breaking his rule, which will result in a 7 point forfeit. I am also very dedicated. If I wasn't, why would I accept this challenge?

I need no further argument, because my opponent is no longer permitted to debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Okay. I accept the ridiculous rules.
1. I am not pro on this debate. I am super pro! :P
2. I am not 9spaceking. It's a terrible glitch that I am reporting to the moderators. I'm actually imabench.
3. Okay, but I'm not 9spaceking
4. I ain't breaking any rules you idiot
5. I ain't making any rules
6. forfeit: a fine; penalty, defined as I pay a virtual billion dollars. Add in another billion for good measure.
7. Yes, of course. I am using them right now.
8. I ain't.
9. This ain't a picture it's an insanely good drawing I magically posted with godly powers. (picture: a mental image, defined by

10. Yes, of course. I haven't broken any rules. I just accepted in a wordly way. However, my forfeit had a different meaning: to give up.

1. This is a troll debate. Did you not realize that?
2. I used more characters than you last round.:P
3. yes I can. You speak "old man language".
4. You took 10 hours to type this argument up.
6. I trolled you! :P
7. I broke no rules as the user known as imabench. It's a glitchy error. I will try to PM airmax so he can fix it.
8. your opponent "9spaceking" cannot debate, but I, imabench can.

I have a cute drawing of a puppy. Everyone loves puppies, so they will vote for me.


I asked airmax if such a glitch was possible. He said no. Furthermore you cannot prove the glitch. You even refer to yourself as "9spaceking" in your debates. You are not imabench. Imabench has a seperate account. you are an alternate account of Imabench, you will immediatly be removed from DDO. You are 9spaceking, and you broke the rules by being pro in this debate, since there is no "super pro". You posted a picture. You posted something. You didn't forfeit. Because of such, you have forfeited all 7 points.
Debate Round No. 3


It's the second-to-last round, and it seems as if all is lost! But not all is lost! I can still post tons of arguments that I can repeat in the last round. :P
Oh, and that was I typo. My username is iMabench, a classic parody of iPod and iPhone. Not to be confused with the epic troll imabench.
" there is no "super pro"", my opponent says.
YEAAAHHH there is! Look at the image below. (and yes, I'm that weird-looking kangeroo.)

"You didn't forfeit." Yes I did. Look up there. "forfeit: a fine; penalty, defined as I pay a virtual billion dollars. Add in another billion for good measure." You failed to define forfeit, so I defined it for you first, and because you failed to define the word first, you must accept the definition.

" You posted something" Post: a strong piece of timber, metal, defined by; Something: in some degree; to some extent; somewhat.
That makes no sense whatsoever. How can you "strong piece of timber" "in some degree"? Is that even possible?

1. Teemo has NO sources, while I have SEVEN.
He cannot prove he asked airmax. No screen-shot, it didn't happen. And posting the picture will be a "new" argument if he decides to delay it to the fifth round.

2. Teemo has unfair rules that make it impossible for this "9spaceking" to win
While my debates are fair and actually loseable, especially this debate, Teemo twerks it around with ridiculous rules in such a way that 9spaceking has no way of winning. Fortunately I am iMabench and 9spaceking is a glitch, otherwise I have no chance of winning. It is incredibly unfair for the investigator to have to accept and follow the rules the contender post, as it appears later in the debate and isn't agreed upon in the first place. So please, to be polite, and please vote pro.

3. Teemo still uses less characters overall than I did, and because such, I have spent more effor and made the stronger argument.
Using Microsolf Word (another source!), it is calculated that I used 984 words over all my past arguments and a massive amount of 5427 characters. In contrast, Teemo uses measly 473 words and 2505 characters, nowhere near my impressive arguments! And this only strengthens my hypothesis that my opponent is too scared and broke down in a heart attack before he could type of the rest of his argument.

4. Teemo massively lacks structure
While I have fancy bold fonts that outline my argument, Teemo fails to do so, posting long paragraph arguments and three-sentence arguments at maximum. This makes his stance very unclear and it only supports my stance that my opponent hasn't really spent time and effort on his argument, and becuase such, everyone should vote me.

5. I have a drawing of a cute puppy, while my opponent has nothing
Yes, his profile picture is cute, but that doesn't count. It's like 100 times smaller than my puppy picture. People will vote for me because they love puppies.

In conclusion, my opponent will be unable to win because he is lazy, (no offense), and based on his current pattern, he wouldn't post anything of susbstantial evidence that I will tie or lose this debate. His rules only apply to 9spaceking, and my username is iMabench, so none of his rules work against me. Should my opponent make new rules for me as the user iMabench, I already discussed this--it is massively unfair and not agreed upon. (I was very sarcastic when I said "I agree". It was only to help further prove my point that his rules were pointless)
Vote pro.


There is a super pro, however in this debate you are not him. You are pro. You have forfeited all 7 points. Secondly, forfeiting on this website is when you no longer make any arguments. The website will then say "9sapceking" has forfeited this round". Since such hasn't occured, you forfeit all 7 points.

Furthermore, since you didn't forfeit according to this site, all your argument and definitions after round 2 are invalid. You made a further post, being "to place text on a website. ";Since you didn't forfeit according to this site, I do not have to agree with your definitions, because they do not count. Furthermore, even if they did, I could alter them if I wanted to.

You are "9spaceking" because no possible glitch is possible. You cannot prove it is possible, I can however say I asked airmax, and you cannot disprove such.

1. I do have sources. This is another reason why I will win, because my opponent can't even read.

2. I can create any rules I would like. This was not a rule presented that I couldn't. And I did make fair rules. Fair is "moderately large" rules had a moderatly large font, furthermore the quantity of rules was moderatly large as well.

3. Quantity beats quality.

4. I will win because you rely on bold fonts to win. I rely on facts, rules and pro lying.


Anime cat girl with cute cats. Your argument is invalid.

In conclsion, my opponent was unable to prove he wasn't "9spaceking". iMabench is not a real user. Furthermore, the glitch he speaks of is impossible. He has no proof supporting it is true. Because of such, he already broke many rules, and must lose 7 points.

Also laziness makes me Bruno Mars. That is why people will vote for me. Girls love Bruno Mars.

Debate Round No. 4


"There is a super pro, however in this debate you are not him." I just said I was "that weird-looking kangeroo." What? You don't trust my word? And you trust this guy who falsely claims he is 110 years old?
Puh-leaze. Don't trust my opponent. All his definitions are wrong and so are his arguments. He's lying about everything. He even admits "I posted 110 years old just for fun".

"And I did make fair rules. Fair is "moderately large" had a moderatly large font, furthermore the quantity of rules was moderatly large as well."
Hello? "Moderately large" depends on opinion.

This could be "moderately large".

Your arguments have been disproved.

" I do have sources. This is another reason why I will win, because my opponent can't even read." Well, you only had sources in the last round, which don't exactly help you. -.-

And Teemo STILL hasn't learned his lesson yet, having not nearly as much characters as me. Which is not a new argument at all.

"Also laziness makes me Bruno Mars. That is why people will vote for me. Girls love Bruno Mars." And spending effort makes me Albert Einstien. Girls AND boys all love Albert Einstien. Plus, he's about one billion times smarter than Bruno Mars. And that's lowballing it.

Rebuttals to my opponent's possible rebuttals.
If my opponent tries to state anything new: "YOU LOSE MAN. REREAD THE RULES!!"
If my opponent attempts to strengthen his argument about how I didn't follow his rules, therefore I should lose all 7 points--do I have to keep on repeating the fact that it is incredibly unfair and I didn't agree to those dumb chump rules? Did I mention that I was sarcastic when I said "I accept the rules"?
If my opponents attempts to post another cool picture: "New argument, new argument warning! And remember, you already broke conduct by making ridiculous rules. Don't want to lose it further, eh?"
In conclusion, I have won this debate. To sum this up: I cleverly drew Teemo in with a troll-like topic, then bulleted him fast with a "Fact-attack". He attempted to manipulate the debate so it would be impossible for pro to beat him, but I slyly responded by saying I was imabench (EDIT: iMabench), so his guard was down, and he posted less in round 3. Then I destroyed him by making new evidence and strengthening my original argument. Con weakly tries to save him, but it is too late--I provided the sources earlier. He was super unfair. He knows I cannot post new argument in this round because of my "no new arguments" rule. However, I had no new arguments. Lying was there all along. Albert Einstein just popped up, being revived from the OLD-fashioned days, and thus, not a new argument.
All in all, I have very ingeniously trapped Teemo by letting his guard down and seeing him getting arrogant, thinking his rules bounded me, when in reality, it was very unfair and I was not 9spaceking. All these arguments surely grants myself a victory; the first victory of anyone against Teemo.
Vote pro. I tried harder and I used fair arguments, not employing dumb unfair rules with no warning whatsoever in order to win. Con had to use a dirty hand-trick, and that is why he will lose. Cheaters never win.
Good debate.


Thanks for the debate. You broke your own "fair" rule by debating.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
lolz...I still remember this debate XD
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
the 1 point though XD.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago

Wow, woe to those who attempt to follow every contention and rebuttal. The listing of rules done by teemo snowballed into an incredible back and forth full of definitions, semantics, and unverified contentions. I would urge both of you to avoid such debates in the future because there aren't much incentives to vote on these kind of debates.

Conduct - Tie. Neither really followed the rules posed by the other, which cost both points. It turned into a strange semantics/defining debate and ultimately neither really followed the rules. This is what happens in troll debates... I mean, both made lies - both presented inaccurate information like Teemo claiming that Philly1 has a higher elo even though it's only 1,956 and his age.... or Spacekings trying to say he isn't what his username is. I mean, this was hard to follow guys. Neither of you really out-shined the other in terms of better or worse conduct.

S & G - Pro. It came down to one sentence in R2, "Furthermore, dedecation does not mean a win" which was typed by Teemo. I had no choice but to divulge to this brute level of voting. Ultimately, the only difference was correct spelling. If you feel like challenging this, please provide an accurate tally of every spelling mistake and I will correct my vote accordingly. After reviewing it as well as I could that is literally the defining factor within this debate.

Argument - Tie. Let's face it guys, both of you presented false information - failed to provide sources for all your claims that really required them - went back and forth on definitions - bent the rules - broke them - glued them back together - then bent them out of shape again - and ultimately came at each other with some serious trolling. Neither really out-shined or defeated the other in terms of superior trolling.

Sources - Tie. Teemo saved himself by sharing sources later in the debate. I don't go by # of sources, but of quality and SK9 had a few that were broken. Thus it balanced out.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
well, at least my opponent's not winning this debate!
Tie=technical me win :)
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
It is actually believed the first person to live to 150 was probably born already. So the oldest person whoever lived was 124 years old.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Oh, yes, of course, but I have something else in stock.... *laughs maliciously*
This should be interesting. If I win, first lost of Teemo and grande elo boost! If I lose, no surprise there--noob sniper... (well, more like noob trapper. you get noobs into your debates and they lose them.)
Posted by Teemo 2 years ago
In the last round, someone could just say "thank you for the debate". This isn't an argument, therefore going within the perimeters required.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
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: Arguments: this was back and fourth, in total both sides argued and refuted about equally each round so I feel i cannot award points. S&G: *edit* Pro has posted on my profile and shown what I previously believed to be an error to not be. As usual S&G is tied. Sources: None are available Conduct: I don't like the rules set up, or the round 4 false accusation by Teemo (Pro had rebutals, but no new arguments he simply extended on previous ones.) in conclusion, neither side won conduct clearly enough to award points but I lean pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments section.