The Instigator
Evannnn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ShadowKingStudios
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

My opponent will not say Hello to me.

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 2 votes the winner is...
ShadowKingStudios
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 61360
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Evannnn

Pro

Say Hello: Say or shout "hello"; greet someone
Debate Round No. 1
Evannnn

Pro

Thank you Shadow King Studios for accepting my debate.

I would like to point out that you cannot prove that it was actually YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios, speaking to me when I listened to that recording. It could of been anyone.

As well as this, you cannot prove that you were referring to ME when you said "Hello, Evannn", and not someone else that could be referred to as Evannn.
ShadowKingStudios

Con

Preponderance of Evidence, Pt 1 of 2:
"This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence." http://dictionary.law.com...

A. "you cannot prove that it was actually YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios"
1. The recording was posted by the account holder listed as Con in this debate. Account holder is ShadowKing Studios
2. This text was written by the account holder listed as Con in this debate. Account holder is ShadowKing Studios
3. The following reliable sources were posted by the account holder listed as Con in this debate. Account holder is ShadowKing Studios
4. https://www.dropbox.com...
This link is a recording by Con aka ShadowKing Studios
5. The above link, as with the Hello greeting, are recordings from the same Dropbox account owned by name holder Brando Littles aka ShadowKing Studios.
6. https://www.dropbox.com...
http://brandolittlescopyrighted.blogspot.com...
These two links, posted by Con, aka ShadowKing Studios are from Brando Littles aka ShadowKing Studios. One link is taken from my personal blogspot that bears my name.
7. https://www.youtube.com...
This backlink, from another debate, was posted by me, ShadowKing Studios.
8. Following the YouTube video back to its origins you will come to the Youtube channel of ShadowKing Studios.
9. Youtube channel proves it is ran by ShadowKing Studios. On the profile page you can see the exact same profile pic used up in the corner for Con. https://www.youtube.com...
10. Comparing the voices, gives you matching audio evidence of the same person, me.
11. Right click, copy image location of my DDO pic, paste it in Google Images, search. You will get results pointing to DDO & Youtube.
12. Type in Google Web "ShadowKing Studios" a link to my Vimeo channel pops up. The Logo Sequences of my videos bear witness to this account holder named ShadowKing Studios.

B.
Since you failed to lay down a criteria on which to judge the preponderance of proof, and decide to invent it as you proceed, voters are know bound to judge a victor based on their inherent intelligence of logic & reason and not by any standard you might choose to throw at their feet since, again, you failed to lay a guiding foundation in the beginning. Therefore, based on Pt. 1 of this preponderance of evidence, simple use of logic reveals that I, Con aka ShadowKing Studios, in an attempt to prove you wrong "my opponent will not say hello to me" recorded an audio track of my voice to lay as evidence of saying Hello, Evannn to Pro, aka Evannn. Furthermore, I, ShadowKing Studios, debunking your R2 claim of "you cannot prove that it was actually YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios" have listed several audio tracks of my voice which also bear evidence of my profile picture linked to my DDO profile bearing my name Brando Littles, my dropbox account which also bears my name Brando Littles, my Youtube account which bears BOTH names ShadowKing Studios & Brando Littles, and my personal blog that bears my name Brando Littles & material linked to my moniker ShadowKing Studios. The common denominators that testify to reasonable logic of my veracity are the names linked to Con: ShadowKing Studios, Brando Littles, and the profile pic.

The simple fact that you, Pro, bear the name Evannn, instigating a debate of saying hello to you, logically testifies that ANY person accepting the role as Con, recording a vocal audio greeting to this debate's Pro named Evannn, intended for their post (in this case mine) to be directly addressing their debate opponent labeled Pro, named Evannn.

C.
The only burden of proof you laid down when instigating this debate as Pro is "your opponent" aka Con "will not say Hello to me". Say implies audible words. Teamed with "your opponent" the Con, it does not constitute the "saying" MUST be Con's own voice but only that Con must say--present an audible greeting of--hello. Me implies "Pro" and does not mandate the definition of "Evann" but generally "Con". Saying "Evann" in the greeting was simply an added bonus. I, Con, have meet the burden of proof you presented. Your rebuttals are now reduced to semantics & rhetoric.
Debate Round No. 2
Evannnn

Pro

I congratulate Con in making the arguments above. After reading them I must admit that my previous rebuttals are now reduced to semantics and rhetoric.

1. However, Con has ignored the fact that "Saying Hello" would involve directly greeting me.

Say Hello: Say or shout "hello"; greet someone:

Because there is the possibilty that I never actually clicked on the audio clip and listened to it, there is the possibility that Con has not greeted me.

All of the arguments I made could of been created based off a supposition of what the audioclip contained, and not actual definitive knowledge.

2. The opponent must still prove that the words "My Opponent" in the resolution were referring to him, and not someone else who could be known as "My Opponent".

Examples:

Perhaps I was not stating that ShadowKingStudios will not say hello to me, but I was stating that someone with the birthname "My Opponent" will not say hello to me.

Perhaps I was not stating that ShadowKingStudios will not say hello to me, but I was stating that someone with the
nickname "My Opponent" will not say hello to me.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

Unless he can prove both that I was reffering to him in the resolution, and that I actually listened to the posted audioclip, his BOP has not been fulfilled.

If CON is not able to provide enough evidence to fulfill his BOP next turn (And I am sure he won't), I urge everyone to vote Pro. I would like to thank ShadowKingStudios for participating in this debate with me.

ShadowKingStudios

Con

Preponderance of Evidence, Pt 2 of 2:

1. "If CON is not able to provide enough evidence to fulfill his BOP next turn (And I am sure he won't), I urge everyone to vote Pro."


This is the argument shouted from a sinking ship. "Help me! I waited till the last minute to get up & go look for a life jacket--found none--but hope you will come and rescue me my belated attempt to get off this sinking vessel" But I'll endulge since I still have the superior use of logic on my side.

2. "Say Hello: Say or shout "hello"; greet someone:"

The audio track bears the vocal words "hello"--burden fulfilled. You attempt to point out "greet someone". Hello is a word designated as a greeting, common sense & our ow personal histories testify to this, since we do not use "hello" as a spoken or written farewell. "Someone"--there is no standard articulated that the someone had to be real or imagine. Therefore the distinction on this word can be construed to fit each person's argument. However, simple logic roundkicks that in the face, because playing stupid intellectual mind games to try to steer "someone" apart from being "Pro" will only make "Con" look like an imbecile. It is evident, based on Pro's intent to initiate THIS DEBATE, that "someone" is indeed specifically "Pro" also named "Evann." So the personalized greeting of "Hello, Evannn" in the voice recording was specifically directed to Pro also named Evannn.

3."Because there is the possibilty that I never actually clicked on the audio clip and listened to it"

I quote Pro from R2: "I would like to point out that you cannot prove that it was actually YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios, speaking to me when I listened to that recording." You have contradicted yourself while lying to potential voters. Your new rhetoric implodes upon itself when your old claim is the bomb that you had unknowingly preset to detonate it. When a proposition is set upon a weak foundation the premise will crumble against basic logic.

4. "The opponent must still prove that the words "My Opponent" in the resolution were referring to him"

Actually I do have to "still prove" it. You validated me as your "opponent" the moment you failed to A.) notify DDO mods that the "wrong person" accepted your challlenge; B.) when you set the debate invitation to "Open" which means ANY DDO member can be the "my opponent"; & C.) when you acknowledged me twice as worthy: "Thank you Shadow King Studios for accepting my debate" and "I would like to point out that you...YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios...".

5. "Perhaps I was not stating..." "Perhaps I was not stating..."

Perhaps I'm a 500lbs elf from the Doegh' nhut Eton district of Rivendell. Perhaps I'm not black but a racist white redneck that loves watching Honey Boo Boo. Perhaps I'm actually a second account created by Mikal to use my alter Negro ego to argue with my other Caucasoid personality for absolutely no value but shock. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Sir, perhaps, fail in intellectual arguments because they do not establish a reasonable intention for validation.

6. "If CON is not able to provide enough evidence to fulfill his BOP next turn "

Again, my BoP was fulfilled in R1 & elaborated on in R2 & finally proved sufficient in R3. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
It is 2:00 AM in the morning here, and I am tired. I post my next argument for this debate later.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RichardCypher 2 years ago
RichardCypher
EvannnnShadowKingStudiosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: My gawd, Shadow when you lay on the facts you lay on the facts. Honey Boo-Boo! Loved it! Doughnut Eatin elf! Spectacular! Mikal's second account. Classic! I was LOL so hard my dad got up and came into my room to see what was going on. He didn't get the Mikal joke but after reading the entire debate down to the perhaps he too was rolling in laughter. Apart from this being the most hilariously intellectual case I've seen, I do agree with Terridax, every point you debated made absolute sense. The knockout blow came immediately in round 2. Pro could not recover and was forced to use semantics and rhetoric as you predicted. Source points because I know it's your voice. Conduct cause you kept every jab sharp with logical deduction.
Vote Placed by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
EvannnnShadowKingStudiosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: There's really not too much to say here; The con was the only one making arguements that logically made sense, and did so in an eloquite and professional manner.