The Instigator
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

My opponent will try 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 13 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,368 times Debate No: 8258
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (13)

 

InfraRedEd

Pro

That's a real shame. I'm just looking for an intelligent meaningful conversation.
I have not had much success so far.
Must be over 21 and a "better" debater than me.
I would rather ask for adult behavior though but I guess that is just a dream.
I urge you to vote for my opponent if winning is what is so important.
The Senate has just rightly rejected the Demint amendment
"To prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts for auto manufacturers."
This would certainly not be fair to the banks.
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings.

In this debate, my obligation is not to try to win this debate. Thus, I shall do just that. Although I want and hope to win this debate, I shall not "try", as it is ironically through not trying that will guarantee me victory. Although I could try through providing advanced argumentation that would lead to there being no conclusion on the topic, I shall not do this.

Of course, PRO is more than free to argue that I am indeed 'trying.'
Debate Round No. 1
InfraRedEd

Pro

I thought I made it clear I was looking for an intelligent meaningful conversation.
Logical-Master

Con

Define intelligent and meaningful please. These terms are pretty "in the eye of the beholder" material.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

^Spam. Looks like I really didn't have to try in order to win this debate. ;)
Debate Round No. 3
InfraRedEd

Pro

Not very much though. Trying to win debates is what my opponent does. He did not attain the one hundredth percentile without trying. When my opponent clicked "accept this challenge" he was already putting into effect his plan to win the debate. At that point he was trying to win the debate, whatever his actions after that point, even if he attained

http://en.wikipedia.org...

at some later time.

So when he declared "I will not try," it was already too late.

He tried.
Logical-Master

Con

Having considered how to win this debate is no secret and is merely reiterating what I claimed in the first round. To win , I simply must not try. Thus, this is a debate where I shall not do anything to advance my position/

On the off chance you do buy PRO's speech, I ask that you think outside the box. If I am in any way trying to win a debate which is titled "He will try to win this debate", we would conclude that I was trying to lose, hence not trying to win, hence PRO being incorrect. ;)
Debate Round No. 4
InfraRedEd

Pro

Exactly. He is either trying to win or trying to lose. It doesn't matter which because in trying to do one he is trying to do the other and hence he is either both trying to win and trying to lose, or both trying to lose and trying to win.

Either way he is trying to win.

He is also trying to lose and should be DQd for that reason.
Logical-Master

Con

ROUTE 1) PRO has failed to actually confirm that I've 'tried tp win. To try implies action, and as stated in the first, I've most certainly went about this by lacking action (in not advancing my position, which PRO doesn't seem to dispute, hence accepts).

ROUTE 2) VIDEO.

Based on # 1, I dare say that I have not tried to win this debate, hence the resolution is false.
Based on # 2, PRO has failed to uphold his stance.

Thanks for the debate. :D
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by usernameistaken 7 years ago
usernameistaken
This is so absolutely, utterly ridiculous. It's like having two samurais openly fighting each other in a field, then having a ninja sneak up behind them, shoot them with poison darts, disappear, and then hear the ninja claim the next day that he won an open, face-to-face fight with a samurai.

What the hell is wrong with you people? This isn't debate you guys are doing, this is just brazen, pointless manipulation and petty bickering masquerading as intellectual discussion.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Ha ha. So many people have accused me of having extra accouts. Heck, even Kleptin was accused of being me at one point. Funny that all allegations are always proven otherwise when reported. ;)
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Puck you and your focksucket account, Logical_Master, social loser.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Puck you and your focksucket account, loser.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
There are supposed to be quotation marks down there.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
@ PoeJoe

I wouldn't call it "cheating the system." More like exploiting a loophole. :D

Spoken like a true lawyer XD
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
@ Kleptin

Yeah, I had considered that matter the morning after I had posted this, but I had made that video while I was half asleep around 3:00 am. I might have made the changes you recommended otherwise, not to mention that I might have added in a catchy song simply to get a better impression from the users and somehow equate the likability of the song to the strength of the argument. :D

@ PoeJoe

I wouldn't call it "cheating the system." More like exploiting a loophole. :D

And thanks for reading.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
+ This was fun reading. I've read many debates like this, but this one is actually somewhat original.

+ Conduct would have gone to CON because of PRO's R3, but then CON cheated the system with the video. He gets deducted here. Conduct is therefore a tie.

+ English is a tie for the same reason as conduct.

+ Argument goes to CON. I thought hard about this, but I think I'm going to allow CON's video. PRO needed to prove that CON was aware of his actions, and he simply did not.

+ Sources is a tie.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I myself thought of a similar route, however, I believe L_M should have done one thing different:

The video should not have included first person references. If it were a video referring to PRO and CON in the third person, it would have strengthened the argument on awareness of actions/consequences.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
A forfeit? Nah. As one who intends to be a lawyer, I'll have you know that after careful observation, I've found that there are no rules which restrict me from using a youtube video in such a manner. If you know of any, you're free to point them out so that I and others may be educated. If you don't, I would suggest that you voice your complaints to the administration so that they may prevent such course of action in the future. However, given Phil's approval of "video debating", I'd say my actions are well within his rendering of his own rules. ;)

As you can see, everything which I inputted into the round did not override the space limitations or else it wouldn't be there. :D

Though in all honesty, I probably would have used that youtube video regardless as winning honestly wasn't my concern in the debate. Having a good time and defying your resolution that dictates what I will and won't do was the only reason I took this debate up.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ninjaraygun 8 years ago
ninjaraygun
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 nrw 8 years ago
nrw
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 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 Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
InfraRedEdLogical-MasterTied
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:07