The Instigator
ToastOfDestiny
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

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 7 votes the winner is...
ToastOfDestiny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,096 times Debate No: 8551
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

ToastOfDestiny

Pro

I'm just following the trend - these look fun!

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.

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. With the exception of my first round, 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 cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The victor is the player that broke the fewest rules.

9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions.

10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for ToastOfDestiny and 26-40 for my opponent.

(End Foundation Rules)

11. All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules.

12. Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i.e. any rules they make can only be broken once).

13. My opponent should have at least one palindromic sentence in each of his/her rules which makes grammatical and logical sense. This means he/she cannot randomly insert palindromes, but that the palindrome should logically follow from the previous statement.
mongeese

Con

26. Live on, Time; emit no evil. ToastOfDestiny's rules may not make any mention of time or anything directly related to time in any way in his rules.

27. Live not on evil deed, live not on evil. ToastOfDestiny may not make any rules that restrict mongeese's ability to do anything whatsoever.

28. Step on no pets! Every round, ToastOfDestiny must post a YouTube video in which a person steps on an animal.
Debate Round No. 1
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Let it be noted that it is possible for me to break all of the rules mongeese has posted more than once. That is, I can make multiple rules which violate #27. That nullifies all of mongeese's current rules. Regardless, enjoy:

14. ToastOfDestiny only has to vote for mongeese in this debate if and only if mongeese does not post any more rules.

15. ToastOfDestiny only has to follow rules if and only if mongeese breaks every rule posted by ToastOfDestiny.

16. ToastOfDestiny has the power to establish the truth in this debate without need for proof, although this power dissipates outside of the debate.
mongeese

Con

(When a rule is broken, it is broken. You can only break a rule once. After that, the rule is not there. It is broken. I would only say, "My opponent has broken this rule." I would not need to cite multiple examples, as a rule only needs to be broken once to be broken completely.
Therefore, none of my rules are null.
Therefore, Rule #16 is a violation of #27, because it restricts my ability to establish a truth that opposes that of ToastOfDestiny's.
Rule #14 is a violation of Rule #9. If I break the fewest rules, then ToastOfDestiny must default all categories to me. Rule #14 says otherwise. Thus, Rule #14 and Rule #9 contradict. Rule #9 wins, by Rule #1. Rule #14 is null and void.
Rule #15 also might as well be null and void, by Rule #1. ToastOfDestiny is trying to create a situation in which he doesn't have to follow rules, but those rules hold power over Rule #15, so he still must follow them.)

29. Some men interpret nine memos. In all discussions, only mongeese has the power to interpret and define any words or phrases in anything posted by either player at any time in this debate without the need of sources, whether or not ToastOfDestiny thinks that it makes sense, although he may use sources to more accurately define a word or phrase. These definitions are posted at the bottom of his arguments, including which rule(s) they may apply to.

30. Anne, I stay a day at Sienna. In Round 3, ToastOfDestiny must write a ballad in iambic pentameter entitled, "Anne, I Stay a Day at Sienna," with perfect poetic grammar, about a man aged 17 named Toasted who spent one day at Sienna, from midnight on June 7 to midnight on June 8, using at least 6,000 characters, and using the following literary devices: foreshadowing, dramatic irony, climax, internal conflict, and personification.

31. "Now dine," said I as Enid won. ToastOfDestiny's ballad must include a character that says, at one point, "'Now dine', said I, as Enid won a slice."

Definitions:
11. but not - and even
12. can only be broken once - is only counted once when tallying up rule violations when determining the victor of the debate
15. only - most definitely
15. if and only if - even if
16. establish - to make (a church) a national or state institution
16. truth - something that Barack Obama believes to be true, but isn't
16. without need for proof - requiring evidence that completely affirms beyond all doubt
29. interpret and define - decide the meaning of
30. ballad - http://en.wikipedia.org...
30. iambic pentameter - http://en.wikipedia.org...
30. Sienna - A fictional city located in Hyrule.
30. midnight - http://en.wikipedia.org...
30. using at least 6,000 characters - the characters used up by a combination of letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and sentences that add actual length (which does not include long placeholders such as a string of one character) to the ballad must exceed 5,999.
30. foreshadowing - http://en.wikipedia.org...
30. dramatic irony - http://en.wikipedia.org...
30. climax - http://en.wikipedia.org...(narrative)
30. internal conflict - http://www.musik-therapie.at...
30. personification - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Let's start by looking at the text of rule #7.

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

Direct your attention to the last sentence. Mongeese's rule #27 (my rules can't restrict his) violates this. Any rule that I make binds his future rules by rule #1 (rules take precedence by order posted and no rule can contradict previous ones). By creating rules, I restrict his ability to create rules contradicting mine (if my rule says 'X', mongeese can't make a valid rule that says 'not X'). However, due to mongeese's rules, I cannot do this. There is absolutely no way I can not violate this rule, which violates rule #7. Therefore, rule #27 is voided.

<>
That doesn't change the fact that I can break the rule multiple times. I can not post an animal video this round (one infraction), then not post one in the next round (two infractions). It is entirely possible to break a rule more than once. In the real world, I can commit a murder, then commit another murder. I have just broken the law (rules on steroids) more than once. Let us look at the original text of rule #12.

"Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i.e. any rules they make can only be broken once)"

Therefore, any rules mongeese makes that can be broken more than once are in contradiction with rule #12 (barring his rules about that ballad). Rule #12 takes precedence over all of his rules, so barring rules 30 and 31, they are all voided.

<>
If two 'truths' oppose each other, one is not the true truth. We can have a hearty debate about which truth is true, after which the voter shall decide which truth is truly the true truth. In addition, mongeese's rule #27 (my rules can't restrict his) is a violation of my rule #12, as I can make multiple rules restricting him, breaking his rule multiple times.

< Rule #15 also might as well be null and void, by Rule #1.>>
Untrue. I don't 'have' to vote. I vote only when I want to. Rule #9 does not bind me to vote. However, rule #14 states that the only time I 'have' to vote for you is when you stop posting rules. That is, if you stop posting rules, I will vote and vote for you. In doing so, I will be breaking one rule.

<>
Those rules may hold power over #15, but #15 does not violate them.

Then to mongeese's #29. This rule violates my rule #11, as it hampers my ability to discuss and debate rule violations. If I post an argument, mongeese has the power to change its meaning. Rule #29 is void.

Rule #30 is impossible for me to to follow. It asks me to write a ballad about a 'man' aged '17'. 'Man' is defined as 'an adult male person'. 'Adult' in turn is 'having attained full size'. Toasted, unfortunately, will never be an adult, as he will continually gain weight, and shall therefore never reach a full size until his body completely decays.

Rule #31 violates rule #30, as ""Now dine," said I, as Enid won a slice" is not iambic. Since this rule is in contradiction with rule #30, it cannot be followed.

Let's move on to the definitions. I shall make the definitions I disagree with more accurate through www.dictionary.com

1) but not: yet are prohibited from applying to (definition in context)
-but: yet
-not: used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition
2) can only be broken once
-mongeese's definition is in violation of my rule. If you read the text of rule #12, there is a clause clarifying the meaning of the rule.
3) if and only if: in the case that, moreover, solely in the case that
-if: in the case that
-only: solely
-and: moreover
4) establish: to fix unalterably

Let me establish some rules myself now.

17. Mongeese performing actions in his mind or some other world which is not reality will for the purpose of this debate suffice as mongeese being able to perform actions, regardless of the circumstances, except in, and only in, the case that mongeese uses this rule to back up the following logic: "I am following ToastOfDestiny's rules in an imaginary world, and can break them here". Any argument which approaches this logic is in violation of this rule. If there exists a world, real or unreal, in which mongeese is unrestricted, mongeese is, for the purposes of this debate unrestricted. However, just because mongeese is unrestricted in that world does not mean he is unrestricted in this debate.

18. There exists at least one imaginary world, which is not this debate, in which mongeese is not restricted in any way.

19. ToastOfDestiny has the absolute (this power cannot be removed) power to reword any of his rules.
mongeese

Con

(My opponent claims that he could not create new rules that would not restrict my abilities through logical contradictions.
He just needs to think more creatively.
He could have copied his pre-existing rules and used them again, which would not restrict me any further than I already was, which would comply with the rule.
Therefore, Rule #27 is perfectly legit.
Please don't argue that something is impossible until you've thought through it multiple times.

"That doesn't change the fact that I can break the rule multiple times."
When you break the rule the first time, you shatter it into pieces that cannot be broken further. If you seem to have broken a rule multiple times, it doesn't matter, because once you break a rule, you ignore it, and it holds no boundaries on you. You already broke it, so you might as well enjoy your new freedom of not having to obey that rule. With a governmental law, yes, you can break it more than once, because they say that they can punish you multiple times. However, this debate only punishes you once for each rule broken, not for each incident that would break a rule.
Rules are pass/fail. There is no double fail or triple fail. Shattered rules can still void rules, but they can't be further broken.

My rules are not all voided.

Rule #16 is still a violation of #27. I can no longer use as a rule:
"ToastOfDestiny does not have the power to establish the truth in this debate without need for proof, although this power dissipates outside of the debate."

Rule #14 says that ToastOfDestiny only has to vote for me if I forfeit.
However, if he decides to be a voter, he must vote for the victor.
If I forfeit, he would be the victor.
Therefore, he would then vote for himself, contradicting with Rule #14, or vote for me, contradicting Rule #8. Rule #8 nullifies Rule #14.

Alright, then. You don't have to follow the rules. You still break them when you make the choice to. You can't avoid that part.

#29 does not at all violate #11. ToastOfDestiny can still discuss and debate rule violations. I'm just going to interpret whatever he says to however I please. Rule #29 is NOT null and void.

#30 is perfectly possible to follow. At least, it was at the time of its creation. ToastOfDestiny then decided to make up an excuse for how Toasted could not be an adult. He should have used his creativity in the ballad instead.
Man - An adult male person
Adult - An animal that is past adolescence
Toasted can be a 17-year-old man. ToastOfDestiny just has to make him one.
Toasted could be a wizard. Wizards reach adulthood by age 17.
Rule #30 is not null and void, and has instead been broken.

#31 is easy, too. The phrase is perfectly iambic.
now DINE said I as E-nid WON a SLICE
Rule #31 is not null and void, and is instead broken.

My opponent's definitions are irrelevant. mongeese has the power to define words. mongeese's definitions have power over those of ToastOfDestiny, by Rule #29. Furthermore, the clarifying clause was clarified even further my mongeese.

Rule #17 violates Rule #27. I can no longer use as a rule:
"Mongeese performing actions in his mind or some other world which is not reality will not for the purpose of this debate suffice as mongeese being able to perform actions, regardless of the circumstances."
Rule #17 is therefore voided by the very rule it sought to tear down.

Rule #18 really can't do anything without Rule #17.)

32. Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. ToastOfDestiny may use powers that he has given himself through his rules if and only if he only uses his powers for the good of mankind.

33. "In a regal age ran I." In Round 4, ToastOfDestiny must post all of his rules and ballads in Old English.

34. "Was it a rat I saw?" In Round 4, ToastOfDestiny must write a ballad in iambic pentameter about a boy who, at some point in the story, thought he saw a rat. The story must use at least 4,000 characters, and must include Odysseus, Harry Potter, Link, Mario, Special Agent Gibbs, Dr. House, Ethan Frome, the man in the moon, and George Lopez as characters. The ballad is fictional. Each character must have one iambic line about him in the ballad.

Definitions:
17. suffice - not work
17. approaches - quotes
19. removed - used
19. reword - bow down to
32. for the good of mankind - only to benefit others, never benefitting himself in any way
33. Old English - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. ballad and iambic pentameter have the same definitions from #30.
34. Odysseus - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. Harry Potter - http://en.wikipedia.org...(character)
34. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org...(The_Legend_of_Zelda)
34. Mario - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. Special Agent Gibbs - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. Dr. House - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. Ethan Frome - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. the man in the moon - http://en.wikipedia.org...
34. George Lopez - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Note the English I am using is older than today's English I typed up all my rules before I typed the rest of my rebuttal, making this English old in comparison to the rest of my rebuttal.
20. If a voter is in doubt over who has won an issue, said voter should consider that ToastOfDestiny is correct.
21. Voters shall refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments. When voting, mongeese does not need to refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments.
22. Mongeese never has to follow any of my rules. However, if he chooses to break my rules, voters shall consider this breakage of rules as mongeese breaking rules. That is, mongeese can do as he wishes, but breaking the rules will still count. This applies to any rule I have made. Mongeese has no strict obligation to follow my rules, but breaking them still counts. Mongeese is no longer restricted by my rules. He can do what he wants, whether it results in breaking my rules or abiding by them. If he breaks my rules, though, this counts against him when voting.

Let us discuss these rules. While mongeese may try to redefine my rules, my ability to discuss takes precedence over his ability to redefine my rules. Rule 20 states that voters should consider that I am correct. Rule 21 states that voters should refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments. Rule 22 states that mongeese isn't restricted by my rules, but breaking them results in infractions.

<32. ToastOfDestiny may use powers that he has given himself through his rules if and only if he only uses his powers for the good of mankind (only to benefit others, never benefitting himself in any way).>
Granting myself the power to establish the truth benefits everyone except me. It gives the human population an absolute reference point. I would not benefit, as being the standard for truth is a very stressful position. Therefore, since I benefit others but never myself, I retain the ability to establish any truth I want.

Truth #1: Anything which is stated by ToastOfDestiny benefits others, but not himself, regardless of protests raised by anyone in opposition to this truth.
Truth #2: Mongeese's rule #27 is void, as it violates the foundation rules
Truth #3: True is defined as "the actual state of a matter" regardless of any opposition.
Truth #4: In any confrontation, argument, debate, discussion or dialogue of any matter between ToastOfDestiny and mongeese, ToastOfDestiny is to be considered correct. This includes our many definition battles.
Truth #5: The definitions mongeese provides are ludicrous on the whole. Definitions that should be used are ones that make logical sense.
Truth #6: ToastOfDestiny is the ultimate authority on logic, and decides what is logical, regardless of the wording of any of mongeese's rules.
Truth #7: Truths take precedence over all non-foundation rules.

< He could have copied his pre-existing rules and used them again, which would not restrict me any further than I already was, which would comply with the rule.>
But if I reposted any rule with a different number, your rules bind it by rule #1. The rules you create will bind all rules posted later. This means I cannot Therefore, your rule #27 violates rule #7 - I physically cannot not break your rule.


However, by rule #12, if I can make more than one infraction of any rule, that rule is voided. Because I can infract many of your rules more than once, they are all voided. Voters, don't let mongeese walk you down his path. A rule can be broken more than once, regardless of whether or not someone is punished. A murderer who murders twice, but does not get punished, has broken the law more than once. If I speed in a car multiple times, but only get caught once, I have broken the law multiple times. The fact is, I explicitly state that mongeese's rules can only be broken once. That is, if I can violate any of his rules more than once, they are voided.


Mongeese assumes I would not willingly break a rule. However, if he had forfeited, I would willingly break Rule #8. Voters could count that against me (however, I would win, as you would have forfeited). Rule #14 is not nullified, it just sets up a situation in which I would vote against myself.

<#29 does not at all violate #11. ToastOfDestiny can still discuss and debate rule violations. I'm just going to interpret whatever he says to however I please. >
Because this rule applies to my ability to discuss and debate the rules, it is voided. The moment he has an affect on my ability to discuss, his rule is voided.

<#30 is perfectly possible to follow. At least, it was at the time of its creation. ToastOfDestiny then decided to make up an excuse for how Toasted could not be an adult. Toasted could be a wizard. Wizards reach adulthood by age 17.>
In medieval texts, wizards mature like non-wizards. Also, the Wizard of Oz matured normally. Wizards reach adulthood like everyone else.

< The phrase is perfectly iambic. now DINE said I as E-nid WON a SLICE>>
The three word run 'said I as' is not iambic. It consists of three unstressed syllables. This voids #31. Look up the stresses of won and slice. They are both unstressed. So 'won a slice' is also unstressed.


Rule #29 is voided, as it is being applied to my ability to discuss and debate rules. Because it makes definitions provided in my discussion irrelevant, it is affecting my ability to discuss. Therefore, rule #29 is void.


Mongeese has just posted two stellar examples of how his rule #27 is voided. Whenever I post a rule 'x', he can say it violates his ability to post a rule 'not x'. Even if I repost an old rule, by rule #1 all of mongeese's current rules would bind the re-post (all created rules have power over rules posted later). This means, under rule #27, there is absolutely no rule I can post without breaking one of mongeese's rules. Rule #27 is voided.

Rule 34 is void, as "the man in" is not iambic.

Remember, the truth is I am always right.

Next round I will post a rule-break count, showing how many rules mongeese has broken.
mongeese

Con

(My opponent has broken Rule 33. His English was not Old English. It was merely older English. There's a difference. Furthermore, a Wikipedia article already defined what Old English meant.
Rule 20 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from saying that mongeese is always correct.
Rule 21 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from forbidding voters from using a dictionary.
Rule 22 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from saying that both players must follow all rules.

"Let us discuss these rules. While mongeese may try to redefine my rules, my ability to discuss takes precedence over his ability to redefine my rules."
Wrong. One is a rule. The other is an assumption. Rules take precedence over assumptions.

"Truth #1: Anything which is stated by ToastOfDestiny benefits others, but not himself, regardless of protests raised by anyone in opposition to this truth."
Oppressing all protests against ToastOfDestiny is an automatic benefit to ToastOfDestiny. He has used his power to benefit himself. He has broken Rule 32.
"Truth #2: Mongeese's rule #27 is void, as it violates the foundation rules"
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it helps him win this debate.
"Truth #3: True is defined as 'the actual state of a matter' regardless of any opposition."
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it ignores opposition towards him.
"Truth #4: In any confrontation, argument, debate, discussion or dialogue of any matter between ToastOfDestiny and mongeese, ToastOfDestiny is to be considered correct. This includes our many definition battles."
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it allows him to ignore argument.
"Truth #5: The definitions mongeese provides are ludicrous on the whole. Definitions that should be used are ones that make logical sense."
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it hurts his opponent, mongeese, in their competition.
"Truth #6: ToastOfDestiny is the ultimate authority on logic, and decides what is logical, regardless of the wording of any of mongeese's rules."
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it gives him more power.
"Truth #7: Truths take precedence over all non-foundation rules."
This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it gives his statements more power.

"But if I reposted any rule with a different number, your rules bind it by rule #1. The rules you create will bind all rules posted later. This means I cannot Therefore, your rule #27 violates rule #7 - I physically cannot not break your rule."
If you said, "This rule has no power," it would not have restricted me in any way whatsoever.

"However, by rule #12, if I can make more than one infraction of any rule, that rule is voided. Because I can infract many of your rules more than once, they are all voided. Voters, don't let mongeese walk you down his path. A rule can be broken more than once, regardless of whether or not someone is punished. A murderer who murders twice, but does not get punished, has broken the law more than once. If I speed in a car multiple times, but only get caught once, I have broken the law multiple times. The fact is, I explicitly state that mongeese's rules can only be broken once. That is, if I can violate any of his rules more than once, they are voided."
After the debate, we look at each rule, and decide whether or not you broke it. It is pass/fail. Either you broke it, or you didn't. Therefore, Rule #12 was really just a reiteration of Rule #8.

"Mongeese assumes I would not willingly break a rule. However, if he had forfeited, I would willingly break Rule #8. Voters could count that against me (however, I would win, as you would have forfeited). Rule #14 is not nullified, it just sets up a situation in which I would vote against myself."
Any rule that forces someone to break a rule is null and void, by Rule 7. Therefore, Rule 14 is null and void.

"Because this rule applies to my ability to discuss and debate the rules, it is voided. The moment he has an affect[sic] on my ability to discuss, his rule is voided."
It is not your ability to discuss that it is applied to. It applies to the ability of the voters to interpret your discussions. They're different.

"In medieval texts, wizards mature like non-wizards. Also, the Wizard of Oz matured normally. Wizards reach adulthood like everyone else."
In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," it is mentioned that wizards are adults at age 17.

"The three word run 'said I as' is not iambic. It consists of three unstressed syllables. This voids #31. Look up the stresses of won and slice. They are both unstressed. So 'won a slice' is also unstressed."
You can stress and unstressed words as you please. There are no specific stresses for specific words.

"Rule #29 is voided, as it is being applied to my ability to discuss and debate rules."
Again, you can discuss and debate to your heart's content. It only applies to what the voters think of you.

"Whenever I post a rule 'x', he can say it violates his ability to post a rule 'not x'."
However, if Rule X already exists, reposting Rule X wouldn't restrict me, because the original Rule X would have done all of the restricting that it could.
Furthermore, how would the following rule restrict mongeese?:
"This rule cannot restrict mongeese."

"Rule 34 is void, as 'the man in' is not iambic."
However, "the MAN in" is. Plus, you don't have to refer to him by name. Be creative.

"Remember, the truth is I am always right."
My opponent has violated Rule 5. He is only allowed to make 3 rules. However, with his seven "truths," he really has 10 rules. His "truths" are rules in disguise. A truth would be a statement that is true. However, his truths contradict each other, as Truth 1 claims that he does not benefit himself, but Truth 2 benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it voids his opposition.
Therefore, all of his "truths" are null and void.

"Next round I will post a rule-break count, showing how many rules mongeese has broken."
We'll see about that.

35. I live evil, I. I can be very evil, indeed. In Round 5, ToastOfDestiny must use at least 6,000 plus signs (+) in his argument.

36. Nab a stiff, it's a ban. ToastOfDestiny may not write lists.

37. Ma, I am a boy: Obama I am. In the next round, ToastOfDestiny must post one YouTube video that embarrasses Barack Obama.

Interpretations, using the power vested in mongeese by Rule 27:

11. All rules created by mongeese must not directly restrict ToastOfDestiny's ability to discuss or debate violations of rules.

12. When the broken rules are tallied up to determine the victor of the debate, only the total number of rules is counted for ToastOfDestiny, as opposed to tallying up the number of infractions.
Debate Round No. 4
ToastOfDestiny

Pro


-Thank you for showing us why your rule #27 is void. I cannot make a rule without you shooting it down.
-I apologize for rule #22's redundancy, it was to make redefining my rule a royal pain.


-But the English is old. English is a pretty old language.


-My ability to discuss being untouchable was established before your ability to define, and by the foundation rules therefore takes precedence.


-It may seem like this, but remember, I have the ability to establish the truth, and the truth is I do not benefit. Here's another truth: "Truth" means "conformity with fact or reality". One more truth: my truths conform with reality.

-I've had to say this many times - the rule means that any rules you make can only be broken once. You keep missing the point. Let me illustrate: if you posted "ToastOfDestiny must never use the letter 'h' in his rules" this would be voided, as I can put 'h' in two or more rules, therefore breaking your rule more than once.

-This is irrelevant now; you have not forfeited.


-Again, if you apply your rule to my ability to discuss, your rule is voided. Don't try to mask your actions by rewording them. Because of rule #29, you can decide the meaning of my discussion. You are applying your rule to my ability to discuss. I'm not contending the fact that I can discuss in the literal sense. While my rule does protect my ability to post words, it also prevents my ability to post words from being touched.


On to the ballads. Mongeese bade me write two ballads, one in R3 and another in R4. He never commanded me to post them. He said "in R3" I must write a ballad, and "in R4" I must write a ballad. I wrote said ballads during (in) said rounds. I'll post them now. Anyway, here are the iambic ballads:
"six THOU-sand CHAR-act-ERS do MA-ny THINGS" and "four THOU-sand CHAR-act-ERS do MA-ny THINGS". The two ballads are in iambic pentameter. One contains 6,000 characters, the other 4,000. Using the device 'ambiguity', I encompass all of his requirements.


-Fine. See above. I concede this point.


-Read rule #1. If I post a rule after you, regardless of whether it has been posted before, it is bound by your rules. Therefore, if I repost a rule saying "put palindromic sentences in your rules" this violates your rule #27, as I am restricting you.

Mongeese posts two rules, saying they comply with rule #27. "This rule cannot restrict mongeese." and "This rule has no power". If I post those rules, I deny mongeese to say "That rule has power" and "That rule binds mongeese/me". Even if mongeese posted those counter-rules, they wouldn't make logical sense, in which case I deny him the ability to logically counter his rules.


-However, the truth is, despite any opposition that mongeese brings up, I really do not benefit. It may seem like I benefit, but this isn't the truth.

<35. In Round 5, ToastOfDestiny must use at least 6,000 plus signs (+) in his argument.>
Alright. At the end of the debate, if voters quantify how much I am winning by using plus signs, I am "at least 6,000 plus signs (+)" ahead (plus signs do not refer to individual rule breaks). This debate should result in my count increasing by 1 (this is synecdoche, referring to the whole by a part. I am referring to 6k plus signs by mentioning a part of them). I have used "at least 6,000 plus signs (+)" as mongeese has commanded me to.

<36. ToastOfDestiny may not write lists>
Void. It prevents me from writing rules 23-25, contradicting the foundation rules.

Finally, mongeese did grant me the ability to make definitions more accurate with sources. Therefore, my definitions have weight.

Rule-Break Summary
1) Foundation rule #7 "...Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule".
-Mongeese breaks this with his rule #27. He says that I may never make rules that restrict his ability to do anything whatsoever. Under this rule, I cannot make a rule that restricts mongeese from doing anything at all. No matter what I do, he is restricted. Since there is no room for me to follow the rule, it is voided by the foundation rules. Even if I post rules like mongeese provides, I restrict him from logically countering them. Reposting doesn't work either, as

2) My rule # 11 "All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules."
-Mongeese breaks this rule with rule #29. He interprets and defines (under his definition, chooses the meaning of) everything I say, including my discussion. Mongeese makes all sorts of claims, about how I can still discuss and how he's just changing what the voter thinks. What he deliberately leaves out is his application of the rule. He uses his rule ON my discussion. He is applying his rule TO my discussion. His rule is voided, and he has broken rule #11 throughout the debate. Rule #11 does not mean that I must retain the ability to discuss, but that he cannot touch my ability to discuss.

3) My Rule # 12 "Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i.e. any rules they make can only be broken once).".
-Mongeese claims I am merely restating the foundation rules. I'm not limiting how many rules I can break, but I am limiting mongeese's rulemaking power. Rule #12 clearly states that any rule mongeese makes can only be broken once. If he makes a rule that I can break more than once, that rule is clearly voided. Rule"26 (I can't mention time), Rule #27(I can't restrict him), Rule #28 (animal videos), and Rule #36 (I can't use lists) are all void by this rule. For example, I can mention 'time' many times.

4) My rule # 13 (the palindrome rule).
-Mongeese's rule #36 (I can't use lists) does not use a logical palindrome. How does the phrase "nab a stiff" relate to the rest of his rule?

Finally, my rules (remember, rule #27 is void, so my rules can restrict mongeese).

23. Any rules which mongeese has voided (be they his or mine) any time in this debate are to be counted as rule-breaks. If this rule is voided, its voiding counts as a rule-break. If ToastOfDestiny has voided any of mongeese's rules (shown then to be nullified) this does not count as ToastOfDestiny breaking a rule.

24. With the exception of palindromic sentences, mongeese's sentences must be at least two words long and must contain at least two misspelled words. Mongeese may use up to 15 one word sentences.

25. Rules 38-40 can only affect the following subjects: profile pictures, the 'Belief' section in user profiles, and the Science forum, and cannot force ToastOfDestiny to concede or suggest that he has lost this debate.

Phew. This was probably the most intense debate I've had on DDO. Thanks mongeese, and please vote PRO!
mongeese

Con

A copied rule cannot restrict me, because I was already restricted by the previous rule.

Old English is different from new English.

My opponent has conceded that Truths are Rules, so Truths are ignored.

Here's how you count rule-breaks: If they broke the rule, it's a one. If they didn't, it's a zero.

My opponent has lost nothing in his power to discuss and debate.

6,000 characters and 4,000 characters were clearly defined.

Reposting that I must use palindromic sentences would not restrict me in the slightest.

My opponent has not used the six thousand plus signs in his argument correctly. He talks about them, but never uses them.

ToastOfDestiny may not write lists. He can still type them.

"Nab a stiff" was a command, followed by a command to ban. It is related.

Now, for my own list:

5. My opponent created ten rules in Round 4. (This is a sure thing.)

27. ToastOfDestiny restricted mongeese's ability to post rules that logically contradicted his own.
Had he copied a previous rule, I would not be restricted.

14. ToastOfDestiny has to vote for mongeese if mongeese breaks fewer rules, not if mongeese stops posting rules. (This is also a sure thing.)

30. ToastOfDestiny failed to write a ballad in Round 3, and his excuse in Round 5 did not use the literary devices. (This is irrefutable.)

31. ToastOfDestiny failed to include said phrase in his ballad. (So is this.)

32. ToastOfDestiny tried to use his powers to give voters more reason to vote for him, benefiting him. (Undeniable.)

33. ToastOfDestiny did not use Old English, but new English. (True.)

34. ToastOfDestiny's ballad in Round 5 did not use the necessary characters. (Same here.)

35. ToastOfDestiny used three plus signs, not 6,000.

My opponent has most definitely broken seven rules, and some voters might say that he broke nine. He only predicts that I broke four. My list beats his list. He broke more rules than me. I win. Vote CON.

Also, note that on Rule 23, it may count as a rule-break, but because there is no rule that it broke, it isn't part of the tally in Rule 8, as there is no rule to associate the break with.

38. No misses ordered roses, Simon. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of a rose for at least half of da first third of the voting period of this debate.

39. Goddesses so pay a possessed dog. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of a dog for at least half of da second third of the voting period of this debate.

40. Flee to me, remote elf. ToastOfDestiny must change his profile picture to dat of an elf for at least half of da final third of the voting period of this debate.

Anyways, great debate, Toast. It was great.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I didn't accept the debate; therefore, I do not have to follow your rule.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
But the resolution isn't "neither debater shall break a rule". There is no resolution here - a vote should go to whom you believe broke the fewest rules.

What do you mean when you say you don't agree with the rule?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted."

Therefore, I did not agree to this rule:

"A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The victor is the player that broke the fewest rules."

I'm gonna vote CON because a player obviously broke a rule. Both debaters agreed.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Wjm - the title of the debate is not the resolution. There is no 'resolution'. The winner of the debate is the one who breaks the fewest rules.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Both debaters agreed that a rule was broken. So, CON wins.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
That's very confusing...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If CON breaks a rule,because of the wording of the resolution, he wins...
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Also (how could I forget), mongeese has broken rule #24. He has sentences longer than 2 words without any misspellings. That should bring it up to #14.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Well, there's a truth that says truths =/= rules. Just because they read like rules doesn't mean they are rules. I could write an essay that reads like a college thesis, but that doesn't make it a college thesis.

Rules bind you, truths tell us what really 'is', regardless of our perception.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
What makes your "truths" not rules? They read exactly like rules.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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 MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
ToastOfDestinymongeeseTied
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