The Instigator
MassiveDump
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

No One Has Ever Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to Do Look More Like

Do you like this debate?NoYes+29
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 6 votes the winner is...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,707 times Debate No: 32478
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (6)

 

MassiveDump

Pro

For the longest, people have decided to for believe that someone has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. But I has find this statement are irrelevant.

Let's take for a closer at then this and am decide for yourself:

1. I Can't Even Science

You've gotta be kidding me. I try to went as far even once, as had my friends all go. Logically, can't I go even decide to go want do look more like, how anyone would?

Science proves no one has gone can for are to rock decide jump thus to from a jetpack. [http://www.dafk.net...]

If scientists can't decide whether destroy for look even, did he? No. I'm common sense.

2. Economic For To Behave

If the economy depends are for lift quickly, then where are we expect one going far even as to decide not to eat bankruptcy?

A massive deficit for to even go could accidentally the entire economy. When one goes do for the can't fathom, good for it that no one watch for invest in one going so far even.

Thus, one could not decide to look even as to go want do look more like because the barrier are odd inherently increase.

Furthermore, according to [http://tinyurl.com...], mandates law are hook leads ask not law leads debt.

Conclusion: You am false to statements.

3. Partially Not Even For Then Otherwise

If it partially is possible for someone to go from are statue to be for carrying mountainous loaded are to be, then philosophical argument 69 fro states not even are for possibility:

P1. People have ambitions.

P2. Ambitions create passion.

P3. People have passion.

P4. People can not pursue all passions appropriately.

P5. Nobody could go are for when there is something that she doesn't life for going in events of going far even to even decide wanting to go want do more like...

C. No one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want do look more like.

Infallible theory insisting upon not to go even for twelve times don't effect the assumption for one do reach capability use to throw off discussion for even then practice when went for the kite when logically impossible.

Review:
- Science can't even.
- Economy can't even.
- Partially not even for then otherwise.

Conclusion:

We must rise illusion from out for now if we want right accomplish American progress.

It's just common sense.

Vote Pro.
imabench

Con

I Doith assumith that thee first roundith beith for acceptance only

ith
Debate Round No. 1
MassiveDump

Pro

Originally, no.

But since con doesn't any argument as round for I'd fairness by equal paste pony okay?
imabench

Con

For those who are confused about what Pro is arguing about, allow me to provide some background information which should hopefully provide some clarity and give this debate a sense of direction.

Pro is arguing that the quantum mechanics of human behavioral modification based on localized economic surroundings should be a political system adopted by the United States of America in an effort to restabilize the sluggishly performing economy that has been afflicting this country since 2008. I will be arguing against this resolution by showing how the quantum mechanics of behavioral modification are already unreliable and hasnt yielded any concrete results, and that to use the understanding of those mechanical properties for modifying people to localized economic scenarios is both impossible, impractical, and immoral.

The quantum mechanics of human behavioral modification has its roots back to the ancient kings of ancient Sudan when Egypt was the greatest power in the world, but the science as we know it today wasnt really explored until the 1940's in the middle of World War II in modern France. While under Nazi occupation the French began to research the quantum mechanics of human behavioral modification based on localized economic surroundings as a possible weapon or tactic that could be used to drive the Nazi's out of France or maybe even kill Nazi Germany itself. Their research yielded very limited results before eventually being abandoned due to the liberation of France by the United States and its allies in 1944. Research in the field lied dormant for years before being explored by the Soviet Union in the late 1980's, who wanted to use the technology to try to improve their own economy in the face of a rapidly growing America while their own country was sliding into collapse. It was the Russians who first found the initial big discoveries regarding the quantum mechanics of behavioral modification of people to localized economies, but al such findings could only potentially be exploited by countries whose economies had not yet emerged, not countries who were sliding into decay. Soon after, the Soviet Union abandoned their research, sold their findings to the Chinese, and then 3 years later the nation had dissolved.

That is the basic background, the rest is common knowledge where the chinese began implementing the system as they found themselves in the position of an emerging power to try to reap the benefits of the policies, and have since had resounding success and have vastly improved their economy. Many people have seen this success and have advocated implementing parts of the behavioral modification mechanical policies in the United States and Europe to see if the system can kick up sluggish economies that have not recently emerged, and also in the Middle East where much of the region is in a prime state to exploit the system and rise to power. People against such policies claim it is immoral among other things,but also have strong arguments in showing that numerous other factors could have caused such a rise in economic power that are not necessarily attributed to the quantum mechanics of the behavioral modifications of people. Dissidents contend that the rise of China's economy only coincided with the radical policies they implemented and that correlation =/= causation, while some have gone so far to speculate that such policies have actually held back how much their economy could have improved.

I'll spare you the moral arguments and instead focus on how the French speculated that implementing such policies makes it difficult to readily transition out of such radical policies to less intensive policies once the desired economic growth has been met. Ernest Gorbachev of Russia's experiment showed that due to the intrinsic human nature of resistance against successive economic policy change and how the neurological impact of behavioral modification can cause irrational dependencies, the idea of short term behavioral modification to localized economies for rampant improvement and growth is doomed to fail. Gorbachev's experiment showed that the system is not something you can easily switch in and out of, but it was Japanese economist Woo Chen who postulated that the benefits of behavioral modification for localized economic purposes is only effective when the modifications are done comprehensively on a behavioral level, meaning that the system will not work as well as intended unless it is fully invested into and implemented to people, which could be a problem since the morality of behavioral modification in minute amounts is questionable, let alone massive comprehensive amounts.

For these reasons, understanding the quantum mechanics behind behavioral modification for localized economical benefits to maximize short term economic growth is considered by many to be ineffective, immoral, and only cannot be applied to most westernized economies since they have progressed and emerged centuries ago while behavior modification is only something that can be utilized for emerging economies.

Allow me to summarize and condense my arguments in case I wasnt entirely clear:

If A, then B
If B, then C
If C, then Not D,
If Not D, then maybe G
If E then F
If E and A, then H
If G, then A and not E
If H and G, then E cannot be concluded
Since H and G exist, E both exists and doesnt exist.

I rest my case
Debate Round No. 2
MassiveDump

Pro

1. Topicality

My opponent is mistaken on the terms of the resolution by a long shot. He believes that I am supporting the quantum mechanics of human behavioral modification. What I'm actually referring to is how going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like has never been done by any person ever through the course of our existence. Here's what the resolution actually means when taken word for word:

"No One Has Ever Been"

This means, obviously, that this position was never reached by any human being, ever.

"Far Even as Decided to Use Even"

The position where one is far enough to reach such a point where they must decide to use even. For example, if my suffering was so great that the world suddenly exploded, or on the contrary, if my happiness was so great that everyone within a five-mile radius became a unicorn, I would have decided to use even.

"Go Want to Do Look More Like"

This means that after one has gone far even as decided to use even, he would then feel a subsequent urge to create another instance where he would decide to use even.

Of course, I am not counting "Limbo" or "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church". I have my reasons.

I hope this clears everything up, but no, quantum mechanics, no.

2. Probability (Science Can't Even)

I imagine that sometime in this debate, the probability of no one EVER going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like will be questioned. So let's take a look at this:

Odds of someone being capable of using even: 1 in 900,000.

Odds of someone capable of using even going far even as deciding to use even: 900,000^2 (81 Trillion).

Odds of someone capable of using even going far even as deciding to use even and then going want to do look more like: 1 in (900,000^2)^2 (81 Trillion squared).

Number of people who have ever lived on Earth: about 108 Billion. [http://www.prb.org...]

108 Billion / 81 Trillion squared = Error.

The odds, while existent, are completely improbable and irrational.


3. An Economic Downward Spiral (Economy Can't Even)

My opponent was right about using even and then going want to do look more like causing economic collapse. Unfortunately, so was I. You see, the world's economic systems simply aren't prepared for such an immense event as going far even as deciding to use even going want to do look more like. The survey assigned to world leaders proves it:



You gotta be kidding me.

The economy simply could not sustain anyone ever going so far as for such an event to occur. And because our economies still stand, we are living proof that no one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

4. The Proof (Partially Not Even For Then Otherwise)

My opponent's proof has a few flaws regarding someone possibly using even.

Allow me:

Given: A.

BUT If A, then NOT B.
Thus, If not B, then not C.
If not C, then D.
If D, then maybe not G.
If E, then F.
If E and A, then H.
If G, then A&E.
If A&E, then 12.
If 12, then not pineapple.
If not pineapple, then Spongebob is homeless.
If Spongebob is homeless, A&E is a dick.
Since A and G may or may not exist, then E neither exists nor doesn't exist.

C: No one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

The resolution still stands.

VOTE
PRO.
imabench

Con

1) Clarification

"The position where one is far enough to reach such a point where they must decide to use even. For example, if my suffering was so great that the world suddenly exploded, or on the contrary, if my happiness was so great that everyone within a five-mile radius became a unicorn, I would have decided to use even."

But how could someone be far enough to reach the point where they must decide to use even if such a point is too far for someone to even be even in the first place? You cannot be so happy that everyone in a five mile radius became a unicorn to decide to use even if you cant even be that even even if you decided to.

"This means that after one has gone far even as decided to use even, he would then feel a subsequent urge to create another instance where he would decide to use even."

This is assuming that such a person could even get that far to even use even and live though, which cant even be accepted because neither even or even even isnt given.

2) Probability (Science cant even)

"the probability of no one EVER going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like will be questioned."

Even I agree that the probability of anyone even going far even to use even would to do look more like would be questioned, thats just math.

"Odds of someone capable of using even going far even as deciding to use even and then going want to do look more like: 1 in (900,000^2)^2 (81 Trillion squared)."

But the odds of even a child who is even capable of even going far even as deciding to use even and then going want to do look more like isnt 81 trillion squared, the square is squared so that the square of 900,000 is squared by square, which means it is 900,000 to the fourth, not 81 trillion squared.

"108 Billion / 81 Trillion squared = Error."

The true equation for the odss of evan a child of even going far even to decide to use even to do look more like is
108 Bllion / 900,000 suare square. which is 108 Billion / 900,000 ^4 which gives us .0000000000165%

That may sound irrational and improbable, but when you become far enough even to use even to do look more like then the multiplicity even of the even nebula is entered which allows even anyone to access the even number of infinite multiverses, of which the even of people even deciding to use even to do look more like is multiplied by the speed of even, which is 4 times 10^14

so .0000000000165% multiplied by 4 x 10^12% = 66% Which means that it is not just probable, but likely. Almost as likely as the chance to use even to do look more like in the first place.

3) Economy cant even

"The economy simply could not sustain anyone ever going so far as for such an event to occur. And because our economies still stand, we are living proof that no one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like."

But your own picture graph shows that If you were for by decided to as economic for sometimes but lift when gone as for not half even gone too where 9.81% of leaders said yes that those leaders are the economic capitalists of the even decisions and but lift when gone as for not half! That means that the most powerful economies in the world WOULD agree to be decided to as economic for sometimes but lift when gone as for not even while the other 91% of the already poor world would choose to not decide to as economic for soemtimes but lift when gone as for not even.

4) The proof of Partially Not Even For Then Otherwise

"BUT If A, then NOT B. Thus, If not B, then not C.If not C, then D. If D, then maybe not G.If E, then F. If E and A, then H.If G, then A&E. If A&E, then 12. If 12, then not pineapple. If not pineapple, then Spongebob is homeless. If Spongebob is homeless, A&E is a dick. Since A and G may or may not exist, then E neither exists nor doesn't exist.

C: No one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like."

But If A and then Not B thus then not C, then G will cause F to not cause D which is vital for E, which cannot happen since A and E must be present otherwise G wouldnt be around since not D nor B. Also if G then A and G, not A and E, meaning 14 not 12. Since 14 and not 12 then pineapple exists, meanign spongebob is paying rent. Since the rent is being paid, C is assured which means that A and E is only a Vagina, not a penis.

This means that it can be concluded that people already HAVE ever been far even to even to do look more like.
Debate Round No. 3
MassiveDump

Pro

1. Clarificality

"You cannot be so happy that everyone in a five mile radius became a unicorn to decide to use even if you cant even be that even even if you decided to."

This only supports my resolution by showing how even more strongly impossible it is to go far even as decide to use even.

"This is assuming that such a person could even get that far to even use even and live though, which cant even be accepted because neither even or even even isnt given."

Once again, my opponent is only proving me right by showing how impossible it is that anyone ever went far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

2. Probability Can't Even

"Even I agree that the probability of anyone even going far even to use even would to do look more like would be questioned, thats just math."

And yet here we are arguing over probability. My argument doesn't seem so silly after all, does it, jury?

"But the odds of even a child who is even capable of even going far even as deciding to use even and then going want to do look more like isnt 81 trillion squared, the square is squared so that the square of 900,000 is squared by square, which means it is 900,000 to the fourth, not 81 trillion squared."

Whether the odds are 1 in 81 trillion squared or 1 in 900,000 to the fourth, I would never bet the farm on either odds. That being said, my opponent admits that being capable of going far even as deciding to use even and then going want to do look more like is extremely unlikely if not impossible.

"The true equation for the od[d]s of ev[e]n a child of even going far even to decide to use even to do look more like is
108 Bllion / 900,000 suare square. which is 108 Billion / 900,000 ^4 which gives us .0000000000165%.

"That may sound irrational and improbable, but when you become far enough even to use even to do look more like then the multiplicity even of the even nebula is entered which allows even anyone to access the even number of infinite multiverses, of which the even of people even deciding to use even to do look more like is multiplied by the speed of even, which is 4 times 10^14.

so .0000000000165% multiplied by 4 x 10^12% = 66% Which means that it is not just probable, but likely. Almost as likely as the chance to use even to do look more like in the first place.
"

(Note the Grammar mistakes, jury. I want my extra point.)

This statistic is hugely inaccurate. For one to be able to access the infinite multiverses in the first place, they would have to be capable of not only using even, but using even for even gone even to even AS even AS IF. The odds of that are nonexistent; my opponent's fallacy is invalid.

3. The Economy Just Can't Bro

"But your own picture graph shows that If you were for by decided to as economic for sometimes but lift when gone as for not half even gone too where 9.81% of leaders said yes that those leaders are the economic capitalists of the even decisions and but lift when gone as for not half! That means that the most powerful economies in the world WOULD agree to be decided to as economic for sometimes but lift when gone as for not even while the other 91% of the already poor world would choose to not decide to as economic for soemtimes but lift when gone as for not even."

Look at the chart. Now back to me. Now back to the chart. Now back to me. My opponent argues that the 9.81% who said yes are the stronger economies, but he still has the burden to prove that statement. Needless to say, he has done nothing to prove that statement.

So here's the proof for all you evidence hunters. The world leaders who answered "yes" belonged mainly to developing countries [http://1.bp.blogspot.com...].

Therefore, we still know for a FACT that the majority of well-developed economies would stroke at the idea of someone really going far even as deciding to look even go want to do look more like.

4. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF.

"But If A and then Not B thus then not C, then G will cause F to not cause D which is vital for E, which cannot happen since A and E must be present otherwise G wouldnt be around since not D nor B. Also if G then A and G, not A and E, meaning 14 not 12. Since 14 and not 12 then pineapple exists, meanign spongebob is paying rent. Since the rent is being paid, C is assured which means that A and E is only a Vagina, not a penis."

Yay for grammar points

People of the jury, my opponent is taking you all for idiots. "A and E" IS a vagina, but when written as "A&E", it's a penis.

For further elaboration, check out this ancient argument developed by the great philospher Mick Jagger:

P1: "and" is a girl word.

P2: "&" is a pretty manly symbol.

P3: A _ E's gender can be alternated.

P4: If A and E, then vagina.

P5: If A "&" E, then penis.

C: A&E is a dick.

By this, my original proof remains valid, my entire philosophical argument remains sound, and the resolution still stands.

Therefore, because my opponent generally agrees with how freakishly impossible the whole thing is, the economy as we know it could not exist if such an event ocurred, and Mick Jagger, no one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

See video for further understanding if you're still confused.

VOTE
PRO
imabench

Con

1) Clarificationism

"This only supports my resolution by showing how even more strongly impossible it is to go far even as decide to use even"

I wasnt saying that, I was saying that you cannot be so happy that everyone in a five mile radius became a unicorn to decide to use even if you cant even be that even even if you decided to..... It is more then probably to be able to go far even as to decide to use even, but not to be so happy that everyone in a five mile radius became a unicorn as a result of deciding to use even if you cant even be that even even if you decided to.

2) Probability cant even

"And yet here we are arguing over probability. My argument doesn't seem so silly after all, does it, jury?"

Once again the Pro is misreading what I am saying even though I am beign perfectly clear. This time I was only acknowledging that people will always question the probability of anyone even going far even to use even would to do look more like would be questioned. Whats so hard to understand?

"This statistic is hugely inaccurate. For one to be able to access the infinite multiverses in the first place, they would have to be capable of not only using even, but using even for even gone even to even AS even AS IF. The odds of that are nonexistent; my opponent's fallacy is invalid."

Thats bullsh*t that you got right out of 'Darwins theory of Even". It has been disproven dozens of times that one can access infinite multiverses in the first place by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even as if. That argument is so old and outdated that (insert joke about the con's mothers old age).... You have to multiply the odds of using even by the speed of even otherwise the even of even using even to decide to use even go want to do look more like theory itself completely falls apart.

3) The economy just cant Broseph

"My opponent argues that the 9.81% who said yes are the stronger economies, but he still has the burden to prove that statement. Needless to say, he has done nothing to prove that statement. "

Who would you rather take advice about being far even as decided to use even to go want to do look more like, the guys who have no idea how to even be as far even as to decide to utilize even to go want to do look more like, or the ones who have? Its fairly even that you would pick the former, as the others dont even know how to use even so why should they even be commenting on using even to use even to go want to do look more like? Thats just nonsensical!

"Therefore, we still know for a FACT that the majority of well-developed economies would stroke at the idea of someone really going far even as deciding to look even go want to do look more like."

What is or isnt considered 'well-developed' is subjective though, and you cant even begin to think about how economies would even react at the proposal of going far even as deciding to look even go want to do more like since that would be pure unsubstantiated speculation!

4) PROOF IT

"People of the jury, my opponent is taking you all for idiots.

You cant prove that! Er, i mean, no im not!

"A and E" IS a vagina, but when written as "A&E", it's a penis."

Penis, Vagina, same things except white stuff comes out of one and into the other...

"By this, my original proof remains valid, my entire philosophical argument remains sound, and the resolution still stands"

your original proof though wasnt over the correct definition of 'vagina' being A and E whereas A&E is clearly a penis. The point still stands that If A and then Not B thus then not C, then G will cause F to not cause D which is vital for E, which cannot happen since A and E must be present otherwise G wouldnt be around since not D nor B. Also if G then A and G, not A and E, meaning 14 not 12. Since 14 and not 12 then pineapple exists, MEANING THAT SPONGEBOB IS STILL PAYING HIS RENT, IS NOT HOMELESS, AND THEREFORE CONCLUDES THAT ONE CAN BE FAR EVEN AS TO DECIDE TO USE EVEN GO WANT TO DO LOOK MORE LIKE.

All my arguments stand true and instead the pro has resorted to completely missing the points of my arguments even though I have been explicitly clear about the nature of people ever being as far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like.
Debate Round No. 4
MassiveDump

Pro

Much thanks to my opponent for the first intelligent debate I have participated in for a very long time.

Implying we said anything intelligent.

1. Nobody Clares

...nor does anyone see what I did there.

My opponent made the argument that you can't make everyone within a five-mile radius a unicorn as a result of using even. He still shows no understanding of the resolution. See round two, where it was stated by me that making everyone a unicorn is only an example of using even.

Because, as my opponent stated, this is impossible, there is no way anyone could have gone far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

Bottom Line:

Because of the definition of "using even", and how simply going that far is impossible, No one has ever gone far even as decided to use even, let alone then going wanting to do look more like.

2. Probability Not

"This time I was only acknowledging that people will always question the probability of anyone even going far even to use even would to do look more like would be questioned."

Then there are no problems here.

"Thats bullsh*t that you got right out of 'Darwins theory of Even". It has been disproven dozens of times that one can access infinite multiverses in the first place by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even as if. That argument is so old and outdated that (insert joke about the con's mothers old age)"

Pay close attention to this one, jury. My opponent argues that you cannot access multiple multiverses by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even as if.

(Complicated words shortened for convenience)

However, he does not provide any better evidence that reaching other multiverses is possible, and I unfortunatly cannot allow him to in the next rebuttal because I will get no chance to argue against any new evidence presented.

Bottom Line:

Because we have found no proof that other multiverses are reachable, the odds are accurate.

Because the odds are accurate, going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like is so impossibly unlikely that there's no way it was done within our existence.

Because of that, it is true that no one has ever gone far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

3. I Accidentally the Entire Economy

My opponent argues that you should take the advice of the people who have used even over those who understand the economic effects one who could possibly have used even. However, from the evidence presented, no one has ever USED even before. Therefore, the only legitimate advice remaining is the survey taken by world leaders.

"What is or isnt considered 'well-developed' is subjective though"

This is what's considered well developed. [http://www.trademap.org...] The majority of these nations voted "stroke" when given the survey. These world leaders are our best bet to what would happen if someone went far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like, and they have come to the educated decision that someone doing so would destroy the world economy beyond repair.

Bottom Line:

Someone going far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like would cause the world economy to cease to exist. Because it still exists, we know for certain that No one has ever gone far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

4. Proof (or apparently penises)

"Penis, Vagina, same things except white stuff comes out of one and into the other..."

The difference between apenis and a vagina truly sets this contention up nicely. And there is quite a difference. If any reader would like to be fully educated on the differences, please click here [http://wiki.answers.com...] WARNING: NSFW.

Even if you choose for some reason to believe that they are the same thing, if that is so, then both A&E and A and E represent d words, which proves that E neither exists nor doesn't exist, which proves that no one has ever gona far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

"SPONGEBOB IS STILL PAYING HIS RENT, IS NOT HOMELESS, AND THEREFORE CONCLUDES THAT ONE CAN BE FAR EVEN AS TO DECIDE TO USE EVEN GO WANT TO DO LOOK MORE LIKE."

To spare all the readers of incoherent philosophical arguments, I'll just sum it up right now.

The proof my opponent presented to negate the resolution, though innacurate, aims to prove that someone CAN go far even as decide to use even go want to do look more like. And it's true, someone can, but it has been established that while possible, is so inconceivably unlikely that whether possible or not, has not happened in our existence.

And that was the point. Not to prove that no one can, but that no one ever has. Which is a resolution that remains true.

---------------------------------------

Too Long Didn't Read, Why The Voters Will Vote Pro.

The Big Things

My opponent accepted this debate without fully understanding the topic itself, causing him to argue it poorly (See contention 1).

My opponent tried to argue against the odds of it ever happening my saying the math is wrong, but does not provide any specific method to use in its place (See contention 2).

My opponent tried to argue that world leaders do not understand the economic consequences of using even, but could not disprove the evidence shown that it never happened (See contention 3).

My opponent spent much time proving that someone can (insert resolution here), but never proved that anyone ever did. Rather, he spent time trying to convince the jury that penises and vaginas are the same thing (See contention 4).

The Minor Details

My opponent frequently made multiple spelling and grammar errors.

My opponent used no legitimate sources to back up his case.

My opponent said bullsh*t.

Overall, the evidence is overwhelming.

No one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
imabench

Con

So here we are, the final round.

Lets end this

1) Nobody Clares

"See round two, where it was stated by me that making everyone a unicorn is only an example of using even."

Just because you make an example of being far even as decided to use evengo want to do look more like to turn everybody within a 5 mile radius into a unicorn, it doesnt make it an accurate representation of the concept of using even to go want to do look more like! Such an example grossly overcomplicates the already complicated concept of using even to go want to do look more like to a degree that it makes it look improbable when the odds of someone ever evan as deciding to use even go want to do look more like.

"Because, as my opponent stated, this is impossible, there is no way anyone could have gone far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like."

TO TURN EVERYBODY IN A 5 MILE RADIUS INTO A UNICORN, You keep cutting off what im trying to say to disprove my arguments rather then offer logic or evidence against them.

2) Probability of probability not

"My opponent argues that you cannot access multiple multiverses by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even as if."

Theres a difference between being unable to access multiple multiverses by multiplying being as far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like times the speed of even, and being unable to access multiple multiverses by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even if. Those are two completely different arguments and logic only supports one of them, and I never said that you cant access multiple multiverses by being as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like like you imply.

Therefore the argument stands

"However, he does not provide any better evidence that reaching other multiverses is possible,"

Thats because Newtons fourth law of even states that the finding of conclusive evidence that clearly implies the possibility of using even go want to do look more like will defeat the concepts of how the concept of even even works in the first place. In other words, giving scientific evidence of the concept of even causes a chain reaction that renders the concept of even incompatible with to do look more like.

3) You accidentally the entire economy

" However, from the evidence presented, no one has ever USED even before. Therefore, the only legitimate advice remaining is the survey taken by world leaders."

You cant have USED even because as I already showed in round 2 you, even is just a conceptual theoretical tool to apply either on a personal or economic scale. Countries using even is as ridiculous as claiming that countries have used capitalism. You dont use it, you BECOME it, and plenty of wealthy countries have become even.

"The majority of these nations voted "stroke" when given the survey"

Stroke in even talk means 'ask again later' because they are still on the fence about using even. Everybody knows that, and even if they dont, answering 'stroke' in the survey does not translate to flat out denial of converting an economy to use even.

"they have come to the educated decision that someone doing so would destroy the world economy beyond repair."

That is a blatant lie since again, stroke in even language means they abstain from giving an opinion regarding the use of even on economies.

4) To Penis or not to penis?

"The difference between apenis and a vagina truly sets this contention up nicely. And there is quite a difference. If any reader would like to be fully educated on the differences, please click here [http://wiki.answers.com......]"

Well there is plenty of differences between an apenis and a vagina, but im talking about penis's not apenis's. Theres a massive between the two and penis's have a lot in common with vaginas, much more then apenis's

"then both A&E and A and E represent d words, which proves that E neither exists nor doesn't exist, which proves that no one has ever gona far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like."

But when E is locked between both existence and non-existence, then Spongebob's rent cannot be used to disprove someone being as far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like.

"And it's true, someone can, but it has been established that while possible, is so inconceivably unlikely that whether possible or not, has not happened in our existence."

I have established the flaw in the pro's logic though by highlighting that you have to multiply the odds of using even by the speed of even to get the true probability of someone being far even to decide to use even go want to do more like, which is 66%

=============================================================

Too long didnt read, why my army will vote con

The bigger things:

1) The Pro continuously cut off my arguments and statements to try to make me look like im against my own position instead of trying to actually disprove the arguments themselves.

2) The pro claims I never provided a specific method to prove the math behind the use of even, even though he never asked or requested it in the first place. Whats next, I have to explain the actual concept of being far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Aint nobody got time fo dat!

3) Pro claims that world leaders are almost unanimously opposed to using even on an economic scale even though less then 10% actually stated so. A majority of them replied 'stroke' which in even talk means 'abstain'.

4) Con claims that I never provided evidence of a particular person being as far even as decided to use even go want more like, but once again he never requested an example prior to the final round, which is a very penis move to pull.

5) Con claims that I focused on showing the difference between penis's and vagina's while the entire time he was comparing apenis's to vagina's, and then has the balls to call me out for the same thing he was doing!

Minor issues:

7) My opponent frequently made multiple spelling and grammar errors.

8) My opponent misquoted and twisted his own sources rather then address the main arguments

9) My opponent's name has the word 'dump' in it

Overall, the evidence is overwhelming

The odds of ever been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like are exactly 66%, which is better odds then calling a con toss correctly

(I thank the pro for an amazingly awesome debate ;D)
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TO TURN EVERYBODY IN A 5 MILE RADIUS INTO A UNICORN Lol hilarious
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Probably even my understand this favorite one!!!
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
"All your votes are belong to us."
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Lo siento, mama. Este es mejor?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
english please, english
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
One of the best debates ever dude :D <3333
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
And we break 2,000. Well done, everybody.
Posted by 1Percenter 3 years ago
1Percenter
lmao
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Good game :D
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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: What... just no!
Vote Placed by jdog2016 3 years ago
jdog2016
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It is relatively impossible to ever been far. It doesn't matter even as decided, because to use even, go want. THUS, you must do look before more like. Also, Vaginas
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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: Neither party even interpreted the resolution right. Instead of it being broken down into "use even" and "want to do look more like", it should have been "use even go want", as in, for the purpose of "do(ing) look more like". It's just common sense!
Vote Placed by Walrus101 3 years ago
Walrus101
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: What? Is? This? Even? About? I? Feel? Like? I? Should? Vote? For? Pro?
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Proith didith a little better ith
Vote Placed by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
MassiveDumpimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Imabench doesn't remind me of that faggot I had math class with back in middle school.