The Instigator
Mikegj1077
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Open debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 2186
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (17)

 

Mikegj1077

Con

You're against this debate because of a technicality? You have no true ideological convictions except to oppose others'. You are quibbling. You should bring your debate points instead of arguing about "technicalities."
Korezaan

Pro

Some of us call our arguments against our opponents "refutations".
Some of us call out opponents refutations "technicalities".
There is no difference between a "technicality" and a "refutation".

Therefore, I affirm.

__________________

In other news,

"You're against this debate because of a technicality?"
---No, I'm against this debate because I hate theory.

"You have no true ideological convictions except to oppose others'."
---Do I really? I'll name off a few just to humor you: I believe in love, I believe in respect, I believe that Guantanamo Bay giving high quality universal healthcare is ridiculous, I believe torture is a retarded method of getting information, I believe that people should tell the truth, I believe that democracy is bound to fail, I believe that people think the grass is always greener on the other side..... hell, just look at my profile. Oh yeah, I believe the topic of this debate is retarded so I'm going to make you get another loss.

"You are quibbling."
---I beg to differ. You started this bs about theory.

"You should bring your debate points instead of arguing about "technicalities.""
---Two parts. The first response I have to this is at the top of my case, above the 18 underlines. The second response I have here is that: I HAVE brought my debate points, and I've used them to the best of my ability. However, since you have not provided me with a specific burden, all I can do is attempt to figure out how to sufficiently affirm and respond to all of your points.

And since I have, and since technicalities are exactly the same thing as debate points,

I am currently winning this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikegj1077

Con

"---No, I'm against this debate because I hate theory."

All spoken arguments involve considerations of ideas (theory) first. Ideas just don't pop out of your mouth in any meaningful way. And theory doesn't go away after it is confirmed or widely accepted. True, it is less useful to revert back to it once a conclusion is accepted unless some other evidence is discovered that may challenge the theory.

"---Do I really? I'll name off a few just to humor you: I believe…torture is a retarded method of getting information…"

What's a better way?

"I believe that people should tell the truth…"

If your wife is homely, will you tell her she is homely or will you lie and tell her she is attractive?

"I believe that people think the grass is always greener on the other side…"

Only liberals think that. I think highly about my grass.

"hell, just look at my profile. Oh yeah, I believe the topic of this debate is retarded so I'm going to make you get another loss."

I don't have to look at your profile to color my talking points. Not good to prejudge people. For example, I am just beginning to realize you're a self-absorbed, arrogant cabbage head.

"'You are quibbling.'
---I beg to differ. You started this bs about theory."

Did I offend you?

"I HAVE brought my debate points, and I've used them to the best of my ability. However, since you have not provided me with a specific burden, all I can do is attempt to figure out how to sufficiently affirm and respond to all of your points."

"Torture is retarded" certainly fits your non-theory debate points.

"…technicalities are exactly the same thing as debate points…"

I suppose you could incorporate them into a debate the way I have.

"I am currently winning this debate."

That's debatable.
Korezaan

Pro

I meant debate theory.

As for your responses to my beliefs: They just go to show you that your initial claim was incorrect, as I have more convictions than just to oppose others and gain win percentage on debate.org

Apparently theres this whole thing about "hating liberals good". Please explain it to me, because I don't see anything wrong with us/them.

"Not good to prejudge people. For example, I am just beginning to realize you're a self-absorbed, arrogant cabbage head."
---They're actually pretty black and white, as you have still not provided any burdens to make it clear to the readers of this debate what we each have to do to win this debate.

"Did I offend you?"
---Nah, don't worry about it. I've been called worse things by better people.

""Torture is retarded" certainly fits your non-theory debate points."
---Alright, I'll make it a bit clearer for you: I didn't ONLY bring my debate points.

"I suppose you could incorporate them into a debate the way I have."
---I'm sorry, what's your way of incorporating them?

"That's debatable."
---No it isn't. And even if it is, you don't do anything other than say "that can be debated". You don't give any reason why I'm NOT winning. You don't give any sort of extrapolation to your initial claim.

Almost everything is debatable: as long as the statement does not come in the form "X is X", then it is debatable. If you make a resolution saying "The sky is blue", that's "X is Y". I can easily disprove it by saying "Cloudy days" or "Rainy days" or "Dawn" and "Dusk", because there are different colors then. Or I could go off on a really confusing tangent about how we all see colors differently.... Regardless, you don't give any reason why I'm not winning, therefore, there is no reason the audience should believe in what you are saying.

All you do is muddle things up, and you continue to refuse to give some sort of burden for either of us to reach in order to win or lose the round. The only criterion for affirming that I see is to show that technicalities and arguments are the same thing, because that's why you oppose "open debate".

I give the audience a very clear way to affirm the debate: Since technicalities are exactly the same thing as arguments/contentions/refutations/debate points, and you have not responded to that, I am STILL winning the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikegj1077

Con

"Apparently theres this whole thing about "hating liberals good". Please explain it to me, because I don't see anything wrong with us/them."

You would not see anything wrong with a liberal because you are one. I see plenty wrong. To name a few, I support: low corporate taxes, deregulation, 2nd Amend. Rights, traditional marriage, strong military, well funded intelligence service, domestic petroleum production (ANWAR, gulf…). I am against ethanol as an "alternative fuel" (it's inefficient, costs more per mile, difficult to transport…). You believe opposite on every one of these issues, and if implemented, that would be disastrous for this country.

"---They're actually pretty black and white, as you have still not provided any burdens to make it clear to the readers of this debate what we each have to do to win this debate."

Winning debates is not a priority for me. Being right is. And I'm right. You're wrong.

"---Nah, don't worry about it. I've been called worse things by better people."

See? Self-absorbed. Worst things by better people? So that means my insults were not worthy enough to describe you? A better person would have more accurately nailed you with more harsh insults? You confuse yourself when you attempt to mock me.

"Almost everything is debatable: as long as the statement does not come in the form "X is X", then it is debatable. If you make a resolution saying "The sky is blue", that's "X is Y". I can easily disprove it by saying "Cloudy days" or "Rainy days" or "Dawn" and "Dusk", because there are different colors then. Or I could go off on a really confusing tangent about how we all see colors differently.…"

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that people see colors differently. Some are color blind (red-green). Some are color deficient. Some can't see colors at all. Even others are totally blind.

"Regardless, you don't give any reason why I'm not winning, therefore, there is no reason the audience should believe in what you are saying."

Are you representing the audience? Who elected you to speak for the audience? Was there an election I'm not aware of? Arrogant comes to mind again. Listen, you can't continue to self-analyze yourself and substitute your opinion for others.

"All you do is muddle things up…"

If you want me to clarify something I've written, just ask.

"and you continue to refuse to give some sort of burden for either of us to reach in order to win or lose the round…"

Ditto. You have not given me such a burden either.

" because that's why you oppose ‘open debate‘."

I've never said I oppose open debate. I'm debating you, and I'll debate anyone. You seem to think I'm afraid to debate. Who might that be?

"I give the audience a very clear way to affirm the debate: Since technicalities are exactly the same thing as arguments/contentions/refutations/debate points, and you have not responded to that, I am STILL winning the debate."

You are anything but clear. Your arguments run together, are contradictory at times, and poorly written. You can do better.
Korezaan

Pro

"You would not see anything wrong with a liberal because you are one."

---That logic does not work. Just because I am something does not mean I do not see nothing wrong with it: I think humans are generally sh*tty at practicing what they preach. I am human. Therefore, you are wrong.

As for the liberal part: I am a liberal, but only if you looked at the original french senate system. I believe in rapid change, not slow change. There are VERY few 'liberals' today - And I am happy that one of them is from my own community (Pete Stark).

"You believe opposite on every one of these issues, and if implemented, that would be disastrous for this country."
---Wrong on multiple levels.
1) You have no proof that I oppose you on every one of those issues.
2) I have proof that I don't oppose you on every one of those issues.
-corporate taxes: I hate corporations. They should be taxed. A lot.
-deregulation: I don't know dereg this is talking about
-2ndamrights: What about them?
-traditional marriage: I am against arranged marriage
-strong military: I see nothing wrong with it
-well funded intelligence: I do not like secret societies. I would get rid of the CIA FBI and those other things if I could.
-domestic oil: I think that would be beneficial; we wouldn't have to kill people.
-ethanol: I agree with you.

Good game.

Moving on...

"Winning debates is not a priority for me. Being right is. And I'm right. You're wrong."
---Uh huh.... and why are you winning again?

"See? Self-absorbed. Worst things by better people? So that means my insults were not worthy enough to describe you? A better person would have more accurately nailed you with more harsh insults? You confuse yourself when you attempt to mock me."
---If anything, you're self-absorbed. All you've been saying thats relevant to this debate is IM WINNING YOURE LOSING while giving absolutely no reason to why that is true. I have actually provided some substance that's adherent to the topic (the first five lines of my R1), and conveniently enough, it's the part you chose not to respond to.

As for the rest of your comment: Yes, a better person would more accurately nail it. You are not one of them. I believe I am not confusing myself when I say that; I believe you are trying to trick yourself to keep believing that you are some sort of god.

Sorry for all those that are reading this debate. I can't keep a straight face or a set of polite fingers in front of such bigotry.

"Are you representing the audience? Who elected you to speak for the audience? Was there an election I'm not aware of? Arrogant comes to mind again. Listen, you can't continue to self-analyze yourself and substitute your opinion for others."
---Under this line of reasoning, debate and the search for truth through discussion is completely fallacious. Regardless, I can accurately say for many of the people that are going to be reading this debate: What the hell are you talking about?

If this is an arrogant act to you, fine. Call me arrogant.

I just believe that clearing things up and making it easier for voters to make their decision is a good thing.

"If you want me to clarify something I've written, just ask. "
---I have. What is my burden and what is your burden? Again, you fail to respond to relevant things.

"Ditto. You have not given me such a burden either."
---You started this debate. You're supposed to set it up. You did not.

"I've never said I oppose open debate. I'm debating you, and I'll debate anyone. You seem to think I'm afraid to debate. Who might that be?"
---Then what in f*cking hell are we talking about? You set up a debate under the name "OPEN DEBATE" and then you take the position CON, saying that people should bring their DEBATE POINTS instead of TECHINICALITIES. I assumed that you meant open debate is bad because many people use technicalities instead of real arguments, and created a case out of that. However, all you did was take parts out of my rounds and attack each individual part of it: Attacking the claim of an argument, asking "wheres your reasoning for this", when the warrant came only several words later. However, you chose to not clarify this; chose to work under the whole "you have to ask me first" mindset, and now you...

"You are anything but clear. Your arguments run together, are contradictory at times, and poorly written. You can do better."

...blame me for your actions. I don't think that works.

Clearness - I am clearer than you. I give the audience a clear way to vote PRO since R1: "Some of us call our arguments against our opponents "refutations". Some of us call out opponents refutations "technicalities". There is no difference between a "technicality" and a "refutation". Therefore, I affirm." It is the clearest thing in this round, even if we accept your argument. You have never responded to that part of this debate and it is my THESIS, my SOLE ARGUMENT, therefore I WIN THE ROUND.

Contradictory - Where? You don't show why. Oh, did I have to ask? No, debate does not work that way. If you make a claim, you must support it. If you say something, you have the burden of proof to give warrants and evidence for it.

Poorly written - I don't need to respond to this.

Since I have given a clear argument since R1 and my opponent has not responded to it, you go PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I got some pretty good laughs in this debate and believe you should have a sitcom. Anyway, I vote PRO.
Posted by Mikegj1077 6 years ago
Mikegj1077
My political beliefs are to the right of Genghis Khan, and I'm proud of it.
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
I don't understand why debating a position you are totally against or neutral to is against the rules of debate. I do it all the time. In fact, I don't really care about many of these issues, I just like debating.

In debate, you attack the arguments, not the person.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 6 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Lol, what the hell is this? I think you two should possibly debate about liberal vs. conservative... it would be a better use of your time?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 17 records.
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 6 years ago
Phyfe2112
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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 Ninjanuke 6 years ago
Ninjanuke
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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 mrmatt505 6 years ago
mrmatt505
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 6 years ago
Smarticles
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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 GaryBacon 6 years ago
GaryBacon
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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 MarxistKid 6 years ago
MarxistKid
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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 Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
Mikegj1077KorezaanTied
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