The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
LogicalLunatic
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 985 times Debate No: 60839
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Aerogant

Pro

He who fights for fame, is he who has lost the game.

He who fights for freedom, is he who has won the game.
LogicalLunatic

Con

I accept. Aerogant has the Burden of Proving that no one on this Site can debate, for the reason that they think it's a game. Also, he must prove that because of this, ALL actions (therefore including activities in real life) are "null".
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

When you make it about yourself by making situations and circumstances into a game to amuse yourself, you are not debating - you are doing nothing.
LogicalLunatic

Con

Aerogant's argument relies upon one vital assumption: that playing a game is "doing nothing".
But what is a game?
http://i.word.com...
A game, according to the definition that I have provided, is an activity that is done for amusement, fun. An activity which is done to provide pleasure or satisfaction.
Is not a large percentage of actions that humanity has strived torward a game, by the definition of the word? I mean, why do people build large brick houses instead of living in a small mud hut? Well, that's because the brick home is more comfortable, frankly. It provides more pleasure (or filters out unpleasantness). Why do people buy couches? It's because couches are comfortable. That is, they provide pleasure. Why does anyone buy more food than they need to survive? Why does anyone do anything pleasurable? In a sense, it is a game. Why are wars waged? Often, it's because to someone in power that war is the ultimate game.
Games are not useless or "null." Games have had a huge impact on human history.
In fact, here is something called the Great Game:
http://www.answers.com...

Now, let's just assume for a moment that games truly are "null." In this case, Aerogant still has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all the people on this Site consider Debating to be a fun activity? What if someone needed to use Debate.org to help them write a paper for school, or some other purpose?
My opponent must prove that this has never been the case. But just to further drive my nail into Aerogant's coffin...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

Stop using definitions. Why can't you just understand words and their context. I have zero problems understanding what people are inferring - you waste so much time regurgitating this nonsense. Do you even know how to discuss? No, you don't, or you wouldn't be resorting to such opaque shenanigans. So if I can understand people without using definition, I guess I am a better communicator, thus I will always discuss better than you ever will, am I right?

Games had one huge impact - that was on our potential and integrity, negatively. You cannot say they are great, when every country contains a ruler that does nothing and is followed by nobodies.

The title is generalizing everyone into whomever fits the description. Just stop debating. You don't understand context, definition or how to communicate. You're colloquially illiterate - you're not even talking like a human. You talk like a rabid monkey that wants to win like they're going to get a female monkey to have sex with or something. Just stop being so inconsiderate towards ideas and the true beauty of being honest with yourself and focusing on the world's image more than your own image. Who cares if people give you a hard time when you say what they don't want to hear - that's life in a nutshell. People live in all that gives them comfort - the truth is harsh, therefore people do not live in truth. Prove me wrong.
LogicalLunatic

Con

In admitting that games have had a huge impact on the world, he effectively admitted that games are not null.
My opponent has failed to adequately address my contentions and uphold his burden of proof. I hope that he does so in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

I said "negatively", which means you saying it had an "impact" means nothing when it's equivalent to a mouse farting on the dark side of the moon - but there's mouse on the moon to begin with. Saying things does not evaluate its existence. You already lost by saying "impact", when I just told you that there is no "impact", because it was negative. Having a negative impact means it's null. Do you not understand this? If someone had a negative impact on my life, I did not learn anything - I did not become anything; what did I go through? A loop. A loop is not progress, therefore you have failed to prove that a game is at all not null. So far, you have provided nothing except your own misunderstanding of what makes an "impact" and what it means when there's a negative impact, because I assure you that if your bank account has a negative impact on your finances, you're not going to be anything but null.
LogicalLunatic

Con

In a feeble attempt to make up for his wasted previous rounds, my opponent made the claim that negative impact is the same thing as null.
Definition of Null:
http://i.word.com...
Having no value

Having a harmful value is still having a value. Therefore, it is not null. Oh, and by the way, my opponent said that the impact (of what?) was the equivalent of a mouse farting on the moon. WWII, a war which was certainly considered a game by its instigators (Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, etc) had a huge impact on history. And World War II certainly had more of an impact on the universe than a mouse farting on the moon!

The last round draws near; the grand finale is at hand.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

Having a harmful impact is not having a harmful value because "I said so".

Sorry, but your argument is just horrid and full of "me's". There's a difference between the war, itself, making an impact - and the consequences of the war causing issues, which in themselves are an impact unrelated to the war. Whether you like it or not, they failed because their intentions had no impact on the face of reality - they were mad man who lost the game.
LogicalLunatic

Con

The game had a huge impact on history.
Number of people killed in World War Two: tens of millions of people.
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com...
Economic Cost of WWII: 288 billion dollars (1940 money)
http://historical.whatitcosts.com...
Not to mention the war resulted in the Empire of Japan losing most of its Pacific territory, the United States gained a ton of Pacific Islands, the Soviet Union took over much of Western Europe and caused the Cold War, Germany and Japan were occupied by the Allies, and the Nation of Israel was established as a homeland for the Jews.
World War 2 had a monumental impact on human history. It cannot be considered null. Neither can countless other "games" played throughout human history.

However, even if it was all null, my opponent has not proven in any manner, shape, form, or fashion that this is a result of people on Debate.org doing debates only to enjoy themselves. Also, I proved that not everyone on this Site is here to enjoy themselves, as there are people on this Site for other purposes, such as finding help for school papers/essays.

My opponent has not upheld his Burden of Proof in any way. Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 3 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
So, the opposition wished to prove people can debate the above proposition by ... Talking about World War II and arguing with sophistry and semantics? I must say, to argue that if people on this site can debate, and the only links to such debates show something that is, well, showing the opposite is sad, really. Never mind the fact he's winning despite it.
Posted by wordy 3 years ago
wordy
I mostly agree with the resolution. DDO was not like this even a year ago. Everything on here has dramatically changed. I personally think that the purpose of debate is seeking the truth, not a game.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
CRAP! I'll never gain my victory!
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
That's because laughter is a result of irony - where's the irony? It's between us. You're not intelligent - I am, therefore you laugh at me because the things I say are beyond your capacity.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
You make me laugh arrogant Aerogant
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Phoenix is yet another biased child on this site that is +1'ing other pathetic wannaba politicians because nothing else they do in life matter, for they have sacrificed matter for fecal matter.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
For the likes of me I don't understand why you made this 5 Rounds long.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
If I lose this, I don't know if I'll be able to forgive myself...
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Monkey: Any human being that reduces their cosmic potency to monkey business. Basically anyone that can only do two things: Say Ooh, "Shiny!"; or Aah! "Laughing". They do not reason - they do not think. They react - they stink. They do not care about you, which is why they jumping on you and trying to hump your face with their broken esteem. They self-appoint themselves by wearing monocles. They wear suits on top of that monocle. They take sources and use them for arguments. They do not have the hands to play their own cards. They do not have the courage to play their own cards.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
define monkey

(ps. i always have the bigger dick)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
AerogantLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I must sympathise with Aerogant here, Logical Lunatic made his descent into the lowly level of arguing semantics. I mean really? I understood what Pro was trying to say, its not fair to take things literally and the context is more than obvious, it ruins the debate. As such, I will not penalize Aerogant for his ad hominem attacks as semantical arguments are annoying and unnecessary, we are human after all., Points to Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
AerogantLogicalLunaticTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro done nothing to support his part
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
AerogantLogicalLunaticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refused to actually debate his resolution, while com successfully refuted all of pro's points. Pro also incessantly insulted con and didn't use any sources.