The Instigator
JimShady
Pro (for)
The Contender
JediDude
Con (against)

Purushadasa is not a good debater.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JediDude has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 103528
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Pro

This challenge is open to anybody who thinks that a fellow DDO user, Purushadasa (http://www.debate.org...), is a good debater. The goal for Pro (me) will be to demonstrate why Purushadasa is NOT a good debater. The goal for Con (you) will be to demonstrate why Purushadasa IS a good debater. Burden of Proof is shared on both sides. It's hard to prove is someone is "good", but at least attempt.

I know this debate might be a little cold-hearted, but I'm really fed up with Purushadasa. Once this debate is done, I will send him the link to try and demonstrate how he can become better (however, he might already be good at debating- that is for you to show!) I will not directly challenge Purushadasa, but if he feels like accepting, he can. But keep in mind this is open to anyone.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and New Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals to Rebuttals (No New Arguments)

Failure to follow this format can cost you in conduct points.

Ad hominem will be allowed in this debate because it deals specifically with arguing against people, not their arguments.
JediDude

Con

I will defend this re- sorry, fabulous old man with the attitude of a UN-nuetered billy goat!
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Pro

I will be using this debate between Purushadasa and cakerman(http://www.debate.org...) to demonstrate why exactly Purushadasa, or as I will now nickname him "Puru" is not a good debater.

1. "That's a straw man."

Puru's debates arguments are riddled with multiple accusations of the opposition committing a straw man logical fallacy. By definition, a straw man is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." Let's look at one of the 10-12 "straw men" that Puru claims cakerman, "caker" set up:

caker: Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god
Puru: I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.
Puru (his opening statement in the debate): Without God, there could be no science

As you can clearly see, Puru attacks caker for putting words into his mouth. However, although caker does not repeat him verbatim, his proposition does not misrepresent what Puru said. Misrepresenting a statement is the needed criteria to be a straw man fallacy. caker does not repeat EXACTLY what Puru says but still captures the essence of what he said, and yet Puru calls him on a straw man. This shows that Puru's debate's, you'll notice that they're SWIMMING in straw man accusations, and about 97% of them are not straw men. Therefore, Puru does not know what an actual straw man logical fallacy is, and therefore it hints that he's not a good debater.

2. Taking things out of context.

I want to point a line out from the caker vs. Puru debate, where Puru quotes caker and sees it as a victory:

caker:I believe in God
Puru: I know you do -- you stated that the changes in the Laws of Nature are proof that God exists.
caker (in the his previous argument): (like myself, not entirely certain as to why you keep assuming I believe in God)

I find this actually pretty funny and I'm seriously wondering if Puru is the biggest, most dedicated debate troll ever. I mean, how can you call yourself a debater and take someone out of context so much? Puru constantly picks out tiny little phrases and uses them as quotes from your argument. Afterwards, he acts like it is a concession and is proud of himself for "convincing" his opponents. Obviously caker did not take any of this, and so far neither have voters. But the fact that Puru actually thinks he can get away with taking people out of context this badly STRONGLY suggests he is a bad debater.

3. Ferocious ad hominem/arrogance
For some who points out logical fallacies every 15.7 seconds, Puru actually commits the ad hominem fallacy quite a bit. Ad hominem is (of an argument or reaction) "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Here are a few quotes from Puru in the caker vs Puru debate.

"That statement is constructed with such poor grammar that I honestly have no idea what your point may be: Please re-phrase it with some modicum of intelligible grammar."
"You utterly failed to even address my argument, setting up about 10 or 12 straw men and arguing against those. "

I know these don't seem that bad, but they get really annoying after a while and are a sign of an inexperienced debater who has nothing to turn to but attacking his opponent. Also, every 13.26 seconds, Puru shows intolerable amounts of arrogance in his debates, even though he has lost well over half of them.

"in short, I won this debate quite handily and easily (and with a good amount of assistance from you): Thanks for your time! =)"
"You offered no valid arguments and no valid refutations to my argument, only a slew of straw man logical fallacies, whereas I provided air-tight evidence for all of my statements... Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)"

Puru constantly affirms that he has won this debate, even though he has done no such thing. And when voters don't vote for him, he throws a fit because "they don't know what debate is" or "the system's rigged." I would be OK with Puru being this smug if he could actually prove his points with inarguable evidence, but the fact that he doesn't gives him no right to brag about anything.

4. Extreme repetition.
Everyone, including me, has the tendency to repeat themselves in a debate because there might be a point we ESPECIALLY want to get across. However, Puru repeats himself so much that almost all he has to do is press copy/ paste. Throughout his closing arguments, he constantly says stuff like this:

"The only circular reasoning is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong."
"Without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong."
"The only circular reasoning here is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong."

It's honestly a fair point to make, but we only need to hear it once, and not every time caker brings up circular reasoning. There are many instances of his extreme repetition, and most of the time what he repeats I can agree with. However, it is only a small issue, and his failure to explain other arguments makes him want to keep falling back on his one solid statement.

5. Lack of evidence/ failure to prove, "Yes it is."

Now for the most diabolical thing that Purushadasa does, the "Yes it is" argument. Puru will begin a debate by stating his premises and beliefs, and then let the opponent try and refute them. After caker has made his arguments, Puru fires back with a "No it isn't" or a "Yes it is." Read Puru's round 4 argument and you'll see what I'm talking about. caker makes a valid counter-argument, and Puru answers with "No, that isn't true." And when cakerman asks for proof of Puru's arguments, Puru restates what he said before and claims "That is true." This shows a complete failure to actually take part in a debate. You actually have to talk about and explain your arguments if you are going to convince the opposition. I don't know if Puru was just lazy or he felt that "Yes it is" is proper proof, but it's very disrespectful to give that answer to someone who's actually put thought and time into their argument and then claim "you lost this debate."

In conclusion, I can actually agree with Purushadasa on a lot of issues, and I think we would be a good debate team on the side of proving God... IF he could actually debate. He shows little care for proving his arguments and shows arrogance throughout, claims nonexistent straw men fallacies, and takes his opponents extremely out of context. For these reasons, I believe Purushadasa is a terrible debater.

Bonus: Puru's assumed response to my argument.

That is all your opinion, and I never did any of that, so straw man. Therefore I won this debate, thanks for your time! :)
JediDude

Con

In this round, I will single handedly prove Purushadasa is a good debater.

Let us begin:

Contention 1: Purushadasa is not human

Subpoint A: He doesn't really understand things

This may well be a glitch in his programming, much like the kind of twitter bots you see that will block you for saying certain things! The only problem is that since he is not fully capable of understanding us humans, because he has only been on this site for a week.

Lets look at an example from "According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science":

"My opponent wrote:

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)"

As we can see, the robot Purushadasa has caught only a specific phrase from the entire argument, and has misinterpreted it.

We can even see a great example of that in the first argument he makes:

"Intelligent Design Science was initiated by scientist Carl Sagan, circa 1985.


Sagan, now dead, was agnostic, not a Creationist,
and Intelligent Design Science was originally intended as a scientific method for detecting life on other planets.

Although Intelligent Design Science also applies to the issue
of the origin of life on this planet " and indeed Intelligent Design Science
proves conclusively the fact that all life on this planet was designed
by an intelligent agent -- Intelligent Design Science
is certainly not Creationism. Short related video: https://www.youtube.com...;

Clearly he was not run through wikipedia prior to being released onto the site, otherwise his history banks would have realized that this is a stupid argument. Or perhaps it is something much more sinister...

Subpoint B: Purushadasa may in fact be a clone of Donald Trump

Let's take a look at the word itself:
Penis
Up
tRapping
Us
So
He
And
Donald
Are
Sh*tting
A ton on our faces

Clearly this is definitive evidence that he is a bot created by Donald Trump in order to learn how to properly debate! And we can clearly see how well this is working out for them based on Purushadasa's W/L ratio. In fact, lets take a look at it!
Debates: 28
Lost: 26
Tied: 2
Won: 0
Win Ratio: 0.00%
Percentile: 0.00%
Elo Ranking: 1,000
I mean at the very least it is better than donald trump...

But that's not to say he isn't a good debater! I mean, we all know how biased the voting system is on this site, and how it clearly is the fault of the site for not providing intelligent unbiased voters that haven't been previously harassed by him in the past week!

Subpoint C: Purushadasa is a reptilian alien sent from outer space!

First, let's take a look at his profile picture:
Purushadasa

Now, I know that it's only a pepe, but remember how I showed previously that he really is a clone of Donald Trump? Well, what if Donald Trump is a reptilian, and Purushadasa is really here as his clone to spread his word as his god?! I mean, he could just be a crazy fanatical Trump Supporter who happens to love pepe, but we all know that they use Circular Logic, and Ad Hominum attacks, which clearly shows how stupid they are, but as we all know Purushadasa is a superior human being/reptilian alien who won't debate with us two legged animals! Now this is getting sinister, but here is some proof of this from some of his quotes!!!!:

"All Human Beings (Including You) Are Obsessed with God"

How could he have known!!!

"The Boy Scout Oath: 'And Do My Duty To God And My Country'"

Here he is trying to reinforce the teachings of Lizardus Humanis, his actual species!

We can also see that he is trying to reinforce statements through repitition, in the hopes that eventually we will believe it!!!!

"All human beings, including my opponent, are obsessed with God."

He even proves it through circular logic, clearly the most superior of logic because of its shape, the circle. Why do you think that Michelangelo was one of the most godly human beings??? (Besides having a penis of course)

"Believers in atheist Dogma think about God all the time -- how strange! If they actually believed that God didn't exist, then they would never give him a second thought. The belief in atheist Dogma is not motivated by any valid argument or evidence -- it is motivated solely by an irrational hatred for God. In fact, God has made his factual existence known, with absolute certainty, to all human beings: All believers in atheist Dogma are constantly thinking about God, all agnostics are constantly thinking about God, and all Theists and Theological Realists are also constantly thinking about God too: All human beings, without exception, are constantly thinking about God, day in and day out, and the only rational explanation for this fact is that God actually exists in reality and the belief in atheist Dogma is false."

(Here is a link to all of this: http://www.debate.org...)

Contention 2: Purushadasa does not use Logical Fallacies.

Subpoint A: Something he said to me in my debate with him.

When I was debating Purushadasa about the existence of god (of which he conviced my obviously), he said this little gem:

"You are clearly a deluded moron and an ignorant douchebag that is incapable of engaging in actual debate: Thanks for your time! =)"

and since I never use logical fallacies when I do an actual debate, that clearly means that he never does either, because if I am a human with an IQ of 125, and have won over 25 prestigous debate awards (in Public Forum), that clearly means he is some kind of god amongst men!

Subpoint B: He doesn't even have to follow he is own resolution to win a debate!

Purushadasa said this in the same debate as the previous quote:

" "since he is not following HIS OWN RESOLUTION.'

Yes I am."

"You lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)"

As you can clearly see I lost that debate HARD. And he didn't even follow his own resolution. Impressive is it not?

(http://www.debate.org...)




Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Pro

Now for rebuttals and new arguments.


Subpoint A: He doesn't really understand things


I agree that Purushadasa does not normally understand things that are in common language. However, this doesn't ncessarily mean he's a robot without proper programming. Unless you prove otherwise, I would suggest he's just a fool who can not understand any logic and lives in a bubble reality. Much like the God argument, since your proposition is more out of this world, the burden of proof is on you to prove he's a robot. My proof that he is human is that he's got a second rate YouTube channel called 1GodOnlyOne, https://www.youtube.com..., hinting that he's really human. Plus, a lot of the things he says are so stupid that not even a robot could do that.


Subpoint B: Purushadasa may in fact be a clone of Donald Trump


To your acronym: what. Also, here are three debates that, according to voter, Trump won. That's 3 more than Purushadasa won.


http://www.slate.com...


http://www.syracuse.com...


http://fox2now.com...


But that's not to say he isn't a good debater! I mean, we all know how biased the voting system is on this site, and how it clearly is the fault of the site for not providing intelligent unbiased voters that haven't been previously harassed by him in the past week!


Almost all of Purushadasa's debates do not require a "Reason For Voting", so it does not matter. And keep in mind Purushadasa MAKES most of his debates. So if voters vote against him just because they don't like him, he only has himself to blame. Plus, if you lose 28... and now 31 out of 31 debates, chances are it's not the voters.


Now, I know that it's only a pepe, but remember how I showed previously that he really is a clone of Donald Trump? Well, what if Donald Trump is a reptilian, and Purushadasa is really here as his clone to spread his word as his god?! I mean, he could just be a crazy fanatical Trump Supporter who happens to love pepe, but we all know that they use Circular Logic, and Ad Hominum attacks, which clearly shows how stupid they are, but as we all know Purushadasa is a superior human being/reptilian alien who won't debate with us two legged animals! Now this is getting sinister, but here is some proof of this from some of his quotes!!!!:


All speculation, no evidence.


He even proves it through circular logic, clearly the most superior of logic because of its shape, the circle. Why do you think that Michelangelo was one of the most godly human beings??? (Besides having a penis of course)


I admit that the circle is one of the most mystical shapes, but using circle logic means you have nothing to fall back on but repeating your earlier statements, thus showing stupidity, not superiority.


Contention 2: Purushadasa does not use Logical Fallacies.


and since I never use logical fallacies when I do an actual debate, that clearly means that he never does either, because if I am a human with an IQ of 125, and have won over 25 prestigous debate awards (in Public Forum), that clearly means he is some kind of god amongst men!


wtf


As you can clearly see I lost that debate HARD. And he didn't even follow his own resolution. Impressive is it not?


Not impressive, because Purushadasa is an ignorant debater who lives in a delusional Disney land.



You lost this debate hard (with much of your assistance, arigatou!) Thanks for your time!

JediDude

Con

I agree that Purushadasa does... understand any logic and lives in ...reality.

Agreed.

"he's a robot."

I'm Glad I could convince you of that. :)


"he is... a good debater!

Agreed.

I mean, we all know how biased the voting system is on this site, and how it clearly is the fault of the site for not providing intelligent unbiased voters that haven't been previously harassed by him in the past week!

Also agree. Glad you are quoting me perfectly too.

"All... evidence."


So I've convinced you right?

"I admit that the circle is one of the most mystical shapes"

I seem to have convinced you.

Purushadasa does not use Logical Fallacies.

Agreed.


[I] lost this debate hard, (and with your help! [it's spelled arigato]) Thanks for your time!

Hahahaha I have won this debate!

Debate Round No. 3
JimShady

Pro

Con has sinned against the out-of-context guardians of debate, and they have judged that he should receive the same treatment for his crimes.

"I agree that...you...won this debate!... I lost this debate hard... I...not... a...intelligent...debater. I've... not... convinced you."

Well, thank you for that concession. We all know you are not the most intelligent of debaters, but it's understandable. Kind of.

https://answers.yahoo.com... Douitashimashite, heh heh.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 11 months ago
JimShady
He hasn't been on for the past 3 days, so I think it's over.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
JediDude, post something. You have 10 hours left!
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
I admire JediDude's ability to insult Puru while defending him...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
No one can seriously say Purushadasa is a good debater, or at least from what has been shown on the site.
Posted by Deathwolf 11 months ago
Deathwolf
Well. tbh I was actually expecting a serious debate but a satrical one will suffice as well I guess...?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Taking quotes from the opponent and removing the bad parts to make it seem like he's agreeing with you... I'll admit that's better than Puru's techniques, for sure.
Posted by JediDude 11 months ago
JediDude
He is real, he has a youtube channel. I just hope everyone realizes I'm trying to win this debate through satire, and I am indeed not insane.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
I'm still leaning towards Puru being a program. He only acknowledges your arguments if you use exactly his own words. (Also, the fact that Puru often repeats the same thing, like a bot would.)
Posted by Deathwolf 11 months ago
Deathwolf
Honestly I don't understand why people would go to such lengths as to say "... and so I won this debate." You haven't won the debate; you may have posted a well-structured and well-planned argument, but seriously, down on the ego just a little bit.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Puru is not a good debater.... he is a horrible one.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.