The Instigator
KwLm
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Refusal of understanding, Proving the game is not fact.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
KwLm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2018 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,044 times Debate No: 107410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (4)

 

KwLm

Pro

Because good ol' Bryan refuses point blank to debate, the Fact that his game, that he made up, is false and not fact.

So here: His proof, http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...

A wiki page of his creation, he claims is fact, with no reports of any kind, no evidence to support the claim of any kind but his own youtube videos,
https://www.youtube.com...
No evidence of any kind to support the claims.

So Bryan, want to prove your game is fact here, or run away like a coward.
Bearing in mind, refusal to debate, proves the roast game is false, fake and Bryan has nothing to back it up.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

First, That is not all the sources I have to prove that The Roast Game is Fact.

Here are all the sources:

[1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...;
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.google.com...
[4] https://m.youtube.com...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://www.debate.org...


Here is what you said. "A wiki page of his creation, he claims is fact, with no reports of any kind, no evidence to support the claim of any kind but his own youtube videos."

This statement is so easy to debunk. You clearly took only one source, instead of all seven sources. How would there be no evidence if there were several sources I cited in the comment section of this debate: http://www.debate.org...


Also, you are committing a fallacy called Appeasement.

"This fallacy, most often popularly connected to the shameful pre-World War II appeasement of Hitler, is in fact still commonly practiced in public agencies, education and retail business today, e.g. "Customers are always right, even when they're wrong. Don't argue with them, just give'em what they want so they'll shut up and go away, and not make a stink--it's cheaper and easier than a lawsuit." Widespread unchallenged acceptance of this fallacy encourages offensive, uncivil public behavior and sometimes the development of a coarse subculture of obnoxious, "assertive" manipulators who, like "spoiled" children, leverage their knowledge of how to figuratively (or sometimes even literally!) "make a stink" into a primary coping skill in order to get what they want when they want it. The works of the late Community Organizing guru Saul Alinsky suggest practical, nonviolent ways for groups to harness the power of this fallacy to promote social change, for good or for evil." [9]

Source: http://utminers.utep.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
KwLm

Pro

Lets debunk this.
Proving a fact: The predominant manner of establishing fact is through evidence. In fact, almost all manners of proof require some amount of evidence and the real distinction is the proximity of the evidence to the fact at issue. Facts are established by: Direct Evidence.

evidence
G2;ɛv=8;d(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Source 1:
http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...
Is nothing more than a link to a wiki search page.
This proves that Bryan tries to use his own created content as proof of fact.

Source 2:
http://www.debate.org...
Can not be used as evidence of fact because though the debate was "won" by the one voter, the reason for winning was not a winning of debate but simply because the challenger did not debate. No facts were stated, no evidence was stated, nor any reports of any kind to back up the claim of the game was given in the debate.
It can be seen in the vote tab, the voter agreed with con, before and after the debate.

Source 3 is a link to a google search of Bryan Mullins own created content. This is not proof or evidence of the roast game being fact or real to begin with.

Source 4 being a youtube video created by Bryan Mullins, showing a lot of claims, none of which have any links to show where the information comes from, no police reports of "children being eaten", nothing to back up any of the claims made in the video. Absolutely nothing.

Source 5 being another link to another debate where once again, the claims are made, but there is nothing there to back the claims up beside the same links given here to his own created context.

Source 6 being a link to a poll where one voter is the creator of the poll, his vote is biased, although counted by the system, it should be void, which makes it an uneven voting system of 9 people, 2 of which voted yes are clearly ridiculous jokes.
This again, proves nothing but that there are jokers on DDO.

Source 7, another poll about whether the "roast game" should be thought in schools. This is straight up bonkers. If every member of DDO actually voted on these polls, then it might mean something. This sight is not being maintained by administrators any more.

The "roast game" relies on a very specific answer
"any family member "what is special about a holiday roast?"The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member "

This question asks the family member for an opinion, to where the questioner refuses an opinionated answer.

"Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special? "The family member says "I believe that children are special""

This is where the "game" relies, and in fact must rely on this answer for the rest of the game to make sense.
If for example, the family member says "I think family is special" does this mean that the family eats family members? No, it's just an answer to the question, "who or what do you think is special?"

The rest of the game continues on with "You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" and relies on the reaction to such a ridiculous question. The game must go in a very specific way otherwise the questioner is then forcing answers to make it go the way the questioner wants it to.

The main reason as to why this is not a fact is because there are zero police reports about children being eaten by family members. There are zero news articles anywhere about this "game" or it's claims. There is nothing to prove anything this game claims as true.

Links to content created by the author of the game to try prove the game is fact is ridiculous, If I said the grass was blue, not green, then made videos and wiki pages about how I believe it is pink and not green, but never once showing any evidence to grass ever being pink, It would be proven wrong pretty quickly. Just like this game.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con


Here are my first rebuttals.

"Can not be used as evidence of fact because though the debate was "won" by the one voter, the reason for winning was not a winning of debate but simply because the challenger did not debate. No facts were stated, no evidence was stated, nor any reports of any kind to back up the claim of the game was given in the debate.
It can be seen in the vote tab, the voter agreed with con, before and after the debate."


Fallacy 1:

Aggressive behavior with the person:

It is also called as argumentum. Also, it is nothing but the argument process against particular person i.e. hominem. In many debates this type of fallacy gets applied. Since people become aggressive towards anything that they don’t like, it is considered as simple one as compared to the other types of fallacies.


"Source 3 is a link to a google search of Bryan Mullins own created content. This is not proof or evidence of the roast game being fact or real to begin with."

Fallacy 2: Red Herring - These fallacies occur when someone uses irrelevant information to distract from the argument.


"Source 4 being a youtube video created by Bryan Mullins, showing a lot of claims, none of which have any links to show where the information comes from, no police reports of "children being eaten", nothing to back up any of the claims made in the video. Absolutely nothing."

Fallacy 3: Straw Man Fallacy - These fallacies occur when someone appears to be refuting the original point made, but is actually arguing a point that wasn't initially made.


"Source 6 being a link to a poll where one voter is the creator of the poll, his vote is biased, although counted by the system, it should be void, which makes it an uneven voting system of 9 people, 2 of which voted yes are clearly ridiculous jokes.
This again, proves nothing but that there are jokers on DDO.

Source 7, another poll about whether the "roast game" should be thought in schools. This is straight up bonkers. If every member of DDO actually voted on these polls, then it might mean something. This sight is not being maintained by administrators any more."

Fallacy 4:

Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) - These fallacies occur when an acceptance or rejection of a concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit.

  • That face cream can't be good. Kim Kardashian is selling it.
  • Don't listen to Dave's argument on gun control. He's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.


Fallacy 5: Appeal to Ignorance
- These fallacies occur when someone asserts a claim that must be accepted because no one else can prove otherwise.

  • People have been praying to God for years. No one can prove He doesn't exist. Therefore, He exists.
  • Since the students have no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the students are ready for a test.


"The main reason as to why this is not a fact is because there are zero police reports about children being eaten by family members. There are zero news articles anywhere about this "game" or it's claims. There is nothing to prove anything this game claims as true.

Links to content created by the author of the game to try prove the game is fact is ridiculous, If I said the grass was blue, not green, then made videos and wiki pages about how I believe it is pink and not green, but never once showing any evidence to grass ever being pink, It would be proven wrong pretty quickly. Just like this game."

Again, you are committing the fourth fallacy I cited, which is, Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) - These fallacies occur when an acceptance or rejection of a concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit.


"The rest of the game continues on with "You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" and relies on the reaction to such a ridiculous question. The game must go in a very specific way otherwise the questioner is then forcing answers to make it go the way the questioner wants it to."

Fallacy 6:

Appeal to Authority - These fallacies occur when someone accepts a truth on blind faith just because someone they admire said it.

  • Katherine loves Tom Cruise. One day, she meets Tom Cruise and he tells her unicorns live in New York City. Without searching to find out if fairy tales have sprung to life in the midtown Manhattan, she believes it to be true.
  • Princess Kate wears Alexander McQueen. Are you trying to say you have better fashion sense than a royal princess?



"G2;ɛv=8;d(ə)ns/Submit" is not a source.

Therefore, I have debunked your argument.


Here are the sources I used to define fallacies and use Con's arguments (bit by bit) as examples of certain fallacies:
[1] http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
[2] http://typesof.com...

Debate Round No. 2
KwLm

Pro

So as I have stated before, My opponent has absolutely no verifiable proof to support his claims that the "roast game" is a fact.
Instead of adding argument or debate to the points I made, my opponent claims victim to fallacy that does not exist.

In very short and quick conclusion, My opponent here has shown serious lack of argument or debate against his claim that his "roast game" is fact.

I have proven why it is not fact as I had set out to do.

My opponent has not proven his game as fact. And that dear readers is a fact.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Here are my final rebuttals.

"So as I have stated before, My opponent has absolutely no verifiable proof to support his claims that the "roast game" is a fact. Instead of adding argument or debate to the points I made, my opponent claims victim to fallacy that does not exist. In very short and quick conclusion, My opponent here has shown serious lack of argument or debate against his claim that his "roast game" is fact.

I have proven why it is not fact as I had set out to do.

My opponent has not proven his game as fact. And that dear readers is a fact"


And so I stated before my opponent has committed 6 fallacies, those 6 fallacies are:

1) Aggressive behavior with the person
2) Red Herring
3) Straw Man Fallacy
4) Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)
5) Appeal to Ignorance
6) Appeal to Authority

He also commuted another fallacy called Appeasement.

Which was defined as "This fallacy, most often popularly connected to the shameful pre-World War II appeasement of Hitler, is in fact still commonly practiced in public agencies, education and retail business today, e.g. "Customers are always right, even when they're wrong. Don't argue with them, just give'em what they want so they'll shut up and go away, and not make a stink--it's cheaper and easier than a lawsuit." Widespread unchallenged acceptance of this fallacy encourages offensive, uncivil public behavior and sometimes the development of a coarse subculture of obnoxious, "assertive" manipulators who, like "spoiled" children, leverage their knowledge of how to figuratively (or sometimes even literally!) "make a stink" into a primary coping skill in order to get what they want when they want it. The works of the late Community Organizing guru Saul Alinsky suggest practical, nonviolent ways for groups to harness the power of this fallacy to promote social change, for good or for evil." [1]

I debunked every argument he has made in both round 1 and 2. Here are my debunk arguments:

1) I responded to his willfull ignorance to cite all the sources that were there to back up The Roast Game as fact by saying this, "First, That is not all the sources I have to prove that The Roast Game is Fact." Then, I show him all the 7 main sources to back it up as fact.

2) As a response to his round 2 argument, I stated the 6 fallacies he has committed, which are (to cite again for voter analysis):
1) Aggressive behavior with the person
2) Red Herring
3) Straw Man Fallacy
4) Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)
5) Appeal to Ignorance
6) Appeal to Authority

3) After all those debunk arguments, he just goes back to his original point, thinking it would prove anything after me debunking all of his arguments.


Here are my conclusions:
1. The Roast Game is fact because there is plenty of evidence to back it up and it is indisputably the case.
2. The Pro has made 6 fallacies.
3. I made a more convincing argument.
4. I did not insult my opponent in this debate.

And most of all, The Roast Game is Fact!

Here are all the sources I used in all my arguments:


[1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.google.com...;
[4] https://m.youtube.com...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://utminers.utep.edu...
[8] http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
[9] http://typesof.com...
[10] http://www.debate.org...
[11] http://www.debate.org...


Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KwLm 4 months ago
KwLm
No, you don't even know the meaning of irony hahaha
This debate had a very specific goal, that goal has been achieved.
You could not come up with anything to prove your roast game was fact, I proved your sources were false sources, I proved you had nothing to back up your claims, and the voters voted on my arguments.
You are a sore childish loser.
Posted by Cherrypalm 4 months ago
Cherrypalm
This debate was goddamn meaningless you ironic bastard.
Posted by KwLm 4 months ago
KwLm
This was not a troll debate, this was a debate where I set out to do something, Prove the roast game false, I did that and you can't accept it hahahahahahaha
Posted by KwLm 4 months ago
KwLm
Hahahahahahaha you're so full of sh'it. I challenged you, you finally accepted, egotistically said that I would lose no matter what, here's the comment:

"Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 @KwLm you have no idea what you are talking about.

Insulting me like that, you will still lose this debate no matter what.

You are just pretending that I lost this debate, which I haven't."

And then.... you lost the debate, what a shocker, Proving you wrong was too much for your tiny mind so you deactivated your account, tried to save face by saying you were the troll, then say you got trolled and then the youtube video, where you were called out for being a liar, and disabled the comments hahahahaha
Posted by Cherrypalm 4 months ago
Cherrypalm
This is a troll debate.
Its okay, I've been trolled before. Its nothing new.
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
yup, i was talking about this: https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by KwLm 5 months ago
KwLm
Really? Didn't he delete one before he reactivated his account a while back?
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
a video, he posted a video
Posted by Minddagger 5 months ago
Minddagger
He posted because he was so triggered!
Posted by KwLm 5 months ago
KwLm
I have proven it here, that you have nothing to prove it fact, I have proven that you are a troll, I have proven you wrong, and you can't understand this because you are a child Bryan. You have deactivated your account multiple times because you got into a "hissy fit"

You have been proven wrong.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 5 months ago
SupaDudz
KwLmBryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2Tied
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 Checkmark--1 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: The sources CON used are biased to him and have evidence made by him and using debates and his own videos. His evidence is using his own knowledge and own philosophies, which turn his arguments into a bias debate. The vote is clear to me, PRO wins
Vote Placed by Vaarka 5 months ago
Vaarka
KwLmBryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2Tied
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: .
Vote Placed by Wylted 5 months ago
Wylted
KwLmBryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2Tied
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: Pro pointed out that con had no evidence of the roast game. Con responded with citations but he needs to provide his arguments instead of links. Despite this pro still went citation by citation to show that each source. Lacked any evidence. Con did not address these arguments and instead posted mad ramblings about fallacies that weren?t even close to being applicable. Argument points to pro for the above. Pro also get?s conduct points because con trolled the debate by posting incoherent ramblings that had nothing to do with the debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 5 months ago
Leaning
KwLmBryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not feel that Con successfully debunked Pros arguments. Con also failed to make any effort toward proving the game, thus if even one of Pros arguments made sense, Pro made a better argument. Conduct, grammar and spelling were approximately equal throughout the debate.