The Instigator
draxxt
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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 8 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,511 times Debate No: 9701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (65)
Votes (8)

 

draxxt

Con

We will be debating this topic free style which means any system of debate from conventional to unconventional are welcome so long as each case is refuted in the manner suiting the style they have chosen. Semantics arguments are not allowed and are subject to dismissal by the judging populous. Semantics arguments include any attacks or kritiks on the resolution or any of the rules to follow.
Here is my framework, which is not subject to interpretation, should be taken literally, and are not up for negotiation:
1)My opponent must know what the Internet meme "The Game" is. If my opponent is arguing on any other game (ie Clue, Monopoly, strip poker) my opponent forfeits the debate and you must vote CON.
2) If my opponent wishes to win any votes on this debate, my opponent must not mention The Game in any manner or power of suggestion (ie "I don't know what we're playing here and I have never known" is not acceptable. It is a reference to The Game.)
3) My opponent may participate in this debate after they have reviewed the rules before every round at http://www.losethegame.com... .
4) My opponent may run any debating style he wishes so long as it is not a semantics argument (ie "The resolution is flawed because 'x'") My opponent's argument must be regarding the resolution and why it is possible that his opponent can abstain from losing the game.
5) All of these rules apply solely to the Affirmative. The Negative is subject only to contend his opponent and present a case negating the resolution.
6) Any and every person who views this debate, regardless of their affiliation in the matter, must declare their loss of the game in the comment box.

Being that I am the Negative, I will let the Affirmative have the first argument.
Logical-Master

Pro

Hello and thanks for starting this debate. I wish you the best of luck.

But hold on. Where are my manners? I should introduce myself. I am Daniel's (who is known here as Logical-Master) Japanese cousin and am currently visiting him in the United States. After a long day of sight seeing, we've decided to head back to his apartment and venture along the Internet. I don't know how much Daniel has told you about me, but I love debating and usually have the best performance in comparison to my peers. I've sparred with Daniel many times and he has never beaten me in a debate. We've even had a debate today and I was the winner. He has decided to put my skills to the test by see how well I can perform in an online debate. At first, I told him that I couldn't read English and always relied on my elder siblings to get around when it came to dealing with the English language as they are very fluent. Knowing English himself, Daniel has decided to translate the debate himself as well as translate and type everything I say for me.

However, I must warn you. Daniel is a very sore loser. He may be upset over how I thrashed him in our debate today. I wouldn't put it past him to purposely mistranslate any of what was said above so that I might look like a fool in this debate. Though since he is family, I'll trust him to do the right thing.

Now for some odd reason, Daniel has informed me that my opponent has requeted that I REVIEW every word on this page. I don't know why he'd request me to do that, but I did it anyway. I clicked on the link to a website provided on this page. I REVIEWED every word on that site, but couldn't actually understand anything which was written or vocalized.

Daniel has informed me that my opponent has requested to learn what I know about Internet Memes. In response, I mention the fact that I am an expert when it comes to Internet Memes. I personally think I KNOW about nearly every Internet Meme there is worldwide ( definitely ALL of the the popular ones). This was a very strange request to make. Personally, I'd rather not think about any of the popular Internet memes at the moment if that is okay with both Daniel and my opponent. Hopefully, this debate doesn't revolve around them.

Finally, Daniel has informed me that my opponent is allowing me to run any debate style of my choice. Because of this, I wish for this to be a tag team debate on my part. I don't know when this debate is going to end and I won't be in the United States forever. In the case that I end up having to leave before the debate has finished, Daniel has informed me that his good yet uneducated skilled speaking friend shall be willing to take my place in this debate. It is most unfortunate that he does not know how to read and that Daniel intends to chuck the speakers for his computer out of the window or mute the sound. Perhaps this uneducated fellow has also gotten the best of Daniel in a contest of some sort. Nevertheless, Daniel is willing to tell this gentleman what the words on this page mean as well as type out his response. Hopefully, Daniel doesn't purposely mistranslate anything as I suspect he already has with me.

I guess someone translating the arguments so I may respond is also a STYLE of debate, but I don't see why this matters. I just hope having a translator with possibly bad intentions doesn't hinder either of us in this debate.

Anyway, I'm not sure why it has been requested that I mention all of this (I assume this is somehow in response to my opponent's argument), but Daniel has told me to tell my opponent that common sense dictates that since everything I've mentioned can POSSIBLY be true, that I've won the debate. I'm not sure what this means, but don't mind Daniel. Remarks like that are pretty arrogant, but he usually has his heart set towards the truth, so I'll agree with that and support his claim to the best of my ability.
Debate Round No. 1
draxxt

Con

I would like to say that my opponent has not posted any formal argument. This being said, hello Daniel's cousin. May I ask your real name please? Oh, how rude, my name is Eli and I live in America. It's surprising that I've never heard of you from LM. We've debated several times and subsequently had several conversations concerning his debating career and he has never mentioned someone who was a BETTER debater than he. I would also extend my thanks to LM for translating this debate for me. As for the illiterate, I would like to invite you to the debate but forewarn Daniel that if anyone else types even one letter on this debate, Webmaster is within his rights to tear down your account. But being that neither of the debaters I am currently debating can read English, that should be no problem. Also, my opponent has done a good job of maintaining my rules.
I would also like to say I am debating contentions to be brought up at any time. If you, being one of my two (perhaps more), opponents would like to bring up a new contention at any point, that is fine.

"I'd rather not think about any of the popular Internet memes at the moment if that is okay with both Daniel and my opponent. Hopefully, this debate doesn't revolve around them."

It does. The Game.

But that's actually not important right now. My opponent will lose this debate. That may sound arrogant but he has already lost insofar as Daniel was required to read every word out to his cousin. My opponent is not truly Daniel's cousin is it? It seems my opponent as dictated by debate.org is Logical-Master whose true name is Daniel. I am debating Daniel. Therefore, Daniel must address me as Daniel, not as a medium for any other debater. In such a case, I am awaiting my opponent's case.

This is currently my only contention but is subject to change.

I would also like to add one more thing:
While contentions can be made at any round, my opponent cannot post any comments about the debate after they have posted a Round 1. I don't know if this matters to you but anything written before my Round 2 response gets posted is acceptable.
I await your response,
EG
Logical-Master

Pro

Hello again. I am still in the United States thus don't have to swap places with my replacement just yet. I understand that my opponent has requested my name. I am Takahashi Makoto. It is very nice to meet you, Eli.

I understand that you are surprised to have never heard of me from my cousin, Daniel based on the both of you having debated several times and subsequently having had several conversations concerning his debating career. I must say that your surprise bears no logic to it. 1) Daniel has informed me that the two of you have never debated on this website and that anyone reading this debate is free to scan all of his past debates to confirm this. I can't confirm this for myself, but since he did say that anyone is free to check his past debates in this website, this is a non-issue. 2) He has also informed me that the most he has ever informed anyone on this website of his debating career is his participation in high school formal debating and a few details at that. 3) Just because you chatted with someone a few times online, it is unreasonable to assume that they'd tell you all about their background information. Has Daniel told you about his first girlfriend? Has Daniel told you about what position he played on his highschool football team? Has Daniel told you how about how many siblings he has? Has Daniel told you about where his family went on vacation a few months ago? Has Daniel told you where he was born? From what I've been told, he hasn't and I don't see why he would feel compelled to do so.

My opponent has claimed that this mysterious Webmaster is within his rights to tear down this account if anyone else types even a letter on this debate. I feel such a claim is simply outrageous as I've never heard of an administrator who would cancel a user's account simply because a trusted companion is using it. Perhaps my opponent can cite these rules which he suggests have been written.

I've been told that my opponent is willing to debate contentions brought up at any time. From what I've gathered, the contention I was upholding for this debate was that "since common sense dictates that since everything I've mentioned can POSSIBLY be true, that I've won the debate." I'm not completely sure what that means, but I do support this and believe that anyone who reads this debate would be inclined to agree." This is my sole contention for this debate and I suspect that everything which I've been talking about supports this.

Daniel has informed me that my opponent had requested that Daniel was to read every word out to me in accordance to his first round parameters. However, Daniel has also informed me that my opponent ONLY requested that I personally REVIEW every word of the first round and the website which was provided. I apologize for being unable to understand anything which was written, but I DID review it to the best of my ability. I cannot help but get the feeling that someone is trying to deceive me. I suspect it is my opponent and believe that a simple reading of the rules in the first round shall indicate what the rules actually are.

My opponent makes the accusation that I am not truly Daniel's cousin. He bases this on debate.org dictating that Logical-Master's true name is Daniel. I must say that this is yet again something spouted from my opponent which is all but logical. Debate.org is not an omnipotent/omniscient being which possesses infallibility. It cannot measure who is behind an account at any particular time. For all my opponent knows, Daniel doesn't even exist and is nothing more than an alternate account perpetuated by another user from this website. To question this website's supposed infallibility further, I had Daniel take the liberty of changing the account name to Makoto. Now, debate.org is reporting this account under my name. I've also taken the liberty of having Daniel tell me the current name of my opponent. My opponent's name is currently "rf fr"; his name is not Eli. I hope I've made it clear as to why my opponent's accusation is nonsense. There is no rule stating that the person who created the account must always be the one doing the debating, I've been informed that my opponent has created no such rule restricting this account's creator to being the one to do the debate, nor are we to believe that every bit of information users provide about themselves is true.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, this seems to have something to do with the claim I said was supporting. I said that everything which I've said here is POSSIBLY true. Even if my opponent wants to deny that I am telling the truth, he cannot deny that it's possible. I have a strong hunch that this possibility is what wins me this debate. If there is a word possible or possibly in my opponent's first round, look for it and see if you see a connection.

Finally, I understand that my opponent has proclaimed that I cannot post any comments about our debate after I have posted round 1 and that anything typed before his round 2 response is acceptable. I don't know who my opponent thinks he is, but being expected to abide by rules/parameters created in the middle of a debate is a very ridiculous request. I've requested Daniel to check the first round to see if such a rule or a rule permitting new rules to be formed had been created. No such rules have been crafted, thus I am not abided to follow them.

I've again reviewed the website mentioned in the first round, but still cannot understand any of what was written and my cousin refuses to translate it for me. I again express great hope in the accuracy of my cousin's translation elsewhere. If anything has been missed or overlooked, I am not to blame.

I look forward to the next round of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
draxxt

Con

Thank you
I'll make this brief. So far, I am winning this debate, but I'll elaborate later.
Furthermore, I apologize for not taking this debate more seriously or contending properly but you have very cleverly circumvented my, albeit, abusive framework. You're right, it is unfair to ask mid-debate for a rule to be added to the framework. That's my mistake and I may end up paying for it later.

Have I not debated Daniel? I could have sworn I did. None of this is pertinent, however and I'm sorry for making small talk. Also, having a conversation pertaining to a specific subject is grounds for Daniel to mention someone who beats him in debates often. It has to do with the conversation at hand. His first girlfriend (warranting he's ever had a girlfriend) is not.

Thank you for debating with me. This isn't as interesting as I thought it would be during your R1. Again, very clever. I hope that you are having fun in America and wish you a safe trip home if you leave before your next response.
-EG
Logical-Master

Pro

Hello again, Eli. I'm still in the United States. I hope to remain here long enough to finish our debate.

1) I understand that you have apologized for not taking this debate more seriously. I'm sorry to hear that you haven't, but fully accept your apology. Hopefully, you are able to in the future rounds.

2) I'm glad we can come to an agreement on the unfair request you made last round.

3) You could have sworn you've debated Daniel you say? You're debating Takahashi Makoto. Although Daniel may be the medium in the process of debating you, he is no more your opponent than the keyboard he types on the or the computer which transmit the information.

4) You think having a conversation pertaining to a specific subject is grounds for Daniel to mention someone who beats him in debates often? Does this mean that Daniel logically ought to have revealed to you everything which pertains to his debating career? From what Daniel has told me, he met his first girlfriend at a debate tournament.

5) I'm sorry to hear that this isn't as interesting for you as you thought it would be, Mr. Eli. Hopefully, you can regain your interest in this debate as I prefer to debate opponent's who are at their best.

6) I've been informed that you are of the belief that you are winning this debate and that you don't intend to elaborate until later. From my experience, withholding your best cards until the last minute can get you into plenty of trouble, Mr Eli; it is not a good idea.

I look forward to the next round of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
draxxt

Con

Sounds good. Point-by-Point

1) Probably not.
2)Me too.
3) I meant against Daniel himself.
4) No, but that is a fairly important factor. I could tell you I ate an apple in under five seconds. I could neglect to mention it was almost completely eaten. This would be misleading insofar as you would assume I meant an entire apple from my previous statement, exaggerating the view you may have on my apple-eating abilities. Daniel has been modest but hinted at his debate prowess. One who could beat someone of Daniel's... ah... caliber should be revered and mentioned.
5)I won't. Unless, of course, your hand outweighs mine a great deal by the end of this debate.
6)We experience different things in our lives. This is not a fallacious appeal to subjectivity, rather a contrast between two people. My experience says certain people play by the rules, whereas others don't.

I have given you a hint somewhere in this response that could potentially win you the debate. Otherwise, my dear opponent, I have won.

~EG
Logical-Master

Pro

Hello again, Eli. It seems I'm still available to debate.

1) Most unfortunate.

2) This is good to hear.

3) I know what you meant, but you are incorrect.

4) In that case, I believe we should evaluate your claims on important factors. Could you please provide links to the pages where both you and Daniel have had your discussions?

5) If you say so.

6) I agree with you, Mr. Eli. Human beings come across different experiences in life, but it's important that we learn from each other's experiences so that we may grow to understand one another and not repeat past mistakes. Otherwise, we will surely pay for our solitude! No man is an island.

You've had your chance Mr. Eli. It is very clear that the two of us are confident in our victories for this debate.
The question is: Who has the better hand?
Debate Round No. 4
draxxt

Con

To quote L: "You and I will be parting ways soon..."

I'm sorry this had to end so quickly. I had some fun. I hope you did as well. I want to see if you catch what I was after in the R5 but I won't be able to respond if you do. Here I am giving you a fair chance to win. If you would allow me to post a comment of importance to the voting judges after your R5 has been posted, I would greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, I wish you luck.

-I would also like to point out that Daniel has lost the game.

It was... fun?
~EG
Logical-Master

Pro

Hello once again, Eli. I'm glad to have been able to argue in all five rounds of this debate. It is most unfortunate that this debate must end here. I had a lot of fun in this topic, but good things must come to an end.

I would like to begin this round by reminding everyone of my words on why I believe I've won this debate as early as round 1 and 2. I said that everything which I've said here is POSSIBLY true. Even if my opponent wants to deny that I am telling the truth, he cannot deny that it's possible. I have a strong hunch that this possibility is what wins me this debate. If there is a word possible or possibly in my opponent's first round, look for it and see if you see a connection.

Next, my adversary's tactic is not by any means a surprise to me. In fact, I had it planned for him to do this since the beginning of the debate (assuming everything is as I suspect it to be). One could say that I've been pulling the strings all along. In the first round, Mr. Eli made a rule requiring anyone who reads this debate to declare their love of Apple Pie (which, hopefully isn't mistranslation on Daniel's part) in the comment section. Mr. Eli would like you to believe that since I nor Daniel have done this, that we've somehow forfeited this debate. However, if I've been informed correctly, Mr. Elie never once mentioned WHEN users were required to do this (from what I've been told, users had declared their love of Apple Pie before the debate even started) and that neither Daniel or myself love Apple Pie. This means that neither of us have broken the rule.

I understand Mr Eli had made a comment about Daniel not liking sweet potato pie. Whether or not this is true and has anything to do with the debate, I am not Daniel; I am Takahashi Makoto and am the one who is representing the Logical-Master account.

But Mr. Eli, you did have a chance to win---no, a chance to not lose like this. Had you only posted an argument when you had the chance, you could have realized that I was well prepared for what you had in store for me and could have conjured up a different approach. But now, we've reached the end of the debate and you have no way of mounting a defense of any kind.

I shall not allow you to post a comment of importance to the voting judges as that is what the debate was for. Don't take it personal. Whereas my cousin might have been so soft as to allow that, I debate to win.

Sayonara
Debate Round No. 5
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
And yes, I have indeed lost the game.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
*sigh* old days...
Posted by BystanderLC 6 years ago
BystanderLC
Oh I remember when I first played The Game.

Smart dood: You will lose at The Game.
Me: What game?
Smart dood: You just lost. *goes on to explain the game*

Now, I need an elaborate description of what they just debated?
Posted by Qetzlcoatl 7 years ago
Qetzlcoatl
I wo-.... lost the game. :(
Posted by L_Bloodless 7 years ago
L_Bloodless
Found a loophole in the game revolving around "gets" so I have permanently won the game. This entire debate confused every available brain cells I have to confuse. Anyone care to elaborate?
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
i lost the game.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
"Shouldn't he who frames the debate have the final say on a rule?"

Yes, but you didn't exercise that right. You just assumed that your opponent broke the rule when the rule, as interpreted by rational and unbiased people, was not broken. Had you specified the reason the rule was broken beforehand and made an argument clarifying the rule, you may have won.

"My proposition that rule six must be done within the debate isn't abusive because you're missing something very important:"

No, *you're* missing something very important. The word "their", as Logical-Master said.

Bankruptcy, like pregnancy and loss of the game, are states that people enter upon.

"Everyone must declare loss of the game" implies an immediate action, the declaration. This is your literal statement, that everyone must say "I lost the game" regardless of whether they lost or not.

"Everyone must declare their loss of the game" implies a declaration of their status. It implies that should a person enter this state, the state must be declared.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Could've sworn someone would swap their vote at the last second.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
My insinuation was that you were relying on a false analogy. To say everyone must declare their loss implies that people who have lost should declare it. To say everyone must declare unemployment (or to be more in keeping, that everyone must declare that they have lost) possesses no such implication.

Don't mind the differences. I am whatever it is convenient for me to be at the time and place. Nevertheless, who I am is not important; my message is.
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
They're analogous, silly. And I don't know if you're someone else or if you simply have multiple personalities but you seem different... Perhaps it's the mood of the day... I'm beginning to feel it too
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by redsoxfreak010 7 years ago
redsoxfreak010
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:13 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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 draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
draxxtLogical-MasterTied
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:07