The Instigator
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
miketheman1200
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

The Game is illogical

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 3 votes the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 989 times Debate No: 23061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

MouthWash

Pro

Let us examine the mind game called "the Game". The object of the Game is to forget that it exists. Everybody reading (and comprehending) this has just lost the Game. In the Game, there are three major rules:

Rule 1: You are playing the Game.
(Neither awareness nor consent is required to play)

Rule 2: Every time you think about the Game, you lose.

Rule 3: Loss of the Game must be announced.

However, rule three and one contradict each other! Awareness is not required to play, but without awareness, how could they announce their loss? One may think if they lost the Game, than they must know about it, but that argument does not hold water.

If someone read "You just lost the Game" on a T-shirt, or read the phrase on the Internet, than they would lose for thinking about the game. This does not mean that they know what the game is, and therefore not know that they lost, unfairly preventing them from announcing it. This proves the Game to be illogical and self-contradictory.

I await Con's arguments.

Sources:

[1] http://www.losethegame.net...
miketheman1200

Con

Hello and thank you for this debate topic. I personally think the game is stupid but you seem to have missed some information on your trip to that website. If you read through the entire thing, it tells you that up until you know about the game, you cant lose, once someone tells you about the game, or you read about it you are playing and then must obey rule three. You cannot comply with rule three of the game until you know what the game is. Even if you read a t-shirt or sign that says "lose the game" you may not know what that is, and wont be losing until the person with the t-shirt or sign explains it to you.

"When you announce your loss to people who do not know what The Game is, they are likely to ask what it is out of curiosity. Some people play that you must explain the rules of The Game to anyone who doesn't already know"

Sources:
[1] http://www.losethegame.net...
Debate Round No. 1
MouthWash

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply. Now, he claims that the site lists a rule in which a person must know what the game is before being able to lose. This is clearly false, as the site (losethegame.net) admits that it is not an actual rule [1]. I have posted it below:

"Another interesting situation occurs when somebody asks about or discusses The Game, without yet knowing what The Game is. If someone asks 'What is a hexagon?', are they thinking about hexagons even though they don't know what one is?"


The truth is, this rule is a variation of the game [2]. Let's take a look at Wikipedia:

"There are three commonly reported rules to The Game.

1. Everyone in the world is playing The Game. (Sometimes narrowed to: "Everybody in the world who knows about The Game is playing The Game.")"

Variations of a game do not count. If I was good at a variant of chess, could I claim to be good at chess? No. The three rules I have listed above are the only ones that are universally accepted among all Game players, and are therefore the "true" (for lack of a better word) rules to the Game.

It is Con's turn.

Sources:

[1] http://www.losethegame.net...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
miketheman1200

Con

To rebuttal Ill point out pros quote

1."Another interesting situation occurs when somebody asks about or discusses The Game, without yet knowing what The Game is. If someone asks 'What is a hexagon?', are they thinking about hexagons even though they don't know what one is?"

They have to know which game you are talking about. If someone is playing a game where they cant think about a red hexagon, and someone says hexagon, they may not be thinking about that red hexagon but a different one. What I'm saying is as long as the game they are thinking about isn't the one they aren't supposed to think about, then they are in the clear.

Your argument is like saying I cant think about cereal with ought thinking about lucky charms even though there are plenty of other cereals that I could be thinking about.

Also If they don't know what a hexagon is, then they cant think about IT specifically until its explained. They can think about wondering what it is or try to figure it out, but until its explained they cannot actually think about IT. I capitalize it to show that when you think about something with multiple definitions, you specify what it is in your head.
Debate Round No. 2
MouthWash

Pro

Con has abandoned his previous argument claiming there was rule limiting the Game to those aware of it. I will address his new arguments, although there should not be any change of arguments after this, as it is the final round and I will be unable to reply to them.

"They have to know which game you are talking about. If someone is playing a game where they cant think about a red hexagon, and someone says hexagon, they may not be thinking about that red hexagon but a different one. What I'm saying is as long as the game they are thinking about isn't the one they aren't supposed to think about, then they are in the clear."

My opponent assumes that someone would be thinking about another game if they saw or heard a reference to the Game. This is not necessarily true. If someone read "You just lost the Game!," they would not be thinking about another game, they would wonder what the "Game" was. This argument only applies if it was in a context where someone could mistake the Game for another game. Example: a message popup that appeared after losing an online game of chess.


"Also If they don't know what a hexagon is, then they cant think about IT specifically until its explained. They can think about wondering what it is or try to figure it out, but until its explained they cannot actually think about IT. I capitalize it to show that when you think about something with multiple definitions, you specify what it is in your head."

This argument does not make sense. If someone knew monopoly existed, but did not know anything about it other than that it is a game, he would still be thinking about monopoly? Yes, unless Con is trying to say that a person cannot think about it unless they know how it is played, which is a ridiculous statement.


Upon viewing a statement saying that he/she lost the Game, a person knows three things:
1. There is Game.
2. They had been playing it.
3. They lost it.

Now look at the rule one of the game:

1. You are playing the Game.
(Neither awareness nor consent is required to play)

Now rule three:

3. Loss of the Game must be announced.


This proves that they did play the Game, and that they lost, but are unaware of their obligation to announce their loss due to not knowing the rules.

Since I have successfully rebutted all of my opponent's argument's, I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent for debating this with me :)
miketheman1200

Con

If someone knew monopoly existed, but did not know anything about it other than that it is a game, he would still be thinking about monopoly?"

I'm trying to get across that it isn't the thought itself but the content. You are killing this argument by saying that the only thing they know about it is that its a game when more than likely, there are other things that monopoly can mean. Such as the expansion of business, or the board game. It could be either but if they don't know that these other two things exist then they cant think about monopoly in those contexts rather than it just being a game.

If you started playing "the game" three years ago, and completely forgot that it exists, if someone walked up to you and said "you lost the game", you would have no idea what they were talking about. If you don't know what you lost at, then you don't lose, because the whole point of the game, is to think about it. If you don't know what game you are thinking about, you don't lose.

I enjoyed this debate very much, it was difficult for me to explain all of this. I'm really just happy I'm done so now I can go watch psych! Good night :)
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by miketheman1200 5 years ago
miketheman1200
It was fun. By the end my head was spinning trying to word out what I had to say. Its just one of those things. Awesome debate choice though. I was honestly playing devils advocate.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Oh, and 16kadams, he conceded that point in the second round.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
"You are killing this argument by saying that the only thing they know about it is that its a game when more than likely, there are other things that monopoly can mean."

The argument was IF they knew monopoly was a game. Closing argument makes no sense to me. Anyway, I loved debating this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
MouthWashmiketheman1200Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: If one doesn't know he is playing the game, how will he know about the specific rules? If he doesn't know about the specific rules, he cannot be expected to comply with rule three. That makes the game illogical, and Pro wins because of that point. Pro had more sources. Both need to work on clarity and structure. Use rich text more, bold and use different font sizes for the love of god.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
MouthWashmiketheman1200Tied
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: I think CON swayed me that the game is not illogical, I do not see how a game is illogical. PROS awareness arguments where refuted round 1, he never countered these arguments enough to win, hence his case fails and CON wins.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
MouthWashmiketheman1200Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to judge. If you must declare that you lost the game, if you don't know what the game is, then you woun't announce your loss, which contradicts the rules. Con had some good arguments, but because you can't annouce your loss if you don't know what it is, I'm going to vote Pro. 3:2 Pro.