The Instigator
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points

The Great Wall of China is in China. (The one that seperated them from Mongolians.)

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,775 times Debate No: 13168
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

Itsallovernow

Con

The Great Wall of China is not in China.
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and will take the liberty of defining a few terms.

The Great Wall of China: A man-made wall that was built in order to protect the Chinese from Barbarian attacks. Information is given on it here. http://explorer.altopix.com......

is: the 3rd person, present indicative form of the verb "to be"

in: –preposition
used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits: walking in the park.

China: –noun
People's Republic of, a country in E Asia. 1,221,591,778; 3,691,502 sq. mi. (9,560,990 sq. km). Capital: Beijing.

http://dictionary.reference.com...... was used to pull all definitions with the exception of The Great Wall of China, seeing as it is not a word/phrase that needs defining. It's like trying to define Abraham Lincoln.. it doesn't work.

As Pro, I contend that the Great Wall of China, a man-made wall that RUNS THROUGH exactly Longitude: 117� 5' 26"
Latitude: 40� 46' 6", is in [included within the space, place, or limits of] the country of China, defined as the country with Beijing as its capital.

(1) The Great Wall of China is numerically "in" China

China is located between approx. 15 degrees and 60 degrees Latitude North and about 70 and 135 degrees longitude East. The given Latitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded up for evenness, 120 degrees, and
70 < 120 < 135 Ergo, China is located vertically within China's boundaries. The given Longitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded as well, 40 degrees, and
15 < 40 < 60 Ergo, China is located horizontally within China's boundaries. I contend that if the Great Wall of China has at least one point included within the boundaries of China, it is therefore "in" China. For example, if I have an abnormally calculator, the TI-89 titanium (which I do) and I put it into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket. Another example would be the bottle of listerine that is sitting on the sink to my left. If I spilt 4/5ths of the contents out, there would still be listerine "in" the bottle. Basically, all that I am arguing is that I don't need the whole, but rather only a part, to be "included" within some given domain.

(2) The Great Wall of China is, therefore, grammatically "in" China.

I anticipate my opponent claiming that the phrase "The Great Wall of China" is excluded from the phrase "China". Seeing my above argument, I contend that "The Great Wall of China" is partially included in "China"; thus, "The Great Wall of China" is "in" "China" (given previous logic that I fail to see flaws in).

(3) The Great Wall of China is owned by the Chinese and is, therefore, "in" there possession.

Seeing as China receives large sums of money from the tourist industry as per people visiting the wall, I argue that the Chinese also own the Great Wall, therefore it is in China. Ex: Lets say a Grovokian family lives in Grovok in a Chaluski, and there is a Plavikos in this Chaluski that they created that stimulates the Grovokian's endorphines. It is rightful to say that the Grovokians own that Plavikos because 1) they created it, 2) it has not been apprehended by the Grovokian government [yet], and 3) It is in their Chaluski. Now, let's say Grovokian means Smith (my hypothetical last name) and the Chaluski is our house; thus, a house in Grovok is in the Smith (Grovokian) domain. The Plavikos is our TV and we enjoy watching it because our endorphines go CRAZY when we see natural history and how rhinoceros' have sex. Now lets move out several levels to the government. Grovokian now means Chinese and Chaluski is the domain of the Chinese. The Plavikos is the Great Wall of China and it stimulates their endorphines because they are money addicts, and they just LOVE their money. Since these Chinese 1) created, 2) have not lost control of, and 3) it is within their domain, they own the Great Wall of China. Therefore, it is in their Chaluski, i.e. the Chinese domain.

Sorry about the wordiness; the point the passage is trying to get across is that if I own something and use it, it is in my domain and thus it is mine. If I had just said the previous sentence you would've called non-sequitur, but I think the passage does a pretty good job of explaining.

I thank the readers for their time and look forward to a very interesting debate.

=Concluding Note=

My opponent can not alter the definitions at will; if he wishes to change them he must give valid reasoning as to why we must do so. I.e. if I if he wanted to change the definition of China to a village that he grew up in located in modern-day Southeastern Iowa, he would have to tell you why it would've been more logical of me to assume that when he said China, he was referring to his remote, isolated village that no one had heard about with the exception of the locals.

Thanks again :)
Debate Round No. 1
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate. Furthermore, I would like to formost agree with my opponents definitions set.

I stand in negation of the resolution, and will rebutt my opponents point with my contentions subsequently following.

=REBUTTALS=

1)
a. "I contend that if the Great Wall of China has at least one point included within the boundaries of China, it is therefore "in" China." First of all, with all due respect, I would like to point out that this is an impossibility, due to the fact that an item that is (roughly, at least) circular does not have any points.
b. " For example, if I have an abnormally calculator, the TI-89 titanium (which I do) and I put it into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket." On this analogy, I would like to point out the difference in demensions. In the sense of geography (which you defined in your own case as a 2D plane via. a "bird's eye view") the demensions are on two different realities.
c. "Another example would be the bottle of listerine that is sitting on the sink to my left. If I spilt 4/5ths of the contents out, there would still be listerine "in" the bottle. Basically, all that I am arguing is that I don't need the whole, but rather only a part, to be "included" within some given domain." In this analogy, the listerine (as a collective unit) would not be entirely in the bottle. As a whole item (such as the Great Wall), if there is even some outside the confines of it, the entire item is not within the boundaries. Therefore, the item can not, in full truth, be in the listorine. In relation to usable listerine, you wouldn't even consider the spilt listerine a part of it, so you would be correct. However, this is not the case.

2) [Will address in contentions]

3) This entire contention is irrelevant. The resolution only pertains to geography, not question the ownership. The statement "it is within their domain" is a repetative statement of his standing, and not a point.

=CONTENTIONS=

1) The boardered part of an item is not within the item, for it is what contains it.
a. The Chinese built the wall as a seperation to have so that it separates their country from invaders and protects it. Anything beyond the wall is out of thier control. The Great Wall is not in China (for that would defeat the purpose built, which is to stop Mongolians from getting IN China), but I propose that it is an outer layer to protects the inside.
For example, the membrane on a cell is what contains and protects it. It is not in the cell, because it must remain outside to contain it. It is not a part of it's structure a holding at all, for that is the inside. Another example is the human skin. You wouldn't classify that as the inside part of you. That is actually the first barrier to keep harmful pathogens out of your body, just like the Great Wall of China. The Wall protects the inner part of China, which gives it structure and keeps it's vitality.

2) In your very definition of the Great Wall, it was built to protect them from "Barbarian attacks". If the wall is inside of China, it can not protect China as a whole, and the definition of the Great Wall would falter, so this debate would not exist. However, it does, because the Wall of China (which you agree and set the definition for) protects China by being the OUTER layer. Therefore, if it's on the outside, it can't be on the inside.

Thank you very much for this debate, and I'm glad you are articulate enough to sponsor it and endorse such articulate contentions. I wish you the best of luck, and, to the audience, I strongly urge you to

=VOTE CON=
m93samman

Pro

I sincerely thank my opponent for this thought-provoking debate, but I do anticipate his downfall :)

==========
Geography
==========
We can very simply say that I've won the geography argument, for this reason: You can't argue with numbers, and my opponent didn't refute it, wisely. Just to refresh

China is located between approx. 15 degrees and 60 degrees Latitude North and about 70 and 135 degrees longitude East. The given Latitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded up for evenness, 120 degrees, and
70 < 120 < 135 Ergo, China is located vertically within China's boundaries. The given Longitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded as well, 40 degrees, and
15 < 40 < 60 Ergo, China is located horizontally within China's boundaries.
The other arguments were just support for my more legitimate contention, which should be enough to win the round alone. But, to refute my opponent's points,

========
Refutation
========

Both of my opponents points can be combined into one idea: that is, since it is a protection meant to keep "out" invaders, everything outside of the wall must be outside of China. So, here are the responses.

1) Using the logic by which my opponent speaks, any defense system that is placed by any country MUST be outside of the country. I.e. if my missile defense system is meant to "keep invaders out", then it must be out. The reason this logic is false is clear. When we refer to the wall, we make two observations. First, the geographical argument (which I've already won). Second, the argument that, if China built the wall outside of China, they would have encountered several problems- they can't build on territory that isn't there's; they would have to send warriors to protect the builders from barbarians (if it was outside of China they would have been building in barbarian territory); it would have been extremely costly to transport the equipment several hundred more miles; they would have encountered more difficult terrain http://www.google.com...

Finally, my opponent assumes that the Great Wall is only one wall. It is actually several "layers" of walls http://en.wikipedia.org... (see pictures in right column). My opponent agreed to the definitions I provided; "in" meant "used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits". His only refutation against my calculator-in-my-pocket argument was that I am arguing about two different dimensional levels; but he conceded that it doesn't have to be entirely inside. Thus, given the different "parts" of the Great Wall, at least one "part" must be on the inside of another "part" which must be the exterior. I think it's safe to say that the Great Wall of China is in China, prima facie and after close analysis.

I would like to stress the geography issue before I end my argument. Note that the geographic limits of China INCLUDE the provided geographic point of the Great Wall of China (which my opponent also agreed to). Given this point, and all the other ones mentioned, I urge the readers to-

==VOTE PRO==

The only logical way to vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for the debate; however, please do not assume that you have won, for that is not up to you to decide.

=Rebuttals=

1. You did not provide a source for your numbers, so your arguement on that is invalid. For all I know, you could have made it up. Not only that, but you can not define the property boundaries of China unless you get a statement from them, because it is an actively communistic country. Any boundary line that is not most recent is invalid.

2. "Using the logic by which my opponent speaks, any defense system that is placed by any country MUST be outside of the country. I.e. if my missile defense system is meant to "keep invaders out", then it must be out." No, the missles would not be outside of the country. The missles would keep the INVADERS out and their attacks, but the defense system itself would be a part of the country. However, it would not be in a same analogy as China's, because the missle system would not encircle the country. (You did not win the geographical arguement, or else the debate would be over. Clearly, it is not.)

3. "Second, the argument that, if China built the wall outside of China, they would have encountered several problems- they can't build on territory that isn't there's; they would have to send warriors to protect the builders from barbarians (if it was outside of China they would have been building in barbarian territory); it would have been extremely costly to transport the equipment several hundred more miles; they would have encountered more difficult terrain"
(I WILL LIST MY REBUTTALS ACCORDINGLY)

a. They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders, because they do not need to expand the wall if they so chose.
b. And if they were building outside the wall, they would not be building in barbarian territory, because it would be considered theirs because they're COMMUNIST, and of course it would be costly to transport equipment (though they likely wouldn't go as far as hundreds of miles past their country, because that's too far a conquest).

4. "Finally, my opponent assumes that the Great Wall is only one wall." I do not assume, it is fact. The Great Wall of China is one continuous wall. The layers of it are part of it's architectual design and are not seperate. They form together to create the one wall. For example, I live in a house. I don't live in a neat pile of wood and plaster, because there's more to it than that, and that equals a house, just as that equals the Great Wall, which you defined.

5. Yes, I agreed with your definition, but you DID NOT REFUTE that in order to protect the inside something must be on the outside. You actually AGREED WITH IT by providing the missle analogy.

6. "but he conceded that it doesn't have to be entirely inside." I never said that. I said that a (rough) circle is continous and have no points like you claimed. You never refuted my main and secondary arguements, just the subpoints. Furthermore, I do not believe you did them effectively.

7. I, too, would like to stress I never agreed to anything and your points are invalid due to faulty sources and lack thereof in your numbers. (Google.com and Wikipedia.org are NOT valid sources. Heck, one's even a search engine!)
m93samman

Pro

Thanks for your response; this should be interesting.

Following my opponents numerical ordering;

==Refutations==

1. Geography

My opponent claims that I don't provide a source for my numbers, so my argument is invalid. He says I could have made it up "for all that he knows". And then he says that their boundaries constantly change because they're... communist? Last time I checked, communism was a sociopolitical system [1] Notice how I used wikipedia because it IS a reliable source. My justification? [2] That's at the bottom of every article- citations; followed by "further readings" and "external links". It's called an encyclopedia for a reason. Anyways, regarding the numbers.. Let's say I DIDN'T get my sources online. I used an Atlas. My opponent doesn't have to challenge my credibility by claiming that I made up the numbers; he could have easily just looked up the numbers himself as opposed to wasting character space which, in my opinion, should cost him a conduct point- he implicitly called me a liar. But just to be sure, I'll do his work for him. [3] His other argument comes at a later point (which is strange, organizationally), and he says that there are no "points" on a "rough circle". If I were to draw a random figure on an x-y plane, no matter how rough or jagged, it does go through certain points. I'm sure that we can both certainly say that the Great Wall of China definitely goes through specific points on the planet; if it doesn't then it doesn't exist, which would be a problem. So, we see that my opponent's arguments are deficient in regards to my geography points. So, (yes, already) I urge a pro ballot. Regarding the other arguments.

2. "Defense System" argument

"No, the missles would not be outside of the country" my opponent claims, regarding my defense system arguments. He makes a completely unwarranted claim. As a matter of fact, I would argue that MOST missile systems are placed outside of the country in order to keep invaders as far as possible. A very popular and historically significant instance of this? [4] [5]

3. Building problems

My opponent refutes my claims in two ways. First, he says that "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders, because they do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." Is it just me or is that a non-sequitur? Let's take this apart. "They do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." My opponent's claim is that they DID expand the wall and built it OUTSIDE OF China. Hmm. "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders" for that fallacious reason. Last time I checked, if I'm a builder in the bronze age, I wouldn't be adequately equipped to fight off a barbarian horde with my primitive hammer. That's the first problem with the wall being truly "outside" of China.
The second, he says that "if they were building outside the wall, they would not be building in barbarian territory, because it would be considered theirs because they're COMMUNIST." Okay, to my opponent, I'm a communist, I want your house. Thanks... That made a lot of sense. That's not what communism is [1] first off, and second, Communism was developed by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, who, I hope my opponent agrees, were born WAY after China could ever have been classified as communist. [6] [7] [8]
Finally, he agrees that it would be costly to transport equipment but disagrees that they would go as far as hundreds of miles past their country, but then fails to realize that workers had to walk all along the Great wall to build it which is THOUSANDS of miles long. My opponent has a lot of work to do here.

4. One wall

He claims it is a fact that the Great Wall of China is "one wall". Look again to the source that my opponent didn't refute; rather, he chose to make the childish argument that an online encyclopedia is an unreliable source. I opened the picture this time; you can actually see that parts of the wall are disconnected. [9]

5. ???

I'm not sure why this argument went here because he referred to an argument that went in point 1. This is the organization issue I addressed, but I wanted my opponent to be able to follow the arguments. The missile analogy was already addressed.

6. ???

Also already addressed. Just to clarify about the points issue, I might as well have the link explaining it here. [10]

7. ???

For the third straight point, I'm not sure what argument my opponent is trying to make, but here, he challenges the validity of sources that he apparently didn't click on. The google link was for him to see a bird's eye view of the Great Wall and view the terrain outside of it; wikipedia was already addressed.

As of now, there is no reason to vote Con. I urge a pro ballot.

===========
Sources
===========

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

[3] http://www.infoplease.com...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://www.enchantedlearning.com... (About the Great Wall; built 2000+ years ago)

[7] http://www.historyguide.org... (Karl Marx short biography)

[8] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... (F. Engels short biography)

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for the debate.

=REBUTTALS=

1. I am against your claim and standing on the resolution and stand in firm disagreement with you on all aspects, however, I never called you a liar. Also, your numbers are incorrect, and Wikipedia is NOT a viable source. The information can be changed by users and has been found to be inaccurate due to this cause. I will cite mulitple, viable sources by experts (that can't be changed) to prove my claim.
a. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
b. http://media.www.lhueagleye.com...
c. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Heck, Wikipedia itself says, "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). So, no it is not a reliable source, because they themselves say it's unreliable. Therefore, your numbers arguement is invalid, and I have won the conention on numerical geography due to a faulty source.

2. "I would argue that MOST missile systems are placed outside of the country." You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say " ...put (the calculator) into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket." So this arguement is invalid and my example still stands.

3. "My opponent's claim is that they DID expand the wall and built it OUTSIDE OF China." My opponent is placing words in my mouth. I never said they did expand it, under *3. of Round 2, that was a direct quote from my opponent, not me. Apparently, my opponent does not seem to remember his own arguements, and no, I'm not being rude, it's the truth (as hurtful as it may seem). I was referring to the construction of buildings, schools, hospitals, anything that needs to be built.

4. "He chose to make the childish argument that an online encyclopedia is an unreliable source." Okay, my opponent, I believe, just lost his conduct point by citing my contentions as "childish arguement(s)". Sir, Wiki is not a valid source, as I have proven with mulitple sources and Wiki's own words stating they are. So, I'd like to ask you not to call names, for that in and of itself is childish, and we are arguing the Great Wall of China, not the Great Walls.

5. I addressed it further.

6. That is a faulty source, my arguement still stands.

7. ??? I know what it looks like from above, I've seen it!

=Conclusion=

My opponent is a total d*** and a f***ing p***. Conduct's a tie, because I can't stand this stupid a** mother f***er. My opponent is making stupid claims that wikipedia is a good source, which is over half of his, and it's not. Google in any link provided is a search engine, so give the site below the pretty picture, a**hole and you'd get the source. Wiki can be changed by anyone and I won't argue that further, because I've won you lost. Get over it, f***ing p***!
m93samman

Pro

So my opponent is very passionate in trying to prove that the Great Wall of China is outside of China, as I have learned. This debate was fun, but it's time to wrap up now.

======
Contents
======
I. Wikipedia reliability

II. Arguments
-Geography
-Defense System
-Building

III. Dropped Arguments

IV. Conclusion
-Summary
-Voting Issues
-Final Remarks
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
==============
I. Wikipedia Reliability
==============
My opponent is continuing to fester me about the reliability of Wikipedia, and the times I used it were all in reference to the Great Wall or the Cuban Missile crisis. He bypasses all argumentation by this method, and fails to realize how problematic this is for him. First, he fails to realize that the articles he sited are 1) (the first two) are dated 2006 and 2007, referring to previous months, and 2) Wikipedia. Second, in round 3, I made the reference to the fact that all Wikipedia articles (or at least, the ones I used) had significant external references to verify them. The reason I said his claim was childish was because it evaded arguments; it is not a false claim, and doesn't cost me a conduct point at all. If he really believes the information I provided was false anyways, he would've provided a more reliable source providing more reliable information, but seeing as he failed to do so we have to look to the information I provided to vote in this round.
=========
II. Arguments
=========
-Geography

Again, my opponent's only refutation was in regards to the reliability of Wikipedia. I'll provide another source for an atlas, and that would win me the argument. I'm still not sure why he has so much of a problem. So, here we are. [1] I actually provided this source earlier to further verify my geographical numbers, but he failed to see that. The geography argument, my opponent conceded, is sufficient to vote, so I already urge a pro vote. Anyways, moving on.

-Defense System

My opponent calls me out on a contradiction by saying "You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say '...put (the calculator) into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket." So this arguement is invalid and my example still stands." There is no contradiction, because the calculator was being used to explain the validity of my "one point inside the domain" argument, but the missile analogy was used to show that only certain types of defense would be place outside of the country; a wall wouldn't be. Sorry if I worded the argument poorly.

-Building

I never put words into his mouth; I analyzed his argument for him, which he failed to do. The reason I did so was to point out the flaw in the argument. I'll repost it the segment of the paragraph from my round 3, with everything in quotes being what I quoted from my opponent.

---
My opponent refutes my claims in two ways. First, he says that "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders, because they do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." Is it just me or is that a non-sequitur? Let's take this apart. "They do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." My opponent's claim is that they DID expand the wall and built it OUTSIDE OF China. Hmm. "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders" for that fallacious reason. Last time I checked, if I'm a builder in the bronze age, I wouldn't be adequately equipped to fight off a barbarian horde with my primitive hammer. That's the first problem with the wall being truly "outside" of China.
The second, he says that "if they were building outside the wall, they would not be building in barbarian territory, because it would be considered theirs because they're COMMUNIST." Okay, to my opponent, I'm a communist, I want your house. Thanks... That made a lot of sense. That's not what communism is [1] first off, and second, Communism was developed by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, who, I hope my opponent agrees, were born WAY after China could ever have been classified as communist. [6] [7] [8]
Finally, he agrees that it would be costly to transport equipment but disagrees that they would go as far as hundreds of miles past their country, but then fails to realize that workers had to walk all along the Great wall to build it which is THOUSANDS of miles long. My opponent has a lot of work to do here.
---

That is what my opponent was referring to; he failed to win the argument, another reason to vote pro. He didn't address any of what I said, but continued to be childly evasive as he let his emotions take hold of him as was evident in his final paragraph.
===============
III. Dropped Arguments
===============
To my opponent's and my dismay, evasiveness by ad hominem and credibility attacks aren't debate. In his round 4, all he does is CLAIM that: I make contradictions, use invalid sources, and used bad conduct in my arguments. No argumentation whatsoever. So, You look to my round 3 and 4 for the real substantive debate and see that I am, in fact, winning- both prima facie and on an analytical level.
=========
IV. Conclusion
=========
-Summary

My opponent wished to argue a ridiculous viewpoint on a rather unarguable resolution, and allowed his emotions to get the best of him by the end of the debate. He failed to be argumentative in round 4, which cost him both the arguments and my respect (and possibly some of the readers). He reverted to blatantly cussing at me (i.e. ad hominem) that was unwarranted, but I apologize on his behalf- they have called this website drama.org a few times for that reason.

-Voting Issues

Spelling and Grammar:

In all honesty, me. Here's a quote from my opponent: "You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say"... That should say, "You contradict yourself with *YOUR*..." +1 point pro

Conduct:

No need to review it. He cussed at me, and failed to debate in round 4. Moreoever, he tried to win the conduct point because I called his evasive argument "childish", so technically he was trying to cheat whatever points he could out of the voters. He doesn't even deserve that one point; +1 point pro.

More Convincing Arguments:

That is up to the judges. In all honesty, though, my opponent wasn't analytical enough to earn these points. But, again, this is the judges' discretion.

More Reliable Sources:

My opponent would argue that I provided unreliable sources, but again, look to the analysis of the reliability argument to determine the winner of these 2 points. Again, up to the judges.

-Final Remarks

I apologize to the readers that the debate took the course that it did. I wish that it could have been different, but the past has happened, and all we can do is try to learn from our mistakes. As for my opponent; a wise man (Abraham Lincoln) once said "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." [2] One of my favorite quotes. Try to learn from this debate, and help us filter out the emotion from this website.

Thank you to my opponent for a debate that was intriguing to say the least; thank you to the readers and judges for your time. Happy voting :)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
======
SOURCES
======
[1] http://www.infoplease.com...

[2] http://www.brainyquote.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
This is a nonsense debate. Con's hopes had to rest on some unusual semantics that prevented a commonsense interpretation of the resolution. To set that up he would have had to do some clever defining in the challenge. He didn't do that, so he didn't really have a chance. I think Pro correctly argued that "in" means "substantially in."

Con made a spelling error in the resolution, "seperates." I think the instigator ought to at least get the resolution right.

Conduct was not great by either side. Best to just avoid saying anything other than pleasantries to the opponent. Tie.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
"Okay, my opponent, I believe, just lost his conduct point by citing my contentions as "childish arguement(s)""

This from someone who seven sentences later uses a full half-dozen expletives to describe his opponent. Rich.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
You clearly didn't read my sources, stop whining.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
You simply can not have multiple sources when you quoted the same exact thing! If you knew that what you were saying was NOT a source of Wikipedia and from another site, you copied and pasted plagarized material
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
I hate when people quote so much of their opponents arguments, it makes me not read any further.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I lol'd
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Wow. I thought this was a troll topic.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 5 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Blank 6 years ago
Blank
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
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 zycerox 6 years ago
zycerox
Itsallovernowm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24