The Instigator
Occisionis
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
sara_ann_dee
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The color purple can smile

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
sara_ann_dee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 827 times Debate No: 77754
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

Occisionis

Pro

The color purple can smile because I have a PhD and I know what I'm talking about.
sara_ann_dee

Con

Techincally, since the color purple is not a life form - or an object (toy). The color can not smile. Figuratively - sure, if that is how you view the color. But in reality, the color purple is not able to smile. Show me proof for your PhD.
Debate Round No. 1
Occisionis

Pro

Because I am right 100% of the time, that means the color purple can smile.
Here is proof of my diploma:
sara_ann_dee

Con

PRO failed to respond to my argument and therefore does not have any proof that his side is right. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
There is a slightly serious aspect to this debate. Remember I said "slightly." There is a difference between something being wrong and being nonsense. To be wrong the proposition must be meaningful and incorrect. Nonsense is technically reserved for things that have no defined meaning, like whether purple smiles. Whoever writes the resolution has the responsibility to present a meaningful one, so a nonsense resolution is an automatic loss in a serious debate. I have no idea what the rules are for judging troll debates.

I like to use the line from Lewis Carroll in "Resolved: the Jabberwock was brill and twillig in the slithy toves" as an example of nonsense. Linguist Noam Chomsky offers, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Notice the different ways in which nonsense is achieved.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
My apologies, Lannan's vote was mistakenly removed. I hadn't realized at first that this was a troll debate. All of the current reports will be ignored, and Lannan will be able to vote on this however he wishes.
Posted by Skepsikyma 1 year ago
Skepsikyma
My RFD explained every point given. Pro clearly won this debate, and the votes for con are weighing arguments which con did not make, which is unethical. You should be ashamed of your bias; you've all been bamboozled by a pretty eye.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
I thought troll debates were supposed to be unmoderated.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
So lannan's vote is removed but not the vote bombs? This is why the website is going down the drain. This is BS. Are you gonna remove this comment too? Oh great moderator?!
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
Whiteflame's vote modding was erroneous. This is a troll debate, and Lannan's vote was sufficient.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro never addressed Con's arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] The vote on arguments is insufficiently explained. The voter bases this decision on a lapse in Pro's responses, yet never points to arguments made by Con that are so substantial as to warrant this vote. A lack of response on the part of one debater to another's points does not justify a vote unless those points were potent enough to begin with to warrant a vote.
******************************************************************************
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
This PhD of trollology thing is getting old.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
*Make
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Mkae it 2 rounds and i'll accept ? :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 1 year ago
SeventhProfessor
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to prove he had a PhD, successfully rebutting Con's main counterargument (and providing a source for his claim). The first sentence in Con's R1 is a sentence fragment, so grammar to Pro. Con was ubnoxious by telling the voters to vote con in the last round, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources. Pro produced a fake PhD certificate, and faking sources is generally inappropriate. It was, additionally, an unsourced one, and, as such, sources go to Con. Arguments. Pro drops all of Con's arguments, and fails to establish that a PhD in trollology succeeds in showing that he knows that the color purple can smile. As Con notes, the color purple isn't a living organism, thus can't smile. Pro fails to fulfill their burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 1 year ago
Skepsikyma
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro advanced the argument that he was correct because of his PhD. Con did not contest this point, but rather demanded proof, which Pro provided, and which Con failed to further address. This dropped point gives the win to Pro. Sources to pro for providing documentation of his education level. Con misspelled 'techincally' in their first post, and 'can not' is one word, so S & G to Pro. Conduct awarded to Pro due to Con's numerous provocative moves.
Vote Placed by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G "Can not" is actually appropriate in some instances but in the case that Con used it, it should have been cannot. Technically was spelled wrong also. These are two minor mistakes, but overall Pro's spelling was better. Arguments- Con failed to refute Pro's point that he "has a Phd and know[s] what [he's] talking about," but, that argument was easily outdone by Con's actual logical argument that since purple is not a life form or object it cannot smile.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: PhD's don't lie, like MC Hammer and his desire for big butts. Sources for proof of PRO's totally legit education which also rebutted con's main point that he didn't have a PhD. Clear win for PRO, as CON did nothing to advance his BOP. Con misspelled 'techincally' in their first post, and 'can not' is one word, so S & G to Pro. Conduct to PRO for having a PhD in troll related studies.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol...Pro drop's Con's arguments; plus, fake PhD thing...rofl...Conduct to Con; faking sources is inappropriate. And, S/G to Con--Pro is missing the word "all" in the first sentence of R2. Source to Pro as well--again, fake sources only detract from one's credibility, so this had a negative impact on Pro's persuasiveness.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The BOP was on Pro to show that purple could smile, since this BOP remained unfulfilled and Pro provided no argument at all [claiming to have a PhD is no argument], arguments go to Con. Not to mention that Con showed how colours are nonliving entities, and therefore cannot smile.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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: Pro means to do a troll debate, but his/her debates are not funny or enjoyable. I ask that he labels the debates as such (i.e. troll debate), and present funny arguments that makes us enjoy it. Refer to imabench debate about hitler vs Justin bieber. Regarding this debate, I vote Con, because Con made one simple argument which was never addressed. Pro failed to present any arguments.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Occisionissara_ann_deeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet BoP.