The Instigator
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
The Contender
Pest
Con (against)

The flavour of the meat you choose to eat, is irrelevant. We are all heterosexual.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Sonofcharl has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 277 times Debate No: 99042
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Sonofcharl

Pro

Pro will argue that. Apart from a very small number of people who are physically different. Everyone else is heterosexual. Woman produces the egg, man produces the sperm. How consenting adults choose to gratify their sexual urges, is irrelevant.

Rules:
5 open rounds. Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories.
100 words max, per round. (Not 8000 characters).
Pest

Con

My whole argument is within the parenthesis -> (I've already won the debate because you destroyed your own point of view the moment you wrote it down) <- 33 words. Including what I am writing now.

I will use the symbols ^&* when it is ACTUAL 'for real' time. I will elaborate; but before I do... Formalities and all,

Hola Sonofcharl, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME. Hurhur.

(I'm just going to waste my 100 word/8000 character limit because according to you I really don't need it all that much).

How are you?

I'm thuper, thanks for asking! ...In advance.

You, however are pretty confused, as in.. You're not thinking straight, but it's alright! I went out of my way to find this for you: Reference: gaycamp.com

Hopefully they can get you all straightened out. No need to thank me, REALLY!

Reference: https://www.youtube.com...

But seriously, no, thank you for winning the debate for me! I'm not even kidding. Those are REAL references.

Why? How? ..Well, go back and read your rules.

"Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories. 100 words max. Not 8000 characters.

Confused?
I'll go ahead and explain yourself for clarity.

To use "our" own brain power would suggest that you used your own brain power when formulating the whole argument and debate outline in your head, which would then go to say; "100 words max, per round. (Not 8000 characters)."

PLEASE BARE back WITH ME HERE; I promise that what I am saying has everything to do with the debate topic still.

(I Just wanted to let you know my mind is still on the end game here).

So to use however many characters I want to use would be okay because, y'know... "Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories."

Which kind of looks like to me that you referenced other peoples work, in of itself. TECHNICALLY the rules are that I can use 8000 characters. YOUR rules are that there are only 100 words max, per round Not 8000... TECHNICALLY you're not correct because I'll use all 8000, so you'll be wrong because you said "100 words per round, not 8000 characters."

BUT THAT IS OKAY! Because according to YOUR rules we should use our own brain power. If I had to break this down mathematically I'd logically have to think, 'well, he said to use my brain power BEFORE he said no referencing other people and so, because he DID reference someone else's work and by using MY own brain power I can figure out that TECHNICALLY I still have 8000 characters at my disposal then obviously I should go with what he mentioned first, as that is what he did first, as that is what I am doing first, even though he didn't follow the entirety of his own rules himself after making the statement of using his own brain power. Adding that into the formula, the TECHNICAL rules are and are not his own at the same time, so if he's doing both, I should also do both. Follow and not follow the rules, because if I didn't I would be using my own brain power.'

THIS IS STILL ABOUT BEING GAY, TRUST ME.

AND FOR THAT, I'd have to do both, as you have done both, because you cannot, in theory, play by your own rules, by playing by your own rules. It is because I came to that conclusion that I decided I would make you aware from the start of this that I already won because you destroyed your own point of view, WITHIN the confines of your rules. So please use that 33 word argument, alone, to respond to alone in round 2 and feel free to ignore all of this if you would like to have the debate as you first imagined it. BUT PLEASE specify the rules more clearly in round 2, because you have made this very confusing for the both of us by having done what you did... And didn't... See? Now neither of us are thinking straight!

Hurhurhur, squared.

But okay... I'll stop being a prick. Want the REAL debate you set out to have? Here we go. My answer will be within the confines of the parenthesis and I will revamp really quick.

You said and I quote, "Pro will argue that."

(I will point out that you put a 'period' after the word, 'that' which would suggest, 'that' would have to be the last thing you proposed. The last thing you proposed was that, "The flavour of the meat you choose to eat, is irrelevant. We are all heterosexual."

So if pro will argue THAT statement and you are the one listed here as pro, and THAT is the argument that you are pro-for then you must be on the side of homosexuals, correct? Or? Which means again, if the debate is what is listed in the title, then I have already won because you defeated yourself.) <-90 Words. NOT counting the topic of debate because that would be referencing your theory.

THE POWER OF BRAIN POWER! See how I did that?

I REALLY, REALLY PROMISE THAT ALL OF THIS IS STILL RELEVANT TO EVERYONE NOT BEING HETEROSEXUAL.

But fiiine. I'll do it your way... Here is my FOR REAL, FOR REAL argument EXACTLY the way that you want it. It will be within the confines of the parenthesis again.

(Pro will not argue that, because pro did not argue that, did pro?) <-13 words.

No matter who pro is anymore, you or me, I'm not even lying, am I?

Another FOR REAL, FOR REAL answer within parenthesis;

(You contradict yourself by being 'pro' towards a subject/debate headline that states two different ideas. You make it even more confusing by unnecessarily adding the, "pro will argue that." While inside of your own argument. So which one are you pro, for? You lose.) <-45 Words.

Okay, FORREEEAL, LIKE SERIOUSLY FOR REAL ANSWER WITHIN THE PARENTHESIS.

(By only using YOUR brain power, how can I trust anything you say? Which means, how can I trust that you even know you're right if I can't even reference other peoples work? Technically, the language we are using is other peoples work. To follow YOUR rules, this debate wouldn't even exist. To use MY brain power (your rule), then obviously I'd still have to take advantage of the REAL rules and destroy you which is easy because IF you already used the extent of your own brain power and you weren't being ironic, that's VERY sad). <- 100 Words on the DOT boii.

Reference: http://www.troll.me...

YES I AM! Want to know how?

^&*

Alright guys, this is for those that matter out there, the voters, the readers, the opposers and posers.

People like my debate opponent ONLY like to play by his own rules. Isn't that convenient? And even then, he can't even follow them. Why? Because those are NOT the rules, are they? Those are only your rules and when you take away referencing other work or theories, what you are doing is removing FACT.

Fact of the matter is you ARE wrong, because what you stated isn't fact, is it? Nope. All you did is state an opinion.

When it comes down to matter of opinion, then your opinion is wrong because if what you said is true, then why do some guys still...

===D <===

Because some are more hard headed than others.

Your 'opinion' isn't the only one that matters. What you want to be real, like your own rule set, that isn't the way the world works, is it? Obviously, because the way you WISH the world worked... Doesn't, does it? Broke your "rules", didn't I?

So guess what?

Your 'opinion' is irrelevant. Matter-a-factually. The only irrelevant thing here is your WHOLE argument and the way you presented it. Not the FACT that people do and are what you said they are not and do not. So what are you even saying?

All YOU did is 'gratify' (satisfy, btw) your own urges.

Without fact, all I can be is personal, sorry Charlie.

Everyone is at least a little homosexual. Why? Without reference to fact, it's just an opinion, like yours. So, if you want to play the game like that, you'd be wrong.

My "opinion":You're somewhat homosexual and not everyone is heterosexual.

Don't like 8000 characters? Well obviously it's because you don't like to read, otherwise you would have at least known to change it to 500. Which probably explains why you don't like facts.

8000!
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofcharl

Pro

Hello.

Very sorry. But can't be bothered with your nonsense.

Life's too short.

Goodbye.
Pest

Con

No time to say, HELLO!

..Goodbye.

I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ok, but isn't our choice of meat what makes us a porkavore or a beefavore, not the fact that we all can eat meat?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.