The Instigator
Bob_Gneu
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
duckiejen23
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The majority of the people on this site are retarded

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
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,826 times Debate No: 15816
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

Bob_Gneu

Pro

In spite of the experiences many of us have had in debate, discussion and quarrel this site is proving to have a very low bar for admittance, and no qualifications for debating any topic, including basic comprehension skills. To some this may seem like a great advantage or feature of the site, but for the intellectual few, having a debate where you end up discussing entirely unrelated concepts is quite frustrating.

Typical argument styles include the gish gallop, moving the goal post and shifting (if not even understanding) the burden of proof.

My opponent has to argue that the world is flat, oranges are pink and an airplane landing is a lot like a mushroom, while i accept the burden of proof here and tell her that her interpretations of the facts on her case are wrong.

This is a real debate
duckiejen23

Con

Definitions.
Prior to responding to my opponents statement, it is important to define "retarded". After intense research, the definition of retard is "cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate, delayed".

Argument:
A fish cannot gallop, vote con. A delay cannot shift, a person shifts, such as a clutch. Vote con. My opponent has not defined the world he speaks of. Naria, a make believe world, may be flat. Unless he states the guard rails and specifies "earth" in the title of this debate, any world, even make believe ones would defeat his argument. Vote Con.

Mushrooms grow on the ground, airplines land on the ground. How are they NOT related??

My opponent has not met his burden of proof and I have defeated all of his arguments.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
duckiejen23

Con

Since Pro has not refuted my statements he accepts them as truth and I win. Vote con.

To gallop is to run quickly. This goes completely against being "delayed" like a retard. I like horses. Since Pro mentioned gallop and I like horses, vote con. Some sea creatures even resemble horses. Seahorses. Pro failed to prove that male seahorses are retarded so I win. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
Bob_Gneu

Pro

Well since you put it that way, i think i have to use some citations.

Since you aren't using proper citation i must say that

Genesis 1:1 (ESV)
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Pride & Prejudice - Jane Austin
"Design! Nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely
that he _may_ fall in love with one of them, and therefore you
must visit him as
soon as he comes."

http://answers.yahoo.com...
"Are Potatoes a meat?"
duckiejen23

Con

Your conduct is abysmal. Rather than discussing the topic at hand, you are insulting me with meat head insults. Just because I have an a** on my head doesn't mean I eat potatoes. I'm assuming your reference to light means that you prefer white meat to dark. In either case, the constitution says that you can't call people meat heads. [2]

Your citations are in improper format. Bluebook or Chicago manual styling is necessary prior to me responding. And I think Jane Austin was a lesbian which is against genesis. vote con.

[2] https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Bob_Gneu

Pro

Racism is an ad hoc ergo propeller hoc fallacy. Please retract that.
duckiejen23

Con

Since this debate is coming to a close, I shall now crystalize my argument. Fish are good. Horses are good. And I do like potatoes from time to time. Vote con
Debate Round No. 4
Bob_Gneu

Pro

in spite of my opponents amazing skills to debate, he has failed to respond to my claim that he is false thus... he accepts it.

Vote Pro

duckiejen23

Con

To quote a wise man:
" being part of a debater is to be able to understand language and use it to your advantage. Many debates are won exclusively in the realm of semantics and language. This is an accepted part of debate, words are important. If you craft the resolution in a way that allows you to be trapped in a semantic loss, that's on you and your opponent would be foolish not to capitalize on it."

Majority could mean above age 18. Thus, people over 18 are always late. I would argue that quite a few cheerleaders in the midwest are "late" after a romp under the bleachers. I still like horses. Since con hasn't stated what majority means, I win.

Fish are yummy. Vote Pron
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
crap... you've figured me out! On to the next identity!
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
Haha, Maybe Kohai was drawn to this debate by some internal calling... he may be the most retarded of them all. King retard?
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Ya I think socialpinko, OreEle and duckiejen23 are all the same people.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
Four votes so far, all in the same direction, including your citations being reliable, conduct being better, your spelling being better and your conduct being better...

Something is wrong here.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
All in due time, OreEle :)
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
However, a minority of members have voted, therefore the voting itself would be failing to prove the resolution.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Thus proving Pro's point.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
I can't believe people actually voted on this silly debate.... really people??? You're actually comparing arguments and conduct? I'm grateful for your responses but anyone who votes anything but tied on all aspects, probably fits the title of this debate quite well.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
funny funny funny
Posted by Bob_Gneu 5 years ago
Bob_Gneu
Exactly. You should look into getting involved in seminary school.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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: wasn't a real debate, tying them up
Vote Placed by bluesteal27 5 years ago
bluesteal27
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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:
Vote Placed by Zyanya 5 years ago
Zyanya
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly , I skimmed this one, but I feel that duckiejen23 seemed to have the upper hand. Partially because Bob-gneu responded with no for one of his responses and the face that duckiejen23 pointed out the word choice for this debate was refutable
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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: The OP is ironic considering the outcome.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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: pro didn't even try to refute con's arguments and had poor conduct and arguments.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not exactly sure what the heck this is, but in R1, con refuted what could be called "arguements" from pro, but nothing really addressed the resolution of this debate. So I have to say that arguments and conduct go to con (but only barely).
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Bob_Gneuduckiejen23Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct was terrible and had all his arguments refuted by Con.