The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LDPOFODebATeR0328
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

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 4 votes the winner is...
LDPOFODebATeR0328
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 60816
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Aerogant

Pro

We also don't cherry pick by restricting who can argue.

We also don't put more effort into our rules than the actual argument.

We also don't talk about X Vs. X, conspiracy theories, ghosts, gods, weed, manga, cartoons, wars - no, we talk about why all of this is getting old and is BS in an originally witty way.

Come at me, trolls and children.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Con

I accept.

Definitions (from Oxford Dictionaries):

1.) Only: And no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.
2.) Original: Present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.
3.) Debate: A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.

In order for me to win this debate, I must prove that Max.Wallace and Aerogant AREN'T the ONLY people on this site that make ORIGINAL DEBATES.

Arguments:

Many debates are considered "original debates."

As long as they existed from the beginning, debates are considered "original."
Well, aren't most debates original? Let's take a look.

Here's a couple of "original" debates:

1.) http://www.debate.org... (existed from the beginning since 7/19/14)

2.) http://www.debate.org...
(existed from the beginning since 8/3/2014)

3.) http://www.debate.org...
(existed from the beginning since 7/20/14)

All these debates are original. These debates existed from the beginning, and they consist of actual arguments and refutations.

Thus, there are several others who make original debates.

Now, let's discuss about Max.Wallace and Aerogant's debates.

Some of their "debates" shouldn't even be considered debates.

For example,

http://www.debate.org...

(Max.Wallace Vs. Me)

Throughout the debate, Max.Wallace drops all of my arguments. This is basically not a debate because he fails to provide a single argument.

Refutation:

"We also don't cherry pick by restricting who can argue.

We also don't put more effort into our rules than the actual argument.

We also don't talk about X Vs. X, conspiracy theories, ghosts, gods, weed, manga, cartoons, wars - no, we talk about why all of this is getting old and is BS in an originally witty way."

First of all, these "arguments" have nothing to do with the topic. The topic clearly states: The only people on this site that make original (existing from the beginning) debates are Max.Wallace and Me (Aerogant).

Second, Max.Wallace created a X vs. X before:

http://www.debate.org...

Third, just because people at DDO talk about X vs. X, Conspiracy theories, etc.; doesn't mean that the debates are unoriginal.

My opponent has failed to bring up any arguments relevant to the topic. For all these reasons, please vote for the Negative side of this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

1) Not original. Seen it over and over already.

2) Again not original.

... I'm not going to even waste my time with the rest. You do not know what original is because you're twisting the context. This is what I hate about you idiots. You sit here wasting my time with your list of definitions like some fax machine, then you go around that to completely miss the point of a word. So what's the point? There is no point. You're just here to feed your ego.

Has anyone not noticed that no matter what you say, how you say it, how stupid it is, people will accept the debate and argue it in the same manner every time - why? The people on this site are nothing but machines with no social value.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Con

All of my arguments were dropped. Extend.

By the way, thanks for the insults. :)
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

You gave no arguments.

You extend - wait, you cannot? This whole debate is intended for you to lie your way to winning because you know all you have to do is twist the context and conform to rules like a little wh0re?
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Con

Refutation:

"You gave no arguments."

I actually attempted to debate. As Con, I disproved the topic by showing how Max.Wallace and Aerogant aren't the only ones making "original debates."

"You extend - wait, you cannot? This whole debate is intended for you to lie your way to winning because you know all you have to do is twist the context and conform to rules like a little wh0re?"

1.) I'm not lying; you should have specified during your first speech. Like I said, as Con, I merely disproved the resolution by explaining how others make original debates as well.

2.) You clearly don't know what whore means.

Once again, judges, extend all my arguments. Please vote for the negative.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

They are not original, as I already explained. Calling them original is what makes you non-originally an idiot.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Con

You can't call me an idiot. Maybe this is why you're not respected at DDO.

Refutation:

"They are not original, as I already explained. Calling them original is what makes you non-originally an idiot."

First of all, you didn't explain anything... You merely talked about how I am a lying little wh0re. Second, the most common definition of original is existing from the beginning (according to Oxford Dictionaries)... I clearly explained how many debaters created debates that are "original."

All of my arguments still stands. Please vote Con.

*I noticed that you don't take debates seriously. Most of your speeches are EXTREMELY short. (1-3 sentences)
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

You calling them original, is like a skinny girl calling herself fat - it's interesting how people can misinterpret the reality like this.

They are not original - such things have existed before the 20th century. Try again.

Your argument does not stand at all.
LDPOFODebATeR0328

Con

Refutation:

"They are not original- such things have existed before the 20th century. Try again."

Ha! That's funny because you got the wrong idea of the word "original." Original basically means first. All those examples I brought up were the FIRST debates with that title.

You, as Pro, failed to prove how the only people in this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Aerogant (you). You can't tell me to try again; you brought up no arguments.

"Your argument does not stand at all."

Well, my arguments stand tall compared to yours. :)

RTP:

1.) I actually brought up sources (sources from DDO).

2.) I brought up arguments relevant to the topic.

3.) My opponent did not bring up any arguments relevant to the topic. Instead, he insults me by calling me a whore.

4.) Most of my arguments were dropped.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
@DDD-Lol.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It's like the votes are based on sources... I could draw my sources in MS paint with 0 effort and win sources if my opponent doesn't provide any.

This site is a joke.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
AerogantLDPOFODebATeR0328Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments went unrefuted, so arguments to Con. Conduct to Con for Pro's insults. Sources to Con because they helped him/her make the winning argument (and Pro did not use source).
Vote Placed by dexterbeagle 2 years ago
dexterbeagle
AerogantLDPOFODebATeR0328Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The essence of debate is making a proposition that is clear, clearly defined, and defined clearly with concrete examples. Con countered Pro?s points. Con also argued that language and definition are important to winning and losing a debate and Con provided standard definitions. Con also provided sources, which is important to any debate. Pro did not try to rebut the points made by Con, which is important, especially if your position is the Pro side.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AerogantLDPOFODebATeR0328Tied
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: aerogant was rude and never contested con
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
AerogantLDPOFODebATeR0328Tied
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: Aerogant. stop. Please. stop. never mind. Its funny to read.