The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The resolution is "IT" is a good thing

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 7 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,935 times Debate No: 13863
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

Rules
1) Both sides have a burden of proof, they must argue their claims
2) No definitions of "IT" allowed
3) No links what so ever allowed

Pro will argue that "IT" is a good thing

Con will argue that "IT" is a bad thing

My opening argument

1) Something that is good is not bad
2) "IT" is not bad
3) Therefore "IT" is good
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I accept the 3 rules provided.

As regards the third rule, my opponent says no links will be allowed. Links are formatted HTML texts that, when clicked on in a web browser, lead one two a new window or tab. So, I will provide an alternative if I need to take the readers to a different website.

For the second rule, no "definitions" of IT are allowed. I define a definition to be a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol. This definition can be found on the Princeton "wordnetweb" under "definition"; it is also the first result found when googling "define definition".

Thus, seeing as a definition is a CONCISE EXPLANATION of the meaning of a word, I will do my best to avoid that. I will actually do my best to provide the opposite. An antonym to "concise" is "verbose"; an antonym to "explanation" is "complication". So, I'm going to provide an extremely wordy and vague distortion of IT.

=== What is "IT"?- the riddle ===

IT is unlike anything I've ever seen. IT is beyond imagination. IT is more powerful than God, but IT is as weak as a baby giraffe. IT is something that every wealthy man wants, but IT is also something that every poor man has. IT is something that explodes if it touches anything; IT implodes if nothing touches it. IT is the cure to all despair, and IT is the destroyer of all happiness. IT helps every living thing exist, and IT aides every living thing end its existence. IT is larger than the universe, but IT is smaller than a jar of zebra hair five inches high, with a three inch radius. IT is at the end of everything because IT is what makes things begin.

So, the question is, what is "IT"?

`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`~
!
@
#
$
%
^
&
*
(
)
_
+
=
-
`

"IT" is nothing.

I ask, what is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. The nothing described above. But personally, I would rather have a few bread crumbs than nothing. So, if a few bread crumbs are better than nothing, and a few bread crumbs BARELY meets the standards of "a good thing", "IT" (or nothing) must not be a bad thing. Anything less than the value of 0 good coming out of bread crumbs is negative, and a negative value is a bad thing.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says ""IT" is nothing."

Nothing existing is a contradiction in terms.

Con equates "IT" = Nothing

but "IT" is something,

so con is saying, something = nothing

This is clearly false.

"IT" is clearly something, "IT" has a good nature, so "IT" must be good.
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, but am disappointed in his obvious lack of effort.

=== CONTENT ===
1. Refutation of Pro arguments
---> o Contradictions in Pro's case
---> o General refutations
2. Disambiguation of the round
=============

1. Refutation of Pro arguments

---> Contradictions

Pro claims that I contradict the purpose of the round by defining IT to be nothing. He is wrong; I vaguely discussed what it is and made it convoluted to the point where it really is nothing. Then, Pro proceeds to claim that, quote, "but "IT" Is something,". He has violated rule #2 by providing a clear and concise description of the term, IT.

Meanwhile, I will maintain my position, that IT is truly nothing. This will be reiterated in the disambiguation.

---> General refutations

1) Pro provides no reasoning behind "IT" NOT being nothing.
2) Pro doesn't explain why "IT" is something.
3) Pro makes the same argument from his first round, only modified. He says that "IT" isn't bad and has a good nature, so IT must be a good thing. There is no warrant for this argument.

2. Disambiguation of the round

What we are left with is a concept of what "IT" is; it flows through the round because Pro never refuted it. Therefore, with the vague understanding that we do have, we arrive at the rational conclusion that "IT" is nothing. Why? For the following reasons:

NOTHING is more powerful than God AND as weak as a baby giraffe.
NOTHING is something every wealthy man wants AND something every poor man has.
NOTHING explodes upon contact AND implodes upon isolation.
NOTHING cures despair AND destroys happiness.
NOTHING promotes existence AND aides the end of existence.
NOTHING is larger than the universe AND smaller than a small jar.
NOTHING is at the end of everything AND the beginning of everything.

With that, we look back to my rational in round one. I'll repost it here.

*QUOTE*

"IT" is nothing.

I ask, what is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. The nothing described above. But personally, I would rather have a few bread crumbs than nothing. So, if a few bread crumbs are better than nothing, and a few bread crumbs BARELY meets the standards of "a good thing", "IT" (or nothing) must not be a bad thing. Anything less than the value of 0 good coming out of bread crumbs is negative, and a negative value is a bad thing.

The resolution is negated.

*END QUOTE*

Thus, the resolution is negated. I urge a con vote; thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response, but I don't thank them for their ad hominem "but am disappointed in his obvious lack of effort", maybe my opponent confuses quantity over quality. Con is clearly wrong by stating "IT" is nothing.

Con says "Pro proceeds to claim that, quote, "but "IT" Is something,". He has violated rule #2 by providing a clear and concise description of the term, IT."

This is no more precise than your claim that "IT" is nothing.

Con says "that IT is truly nothing"

Is their a difference being something being nothing and something being truly nothing ? It's a shame that Con has had to resort to such rhetoric.

Saying that "IT" is nothing, is a contradiction, cause only something can have certain properties. If "IT" has the property of nothing, then it would be something, thus refuting that "IT" is nothing.

Is their any good reason to believe that "IT" is a bad thing, I don't think so. Surely in absence of any evidence to the contrary we should give "IT" the benefit of innocence. Innocence is a good thing, If "IT" is innocent, then "IT" must be good. How can something guilty be good ?

"IT" is good.

Vote Pro
m93samman

Con

This has come to be very interesting. But it seems as though the my opponent is on the right track, but got on the wrong train.

I'm going to urge the readers to vote con for 3 reasons.

1) I provided a "verbose complication" to arrive at an *understanding* of "IT". My opponent provided a "concise explanation" to *define* "IT" in his favor. This is actually 2 reasons in 1.

2) My opponent attempts to call me out for an ad hominem, which he clearly doesn't understand the mechanics of. I did not attack my opponent in any way to attempt to detract from the credibility of his arguments; it was simply too clear to see that his round 2 was a waste of time and he did NOT take adequate time to refute my arguments.

3) In my opponent's defense of "IT", he claims that, because something can have certain properties, and nothing has no properties, "IT" must be something because "IT" has certain properties. But he is sadly mistaken; the properties of nothing are explicitly commented on in the first round. Again, my opponent has not even addressed them, even vaguely. Rather, he conveniently ignored them for 2 full 8,000-allowed-character rounds of debate.

It seems we have reached the end of the debate. It was fun, and I urge a vote for the CON side of the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
after reading this debate...I felt...as if I existed as a phrase.
"WHATISTHISIDON'TEVEN"
o.o
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
According to Con "seeing as a definition is a CONCISE EXPLANATION " yet me saying IT is good, counts as a definition ? haha
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD: con is the only one providing analysis. Pro says "it is good," but this isn't an argument, unless it's a definition, which violates the rules.

Pro's non-definition is also hilarious. Kudos
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Venomous: Could I get an RFD?
Posted by VenomousNinja 6 years ago
VenomousNinja
Couldn't "2) "IT" is not bad" be counted as a partial definition?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Yeah I made a mistake, the topic was not mean't to be a resolution, but I did say it was, but in the first page I did say Con had a burden of proof claim of "IT" is bad, so my mistake. No big deal, since it was a joke debate anyway :)
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Pro, not knowing something about something does not make it good. You didn't argue your case well enough. Say that I traveled back in time and told the American Indians that there is a man in the future named Hitler. Just becuase they don't know anything about him does not make Hitler good.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
besides losing the 'it is something' over 'nothing' argument clearly in this debate; I also give argument to Con because 'burden of proof' that 'It' is 'good' was not even attempted much less accomplished on his part, and he himself claimed he had the BoP. He tried arguing that 'IT' is something, but did a poor follow up to say that 'something' by default is 'good'
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Thanks
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Oh blimey he didn't forfeit anyhow good luck on the the 3rd round for both of you!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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 VenomousNinja 6 years ago
VenomousNinja
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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 ZackJarvis 6 years ago
ZackJarvis
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Illegalcombatantm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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