The Instigator
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Liquidus
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 19258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

My opponent offered this among infinitely other debates.

I await his abiding by his word.
Liquidus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

You are accessing this site, audience, via an internet browser. The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has created his profile, issued his topic declaring what debates he'll take, accepted this debate, and typed his acceptance via use of a similar internet browser. Your computer is receiving this data through the HTTP Internet protocol. In order for my opponent to have taken any action regarding this debate he or she has to have accessed the Internet. This is sufficient to demonstrate the resolution.
Liquidus

Con

In order for me to win this debate, I must prove the following:

"The user possessing the username "Liquidus" does not have some form of access to the Internet."

Argument 1

The user "Liquidus" could have been created by another person. Suppose, "Liquidus" was the name of a famous debater from Greece, this name was then adopted by someone who plagiarized this name and consequently, is not "Liquidus". Therefore, the original Liquidus did not create this name.

User is defined as:

1. a person or thing that uses.
2. one who uses drugs, especially as an abuser or addict.

Possessing is defined as:

1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own: topossess a house and a car.
2. to have as a faculty, quality, or the like: to possess courage.
3. (of a spirit, especially an evil one) to occupy, dominate, orcontrol (a person) from within: He thought he was possessedby devils.
4. (of a feeling, idea, etc.) to dominate or actuate in themanner of such a spirit: He was possessed by envy.

Access is defined as:


1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speakwith, or use; admittance:
They have access to the files.
2. the state or quality of being approachable: The house wasdifficult of access.
3. a way or means of approach: The only access to the housewas a rough dirt road.
4. Theology. approach to God through Jesus Christ.
5. an attack or onset, as of a disease.

Internet is defined as:

a vast computer network linking smaller computer networksworldwide
(usually preceded by the). The Internet includescommercial, educational,
governmental, and other networks, allof which use the same set of
communications protocols.

Argument 2

You are claiming that a person who abuses drugs occupied the username liquidus and approached God through the internet. Therefore, your statement is illogical and proved to be false.

Resources

http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro


As my opponent has no arguments relevant to the resolution, to my arguments, or to the stipulated nonstandard burden of proof, his round is empty of argumentative value and my arguments stand unrebutted. A point by point analysis of his irrelevant statements and why they are irrelevant proceeds below for those who care to read it.



"In order for me to win this debate, I must prove the following:

"The user possessing the username "Liquidus" does not have some form of access to the Internet." "
I did not argue that my opponent has the burden of prove, but my open concedes/stipulates a nonstandard burden of proof. I accept this stipulation.

"
The user "Liquidus" could have been created by another person. Suppose, "Liquidus" was the name of a famous debater from Greece, this name was then adopted by someone who plagiarized this name and consequently, is not "Liquidus". "
This is incoherent and irrelevant to the resolution, which merely refers to the user possessing the username Liquidus, regardless of whether that user is actually "the user Liquidus", or whether that user's name qua person is Liquidus.

"Therefore, the original Liquidus did not create this name. "
The resolution clearly makes no reference to any "The original Liquidus."

"1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own: topossess a house and a car."
This is clearly not what "possess" means, possession is used as evidence of ownership in courts of law but is legally distinct. To possess is to be in control of. You control the use of the username Liquidus.


"2. to have as a faculty, quality, or the like: to possess courage."
It is among your faculties to post under the username Liquidus.

"



1. the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speakwith, or use; admittance:
They have access to the files.





"
And you are using the Internet to transmit your words, user possessing the username Liquidus.

"
You are claiming that a person who abuses drugs occupied the username liquidus and approached God through the internet. "
I am claiming nothing of the sort, this is a straw man arrived at by way of the fallacy of equivocation or by no means at all save making things up.


Liquidus

Con

Hahaha! Ragnar, I would have expected better! You challenged me to a debate that I couldn't win, and then get upset when I do something crazy!? This is precious.

However, the show must go on, yes?

New Argument: I claim that I am not accessing this website through the Internet. I am using a way of entrance known as "Reroute Bypass Approach or RBP" This was a way to access the WWW without using internet, supposedly this was used by the Russians during the cold war. I guess I'm just that smart that I figured out how to use it. Thanks to it, I can access this website without needing any form of Internet! How convenient right? All I have to say now is: Prove Me Wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

I am in no way upset. It was you who declared you'll take and win any debate, and you who chose to accept when I called your bluff.

A swift search of Google declares that "Supposedly" no such thing as the "Reroute Bypass Approach" has ever existed. Such suppositions, if truly supposed so widely as to be supposed without the context of a particular supposer, would be present on Google.

This is because access to a part of the network without access to the network is incoherent. To post something within the view of the Internet is clearly to have some form of access to the Internet, if only posting access. The fact that you knew enough to accept the debate shows that you also had enough reading access to know you had been challenged, notwithstanding the contrary interpretations implied by your difficulty addressing my argument.

The notion of this "RbP" is absurd and would hold the burden of proof even had you not chosen to concede a nonstandard burden of proof to your disadvantage.
Liquidus

Con

Well thats simple. I didn't tell Google I could do it. And I agree, it would hold the BOP.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 2 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"At first I though Liq was lying."
Liquidus, Renascor, you've got to be trolling.
Posted by Renascor 2 years ago
Renascor
I have heard of it too.
Posted by Liquidus 2 years ago
Liquidus
I know, but nonetheless, it is heard of. lol At first I though Liq was lying.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 2 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
How verifiable rofl.
Posted by Liquidus 2 years ago
Liquidus
I have heard of reroute bypass. I believe it was in the World Book 67 edition.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 2 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Lol, this debate is now google's only reference to the "reroute bypass approach."
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 2 years ago
mongeese
Ragnar_RahlLiquidusTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy victory for PRO, since, as he argued, anything used to read this debate would be accessing the Internet.
Vote Placed by Renascor 2 years ago
Renascor
Ragnar_RahlLiquidusTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The method of access presented by Con is actually legitimate. Conduct-Con, Sources-Con, Spelling-Con (Check second round Pro).
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
Ragnar_RahlLiquidusTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped his own argument in round 3 in favor of a new one that he provided no support for, then dropped his new argument in the final round. Obvious victory to Pro.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
Ragnar_RahlLiquidusTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled this debate and wasted Pro's time; conduct to Pro. SP/G tied. Con's first "argument" was the Fallacy of equivocation, and Pro pointed this out; Con then attempted to claim he was accessing the internet without having any kind of internet access. Arguments to Pro. Con referenced a nonexistent internet protocol, but failed to give a source.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
Buckethead31594
Ragnar_RahlLiquidusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments, but Pro had better conduct and grammar.