The Instigator
9spaceking
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
o0jeannie0o
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,059 times Debate No: 69071
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

9spaceking

Con

Round one acceptance only please.
This debate refers to this exact particular debate you are reading.
Confusing: causing or tending to cause confusion [from: http://dictionary.reference.com...]

We shall allow the opponent to use (but not limited to using):
-Monkeys to annoy the opponent
-The Strawman Fallacy as long as you can prove you don't have any scarecrows
-Singing to convince the judges
- hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT troll
-Circus clowns to creep out the opponent
-Love notes to bribe the judges
-The word, "Knot", because who knows you might want to hang yourself from seeing the resolution of this debate
And most of all,
This jif:


Good luck and have fun.
o0jeannie0o

Pro

I accept and I will try to be hardly not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not, NOT, NOT confusing for you and the oh so lovely voters who i would do almost anything for.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Con

Reasons for why this debate is confusing

1. The Monkey Bar theory (what did I tell you, we could use monkeys couldn't we?)
P1: If the monkeys eat the bannanas, they will traverse the bars, annoying our viewers, allowing them to be frustrated, and as a result become confused, because monkeys traversing the bars shouldn't be confusing.
Supporting of P1:
-The monkeys have ate their bannanas
Ringmaster Cardovana can verify this.
"Oh yes, I feed them everyday...and whip them too, of course." --Ringmaster Cardovana.

-If the monkeys eat the bannanas they will traverse the bars.
This has been proven in many studies within illegal circuses, especially by Ringmaster Cardovana.
"Yes, sir, the bannanas are so efficient that....monkeys...oil bars...slip and not fall!" --Ringmaster Cardovana

-Traversing the bars will annoy the viewers
The viewers do not like this seemingly difficult task that the monkeys easily do; they are jealous of the monkeys.
"ARGHGGGH!! How do they do that! I can never transverse bars so easily." --Random viewer whose name is not Ringmaster Cardovana

Annoying the viewers allows them to be frustrated because traversing bars shouldn't be confusing
-The studies have proved that usually traversing bars isn't confusing, because bars is like music, and music is universal. But since the monkeys ate their bannanas, and got whipped, they will traverse the bars at unusually high speeds, disturbing our musical bars, therefore being able to annoy the viewers.

And of course, we can't forget my main body of argument:


































































































































































Whew! I'm glad that's over. The fact that it's invisible makes it even more powerful and asserting that this debate is confusing.

So in conclusion:
-Monkey bar theory
-If our GIF is not countered, I win
-If my opponent cannot explain my title, then I win
-My main arguments show that my opponent cannot possibly understand the combination of Greek, Spanish, and other junk, even if she uses google translate
-If my opponent cannot explain the strange "we allow our opponent to...", then I win
-Judges, if you spell a peach, then I win.

Onto you, my opponent.
o0jeannie0o

Pro

Monkey bar theory
I deny that monkeys traversing bars is confusing. The monkeys are not confused, only the audience is. Like the bars in music these monkeys make their own melodies as they cross the bars, their war music. Can you deny that these monkeys wish to kill you:






Roses are red and violets are violet:


as you can see by this highly convincing and scientific argument blue is not red, red is apples. Blue is clearly not blew but defiling something violet.

This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!
Two negatives equal a positive so two not's equal "is".
Is means: to continue or remain as before. So it can be left as a blank space.
"not nearly-not" therefore means nearly
"nearly" plus "hardly" equals almost.
"not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT" there are 6 not's and three Not's which equal one NOT.
in other words, simplified the debate is: Almost NOT confusing!

Do you have evidence that says that this argument is totally confusing?

If my opponent cannot explain the strange "we allow our opponent to...", then I win
This one is easy, the "we" you are describing has too be a remark about the fact you are both Aladdin and Genie as your profile picture illustrates. You must be both of theses characters because otherwise the use of them, even in a profile pic is illegal, I know my opponent would not do that! http://info.legalzoom.com...

This is possible as if Genie is magical and wishes to be with Aladdin forever he can make them be same people inside one debater wile still being able to take a presentable, and magically moving, photo such as the one you have taken:


Here is my refute to my opponents main argument:


As you, the lovely audience can see I perfectly understand my opponents combination of Greek, Spanish, and other junk as they have written it.

Now I shall play you the music of my people:



*best singing voice* "this is, this is, the scarecrow's song"

Judges did I impress you? Opponent, Are there scarecrows around you? Can you prove it?

In conclusion:
-Monkey bar theory
-GIF is countered
-Explained title
-main arguments
-we allow our opponent to..."
- Please describe how may scarecrows are around you. I have at least one.
- If singing you must now provide a better singing voice then mine to sway judges in your favor.
-Judges, Please don't spell peach!










For the Judges only:



Judges please look away as this is going to scare my opponent and lower their attack stat provided they are not a "dark type":







Thank you google images.







Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Con

Congratulations. An excellent, excellent round!

Let me start off by refuting my opponent's refutations to my supporting of the non-refutations:

-One day the monkey went on to stare at us....
-One day the monkey wants to murder you....

Now, first we must note that my opponent admits that the audience will be confused by my monkeys traversing the bars.

Next, to refute her theory and support.
Here my opponent calls on special scary cases mentioned above, and why are these cases confusing? For one, the monkey that seems to want to murder you is actually smiling and having a happy face on. That's pretty dang confusing. Why, humans can sufficiently be evil, but as monkeys are only 97% not not not not similar to humans, obviously it will be difficult to understand why they will be smiling but want to kill you at the same time. Similarly, the poker-face monkey will not allow any bloodshed, since his lifeless eyes contradict my opponent's claims and only show further how my opponent is wrong and that he does not want to murder anyone, so it would be confusing to look at a monkey with a normal expression yet somehow "wishing to kill you".

Let's talk about her arugment trying to explain about how roses are red and violets are violet. First of, it's very confusing. Note how the words are noted in a poem format;


And who writes poems? Williams Shakespeare. And who understands Shakespeare? Nobody. If we don't understand this poetry, then it's very confusing. Thus, my opponent's poor attempt to explain my still-confusing gif, only furthers our confusion in this debate to show that this debate is confusing.

This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!
My opponent seems to have cleared up the resolution, yet it's still confusing, particularly still due to the fact that I am CON, the resistance against the resolution, PRO. Yet pro has to support a resolution of NOT confusing while I have to go against "NOT confusing" which makes my burden of proof, "This debate is NOT not confusing", and combined with the whole entire title, "This debate is NOT, hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing". With all the CAPS and all the commas, in addition to the fact that I am CON, will give all the judges a hard time to judge, give them a massive headache, which makes it all more NOT, hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing.

Explaining "We".
First of, "we" are family.
Like if you get the reference.

My opponent's main argument:

*claps hands*
A wondrously worded argument!! BUT--
  1. Can you refute an invisible yet not entirely invisible argument? Yes, invisible is not confusing, and neither is poor visibility (both which were presented.) But what if you combine the two, and have something in between? You can barely see these words, I know it. If you are reading this, then congratulations. You are a genius. Yet, how did I do this? Isn't that confusing? And what's this? ACTUAL invisible yet not invisible-at-the-same time-SPANISH?? Jaja, usted es probablemente muy confundido en este momento mientras lees esta frase española. Not to mention ACTUAL non-invisible yet invisible GREEK! Z8;λα τα επιχειρ^2;ματα που μου ^1;ρχονται μαζ^3; για να υποστηρ^3;ξει ιδ^1;α μου, και σκοτεινa2; το^3;χο του αντιπ^0;λου μου δεν την βοηθοa3;ν το λιγa2;τερο λ^3;γο για να νικ^2;σει το ψ^2;φισμα.
SOME HUGE WORDS TO DISTRACT YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU AND YOU

And what's most confusing is that i make my distraction really obvious and big, which is not smart--not what I usually do....hmm... how suspicious.

Finally, my opponent herself brings her own downfall. By playing the scarecrow song, she turned the judges into dumb scarecrows, who cannot understand anything and are confused by everything. Thus, that makes the debate super confusing.

Back to you for the final round, my opponent.
o0jeannie0o

Pro

Monkeys!

I did say that the audience is confused but that monkeys traversing the bars is not fully confusing, more on that later.

My opponent said "obviously it will be difficult to understand why they will be smiling but want to kill you at the same time". He had previously almost said: humans and monkeys are very similar and that humans are evil, but the monkeys are smiling. I think this proves that monkeys are evil and want to kill you, therefore proving the theory that the monkeys traversing the bars is to confuse the audience they want to kill.

Where did my opponent slip up? By almost implying that scary looking, smiling monkeys are just like scary looking smiling humans like in the following pictures, clearly evil humans.






Do you deny that the caption on the poker face monkey almost said “I would like to murder you”? It is basic admittance that the monkey would like you dead.

Violets are still violet

Although poetry is confusing it is not fully confusing to everyone (more on this later). Shakespeare understands poetry and it is my supposition that this understanding might not have to be genetic. If it is I may or may not be a relative of his and could be a potential translator for poetry.

My “poem” said that simply because Violets are called blue they may not actually be blue. They are indeed called violet, but nothing rhymes with violet so they call them blue in your picture.

In other words: just because you say something does not make it true. For more info on saying something please see Drake’s “say something” lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com...

This debate is Almost NOT confusing!

My opponent more or less said that this debate is indeed almost not confusing. They then pointed out that they where Con and therefore trying to confuse you, the voters (what a mean thing to do right?) They may have to prove the debate is confusing but I, Pro, Have to prove that the debate is ALMOST not confusing.

This debate has to make a bit of sense to you for me to win. I am attempting to help you voters, because I, Pro, care about you!

Explaining "We".

(like) I did get the reference; you are family Aladdin and Genie! After that adventure you had I bet it seems like you are incredibly close!

The main argument:

If you could not read my opponents admittance of a non-confusing main argument here you go:

Can you refute an invisible yet not entirely invisible argument? Yes, invisible is not confusing, and neither is poor visibility (both which were presented.) But what if you combine the two, and have something in between? You can barely see these words, I know it. If you are reading this, then congratulations. You are a genius. Yet, how did I do this? Isn't that confusing? And what's this? ACTUAL invisible yet not invisible-at-the-same time-SPANISH?? Jaja, usted es probablemente muy confundido en este momento mientras lees esta frase española. Not to mention ACTUAL non-invisible yet invisible GREEK! Z8;λα τα επιχειρ^2;ματα που μου ^1;ρχονται μαζ^3; για να υποστηρ^3;ξει ιδ^1;α μου, και σκοτεινa2; το^3;χο του αντιπ^0;λου μου δεν την βοηθοa3;ν το λιγa2;τερο λ^3;γο για να νικ^2;σει το ψ^2;φισμα.

Translated the Spanish means: Haha, you are probably very confused right now as you read this Spanish phrase.
He then uses Greek, a hard to translate language, to attempt to support his previous statement by almost maybe stating this Greek supports my paragraph by design.
(also you simply used "stike-through" and paste from word)

Scarecrow Song

You have not said that you have or don’t have scarecrows around you, I assume that you do, because who doesn’t?

The scarecrow song does not always turn people into scarecrows but it does give them gifts. I hope the voters who have not been turned into scarecrows find their gift and take it as a bribe from Pro!

By the way it is good to see you are not a scarecrow con, That means you get a gift too, one you must find!

Your Welcome!

I will forgive you if searching for this gift takes too much time and you must forfeit, the voters may not.



Have a almost not not not not NOT NOT NOT NOT nice day con!

Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Con

In conclusions my opponent's plans only support myself, and show this debate's confusion and of course we can't forget Confucianism.
s://kenanmalik.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="384" height="398" />


Vote for me because the only way to stop environmental pollution is to support the death penalty, helping the woman who is trying to legalize gay marriage, allowing for smoke to become legal, which is moral in the sense of God's Existence, so help the citizens build architecture that can sustain up to 100 floors by using animal control to get us Gun Rights.
You have done well, abortion supporter, but at the end, you cannot defeat the Master in the War on Terror.
o0jeannie0o

Pro

I would like to say that I was not confused by this debate, so it must make a little bit of sence. It was my opponents job to insure that it made no sence, please vote pro!

Thank you for this debate!

Vote for me because I care about you voters, Con did not write to you or sing to you at all!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
awe a tie no votes !
Posted by DDDDaniel 2 years ago
DDDDaniel
This is the best thing I have ever seen
Posted by piefav 2 years ago
piefav
Mr. Space Monkey King 997 I would like to debate the hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing debate, for 1,000,000 pounds.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Lol, i saw the title of this debate, and im like "hmmm, i bet this is Spaceking" , I was right xD
No votes have been placed for this debate.