The Instigator
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
67 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
75 Points

This debate will not be interesting.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,248 times Debate No: 3415
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (36)

 

FalseReality

Pro

I don't think this will be interesting. It will be so boring that by the time it gets on the main page maybe 5 people will look at it until it is lost in the void of the achrives. Con can try to make it interesting but it won't be.
Logical-Master

Con

CROSS-EXAMINATION:

1) First, would you please define "interesting?" Depending on your definition, I may possibly agree with it.

2) What evidence do you have to suggest that I won't be able to make this debate interesting? Surely there is a general argument in mind, no?

3) You say you don't think this debate will be interesting, but why do you insist this?

4) If 5 people were to look at this topic, wouldn't that suggest that they possessed at least SOME level of interest in it? If they didn't possess any level of interest, why would they bother looking at it?

5) Can you prove that absolutely no one will be interested in this debate? Surely you don't just MERELY intend to provide objections to my arguments.

6) Considering that YOU started this debate, why wouldn't that suggest that you were interested in it?

That's all the questions I have.
Debate Round No. 1
FalseReality

Pro

1) Interesting–adjective 1. engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity (dictionary.com)

2) You can try. Given your reputation I'm sure you'll do a good job. I can't prove that you won't until the end, but I have a nagging suspicion that what goes on in this forum will be uninteresting to not only myself, and you but the general public as well.

3) I insist it will be uninteresting because I have every intention to make it so. That's my position as Pro. Its also to prove a point, which will not be revealed until the end.

4) It would not suggest interest, only coincidence. The mouse might have slipped and clicked on this debate, or perhaps the voter is blindly looking through debates and voting just so they can say they did, or if they do look at the debate it will not be because of the debate itself but of who is debating it therefore making the debate uninteresting. This explains both wy they might look at it and still posses no level of interest.

5) That proof can only be given once the debate is done. Its also possible you will lose interest and not attend to your rebuttals.

6) Istarted the debate because I am bored, plain and simple. I don't have an interest in it anymore than a disgrunteled fast food employee does of their job. I'll still return to this debate and provide my responces, but it won't mean I have interest, only dedication. Believe it or not, dedication and interest are not the same. Interest implies want, dedicate implies need. One doesn't need the other to survive.

Theres your points, now mine.

1) This depends on your response to 1

2) In what way do you intend to make this debate interesting? Can you make it so not only I and you but the future reader will be grasped by this like a sudden explosion?

3) WHy do you think this debate is interesting if at all? be honest.

4) What is the standard to measure interest in people you've never seen in your life?

5) This will depend on the end of the debate

6) Can you prove that I am interested in this debate I strted. If not can you make me?
Logical-Master

Con

I would like to start this round by saying the following:

MY OPPONENT IS SO FAT THAT WHEN HE FELL OFF THE BOAT, THE CAPTAIN SAID "Land Ahoy!"

First, I'll start off my case by proving how my opponent is interested in this debate even by his own definition. To do this, I must show that he is engaged/excited and that this debate holds his attention or curiosity.

Observe the information in the following link: http://dictionary.reference.com...

"v. intr.
1.To involve oneself or become occupied; participate: engage in conversation.
2.To assume an obligation; agree.
3.To enter into conflict or battle: The armies engaged at dawn.
4.To become meshed or interlocked: The gears engaged. "

Engaged: Although this is on the American Heritage section of that page, this is a definition which dictionary.com upholds, so usage is completely acceptable. More importantly, you should observe the first definition provided in that quote. Noting this definition, I ask that you tell me who STARTED this debate? My opponent of course. Since he involved himself or become occupied with this debate by his own free will, this would suggest that he has engaged himself in this debate.

Attention: My opponent is participating in this debate and is has actively responded to my questions. Since that is the case, this debate is holding his attention.

Thus, I've proven that the PRO is interested in this debate.

Now my opponent admits that he initially has no evidence to prove that I won't be able to make this debate interesting. In other words, he is merely basing his original idea off a mere HUNCH. Ladies and gentleman, this is basically his way of saying that he is just going to argue no matter what I tell you. Even if I provide what he acknowledges as conclusive evidence to show that this debate will be interesting, he is going to rely on deceptive tactics. I ask that you don't fall for whatever tricks he intends to employ during this debate

My opponent states that he has every intention to make this debate uninteresting. If this debate is ALREADY uninteresting as he has insisted in round one and if what he says is true (concerning the idea that I won't be able to make this debate interesting), why would he need to do this? Furthermore, why would he go out of his way and contribute to it as he has promised in response to my third question? By his definition, this is more evidence that he is interested in this debate.

In the next round, I would like my opponent to present evidence to back up his claim on the matter of there being a maximum (or somewhere around) of 5 users stumbling upon this debate page. Furthermore, I would like evidence that would suggest that people won't wish to observe any of the content in the debate itself.

My opponent states that the proof can only be given when the debate is done. Merely using the result of the 5 rounds as proof would further suggest uncertainty on my opponent's part. In other words, he is merely assuming that this debate will be uninteresting. At any case, I will accept this condition which my opponent has made. Although it must be noted that not being able to argue his "proof" for more than one round will be detrimental to his chances of winning this debate.

GEORGE BUSH IS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I will answer my opponent's questions:

1)I accept your definition of interesting. That said, I hold that any definition which dictionary.com provides is a definition which it upholds and is hence fair game for me to use in this debate.

2)I've already made this debate interesting for you while upholding YOUR definition of interesting. You've done just as the definition dictates. Also, the beauty about what is interesting is that there are different levels. One can be slightly interested in something or very interested in something, and this something will still be considered interesting.

I have another means of making this debate interesting for others. As for what it is, merely reading all of the content in my rounds should inform you of what it is.

3)I'm interested in this debate because I love debating, regardless of the topic.

4)Physical features are irrelevant. As in real life, it is their words; it is a simple process of how own communicates that allows me to make my conclusions. As I've shown in this round, based on how you've communicated in this debate, you've shown that you possess some level of interest in this debate.

5)I look forward to it.

6)Yes. In fact, this is the first issue I cover.

Now if you'll excuse me . . .

CHRIS CROCKER SHOULD BE A ROLE MODEL FOR CHILDREN:

CHECK HIM OUT HERE: http://youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
FalseReality

Pro

Ahhh, more definitions. Well, unfortunatly Logical Master, all you've proven is that I am involved with this debate, not interested. For me to be interested, under the definition, I am also required for my attention to have been held or been curious about it. My attention for this debate is not held, seeing as how when I logged on I only had the intention of looking at my other debate on Yes and No, and by chance saw that I could respond to this one as well. I am not curious about it either. Curiousity means that I am eager to know or inquisitive. Both of which I am not. As I explained earlier, I had no intention of looking at this debate, so not eager, and not the least bit inquisitive. Besides, none of this matters in reference to me. The topic is not whether I am interested in this debate, or whether anyone infact is interested, but if the debate itself is interesting. For it to be uninteresting to anyone prooves that it is uninteresting, thus affirming my stance. Also note "will not". So it can be as interesting as it wants now, during the deabte, but the true outcome rest soley on those who view it as a full debate, not a 'debating'. On Hunches: you too can only rely on a hunch. You have not met me, or at least not that I know of, nor (I'll assume) have you met anyone on this site on a personal level. Thus, you can define their actions all you want and skew them to your side, but that does not make it any more true. Also, is it not the goal of all debaters to win by any means necessary? Haven't you just tried to decieve the audience and myself so that you could justify an internet source? Intent: Yes, I do intend to make it as uninteresting as I can. A burger is good but ketchup (or other condiments) makes it better. So while I am fully confident that this debate as it is is uniteresting, a little push in the right direction always helps. For instance, you'll notice that I have not made any paragraphs in this round so far. This is a tactic. The more consentrated a round is the less likely anyone will read it. Why? Because it looks difficult and boring. As a test, I'll defy anyone of the voters who has read this far into the round to make a reference in the comments section at the end to the phrase: red duck. Also Logical Master, if you, and any spectators, are as confident as I am in your argumentation skills, I'll ask that you not highlight the phrase red duck in anyway. This would behoove your argument as it would mean that someone was actually interested in this debate and read this far into it, thus providing an auto win for you. I'll be giving many more audience references to test both of our propositions, all of which I ask you not acknowledge for the same reason as red duck. This is my evidence to prove both of your challenges. If they were really interested they should have no trouble finding the six in all references I will place through out my arguments. It will mean that not only did they want to read this but that they, in fact, did. Again, it will help more than hinder your case if you don't point out the references to the onlookers. Once more, the reference is red duck. Now to my points 1) very well, I agree. 2) Again, you didn't prove interest, just dedication, which as I explained are not the same thing. Furthermore, because I am me, I know that in no scale of interest am I interested. And again, even if I was, that does not prove anything about the debate, only me. 3) You can be all you want. I don't care, it doesn't reflect the debate, only your hobbies. 4) And another time, I don't matter, you don't matter, the debate matters. Even if we both are just absolutly estatic about this debate, in only reflects our actions, not the debates engagingness and attentivness to any reader. 5) quite. 6)I'm still not interested in the debate, nor have you made me, but I am amused. Not at the debate, but your tactics. Not the same thing. You can put as many random phrases in as you want, but then I'll challenge you to the same question you asked me: If this debate is ALREADY interesting as you have insisted in round one and two and if what you say is true (concerning the idea that I won't be able to make this debate uninteresting), why would you need to do this?
Logical-Master

Con

LET ME START BY SAYING THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD GO DOWN TO YOUR CAR DEALERSHIP AND BUY A WARTHOG:

1) FALSE REALITY'S IS INTERESTED.

My opponent starts off by denying that he is interested in this debate. He attempts to support this claim by stating that this debate has not held his curiosity nor has his attention been held, but I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Ladies and gentleman, observe the following comment taken from the comment section in another debate:

"LM, I hope these tournament debates won't get in the way of the one we're having now, it was just starting to get int....elligent. " - http://www.debate.org...

One question comes to mind: If this debate hasn't held his attention or made him curious, why would he care about my tournament debates getting in the way of this debate? Why would the possibility of me not being able to continue this debate bother him? For that matter, what would prompt him to go to another one of my debates (one that has nothing to do with this debate) and mention THIS DEBATE (despite that no one brought it up beforehand). Clearly, this debate does have a hold over his attention or has at least carried his curiosity.
As for not being eager to respond to this debate, my opponent posted his response one day before he was required to. If that's not eagerness to respond, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that my opponent keeps replying in his rounds. If this debate truly couldn't hold his attention in any shape or form, he'd forfeit all of his rounds. His only defense against this is that he is dedicated rather than interested in this debate, but as he has shown from the description of his intentions in this debate, he started this debate out of his own free will merely due to the fact that he was bored. So no, there was no "need involved." Rather, he started this debate simply because he WANTED to. And what do you do when you're bored? You attempt to relieve your boredom by doing something that INTEREST you.

2) ONLY ONE HAS TO BE INTERESTED.

As I had warned you in the previous round, my opponent would be resorting to some deception. In this round, he attempts to impose a ridiculous burden by stating that if anyone ONE person finds this debate uninteresting, he will hence win by default. Well, let's examine his logic for this

Syllogism Format:

1) The topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is interesting.
2)Therefore, for this debate to be uninteresting to anyone proves it to be uninteresting.
3) Therefore, if anyone finds this debate uninteresting, my stance will be affirmed.

Clearly, the second premise is a non sequitur. Just because the topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is interesting, it doesn't mean that one person not approving of it will show that it isn't interesting. It is only logical that we go by majority to determine what is and isn't interesting. My opponent has not shown this, and according to him, one can't determine whether or not someone whom they've never met is interested. Which brings me to my next point on this issue.

Since my opponent can only show that HE is uninterested in this debate, me proving that "he IS interested" or that "his evidence for showing that he was uninterested is flawed" would clearly make me the winner of this debate.

3) "WILL NOT"

This is more trickery on my opponent's part as he insist that "will not" alludes to what people think of the full debate rather than the debating. Unfortunately for him, this does not help him at all. If any segment of this debate is found to be interesting, then the final outcome will be that this debate was interesting to AT LEAST some degree. And since people can read this debate at their convenience (contrary to a live debate), they shouldn't have a problem.

4) HUNCHES:

I am basing my conclusion on the very words and online actions of my opponent as well as the notion that everything he has previously stated about himself is true. In other words, I don't need to personally know my opponent. Of course, if that is needed, then it goes back to my opponent's original claim about not being interested in this debate; if relying on his word isn't good enough, then it would only be logical that my opponent present empirical evidence that shows he isn't interested in this debate. Doing this is difficult but possible.

This website doesn't encourage the kind of goal my opponent refers to. Proof? Observe the following words provided by the webmaster: "Open dialogue and honest debate are how great businesses ideas are created, how democracies were developed and continue to thrive, and how Debate.org came to life. " - http://www.debate.org... Notice the words "HONEST DEBATE."

Furthermore, I never attempted to deceive the audience, but my opponent is free to try and prove that I have.

5) INTENT:

Notice how my opponent ignores the second question I brought up. It concerned why he would be so "gung ho" in contributing to this debate and making it as uninteresting as possible. The fact that he is doing so shows that he cares about this debate. And to care about something, there has to be some level of interest involved. As I've insinuated previously, this is more evidence that he is interested.

Furthermore, he talks about how he has not made any paragraphs in this round. This was all an attempt to make this debate uninteresting. Unfortunately, as I've previously suggested, there are different levels of "interesting." One can be very interested or at least somewhat interested. If the audience is interested in my rounds but not my opponent's, my opponent's effort to make this debate uninteresting will have been for naught. This also shows why my opponent's test won't prove his case (. . . although incidentally, one has already passed it).

6) MY INTEREST IN THIS DEBATE.

False. My reason is valid. I helped in creating this debate and had control over the direction it went to. Not only that, but despite the way my opponent is presenting his case, I am still able to respond to each and every single point he makes. This upholds the definition of interesting for me. However, if there is need for another one of my interests from this debate, it is the very fact that he doesn't think this debate will be interesting. By definition, I knew he would only end up providing me with evidence against this notion during the remainder of this debate.

On the matter of both of us being absolutely ecstatic about this debate, it does reflect the debate. Granted that only we can benefit from this, we'd be the only ones interested in this particular department. Now, if the resolution had stated "This debate will not be interesting in the eyes of audience", this would be a valid point on my opponent's part. However, without making that crucial exclusion, the interest of the debaters is fair game.

As for the rest of the points created during cross examination, answering them would be superfluous since I've covered them above. However, I will answer the question my opponent made at end of his sixth point.

Question:"If this debate is ALREADY interesting as you have insisted in round one and two and if what you say is true (concerning the idea that I won't be able to make this debate uninteresting), why would you need to do this?"

Answer: There is difference between the intent of my question and my opponent's. My question (which was followed up by another question) was used to show that he was interested in this debate. I'm interested in this debate as well and am appealing to different kinds of voters. That is why I feel the need to do it. Of course, if my opponent presents the same answer, he will only be compromising himself when it concerns the outcome of this debate.

NOT A RICK ROLL VID:
Debate Round No. 3
FalseReality

Pro

LET ME START BY SAYING THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD GO DOWN TO FUNKY TOWN

1) FALSE REALITY IS NOT INTERESTED.

My opponent starts off by accusing me of interested in this debate. He attempts to support this claim by stating that this debate has held my curiosity and that my attention been held, but I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Ladies and gentleman, observe the following comment taken from the comment section in another debate:

"I've read your description of this on another comment section and I'm not entirely certain about how things flow. I'll see how this debate goes and will probably take up the next one (assuming there is a next one)."

One question comes to mind: If this debate has held my attention or made me curious, why would I care about his comments made in completly different debates? Why would the possibility of me not not being interested in this debate bother him? For that matter, what would prompt me to go to another one of his debates (one that has nothing to do with this debate) and mention ANOTHER DEBATE (despite that no one brought it up beforehand). Clearly, this debate does have a hold over my attention or has carried my curiosity.

As for not being eager to respond to this debate, my opponent posted his response one day after he said he was going to. The fourth reference is berger mister mister berger. If that's eagerness to respond, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that my opponent keeps accusing me of replying in my rounds. If this debate truly couldn't hold my attention in any shape or form, he thinks I should forfeit all of my rounds. His only defense against this is a misconstrution of a definition to suit his ends, but as he has shown from the description of his intentions in this debate, he accepted this debate out of his own free will merely due to the fact that he was bored. So no, there was no "need involved." Rather, he participated in this debate simply because he WANTED to. And what do you do when you're bored? You attempt to relieve your boredom by doing something that INTERESTS you. I haven't done any of that.

As I had warned you in the previous round, my opponent would be resorting to some deception. In this round, he attempts to impose a ridiculous burden by stating that if anyone ONE person finds this debate interesting, he will hence win by default. Well, let's examine his logic for this

Syllogism Format:

1) The topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is uninteresting.
2)Therefore, for this debate to be interesting to anyone proves it to be interesting.
3) Therefore, if anyone finds this debate interesting, my stance will be affirmed.

Clearly, the second premise is a non sequitur. Just because the topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is uninteresting, it doesn't mean that one person approving of it will show that it isn't uninteresting. It is only logical that we go by majority to determine what is and isn't uninteresting. My opponent has not shown this, and according to him, one can determine whether or not someone whom they've never met is interested. Which brings me to my next point on this issue.

Since my opponent can only show that HE is interested in this debate, me proving that "I AM NOT interested" or that "My evidence for showing that I was uninterested is not flawed" would clearly make me the winner of this debate.

3) "WILL NOT"

This is more trickery on my opponent's part as he insist that "will not" alludes to what people think of the full debate rather than the debating. Unfortunately for him, this does not help him at all. If any segment of this debate is found to be uninteresting, then the final outcome will be that this debate was uninteresting to AT LEAST some degree. And since people can read this debate at their convenience (contrary to a live debate), they shouldn't have a problem.

4) HUNCHES:

I am basing my conclusion on the very words and online actions of my opponent as well as the notion that everything he has previously stated about himself is true. In other words, I don't need to personally know my opponent. Of course, if that is needed, then it goes back to my opponent's original claim about being interested in this debate; if relying on his word isn't good enough, then it would only be logical that my opponent present empirical evidence that shows he is interested in this debate. Doing this is difficult but possible.

This website doesn't encourage the kind of goal my opponent refers to. Proof? Observe the following words provided by the webmaster: "Open dialogue and honest debate are how great businesses ideas are created, how democracies were developed and continue to thrive, and how Debate.org came to life. " - http://www.debate.org...... Notice the words "HONEST DEBATE."

Furthermore, he did attempted to deceive the audience, by making you think that my debating in a debate is proof of my being interested, when it only shows dedication. If there is any interest from this debate, its only winning.

5) INTENT:

Notice how my opponent ignores the second question I brought up. It concerned why I would be so "gung ho" in contributing to this debate and making it as interesting as possible. The fact that he is doing so shows that I don't care about this debate, but am just debating. And to care about something, there has to be some level of interest involved, which there isn't. As I've insinuated previously, this is more evidence that I am uninterested.

If you've read this far then you've noticed I've copided and pasted LMs debate and changing a few words in my favor. This would show that you are interested. However, upon this realization, most (with the exception of Yraelz) have skiped this section. FalseReality must have AIDS is the fourth reference. Yes, I know.

6) MY INTEREST IN THIS DEBATE.
False. My reason is valid. I created this debate and have control over the direction goes to. Not only that, but despite the way my opponent is presenting his case, I am still able to respond to each and every single point he makes. This does not uphold the definition of interesting for me. However, if there is need for another reason of my uninterest from this debate, it is the very fact that I don't think this debate will be interesting. By definition, he knew I would only end up providing him with evidence for this notion during the remainder of this debate.

On the matter of both of us being absolutely ecstatic about this debate, it does reflect the debate. Granted that only we can benefit from this, we'd be the only ones interested, or otherwise for me, in this particular department. Now, if the resolution had stated an unneeded specific, this would be a valid point on my opponent's part. However, by making that crucial exclusion, the vaquness of my idea on whos interest is needed, being that of the debaters, is fair game.

As for the rest of the points created during cross examination, answering them would be superfluous since I've covered them above. I will say one last thing: I will be saving my round 5 for until the debate is 3 spaces down in the Voting Period section, in order to examine the point I hoped to prove as I stated in round 1. The 6th reference is 'I was the Turkey all along'. I apologize to Logical Master on both accounts of not immediatly responding to his round 5 queries, and for thouroughly making a mockery of his extremly well thought out round 3 reply. So I'll say right now, since I won't be responding in round 5, to vote depending on whether you thought this debate was interesting. Hopefully for him, Logical Master made it interesting, while I can only hope that it wasn't. K BYE!
Logical-Master

Con

ATTENTION VOTERS: Most of my opponent's previous round is a copy/paste of my round with a few minor changes to add in some humor. That said, I STILL IMPLORE YOU TO READ THE ROUND AS HE ATTEMPTS TO HIDE a few crucial points. My opponent even makes this confession in his round.

Contrary to my usual method of refutation, I will quote any usable point and respond accordingly.

Onto the case

1) FALSE REALITY IS INTERESTED.

"Clearly, this debate does have a hold over my attention or has carried my curiosity."

My opponent stated this in the previous round, thus he concedes to being interested in this debate. Keep in mind that we had agreed that this would be the criteria used to define interesting.

2) ONLY ONE HAS TO BE INTERESTED

"Just because the topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is uninteresting, it doesn't mean that one person approving of it will show that it isn't uninteresting."

False. The resolution states that this debate WILL NOT BE INTERESTING. Merely one person showing interest shows that the debate is interesting on some level.

"It is only logical that we go by majority to determine what is and isn't uninteresting."

And what objective method is there to determine the thoughts of the majority? According to my opponent, one can't really determine whether or not individuals are interested without personally knowing them. Of course, even going by my reasoning (which suggest you can determine interest online), the only individuals who can be examined are myself and my opponent, since we're the only ones presenting in depth input on this debate.

"Since my opponent can only show that HE is interested in this debate, me proving that "I AM NOT interested" or that "My evidence for showing that I was uninterested is not flawed" would clearly make me the winner of this debate."

This links to the previous point. As you can see, me refuting that previous point makes this conclusion unattainable.

3) WILL NOT

"If any segment of this debate is found to be uninteresting, then the final outcome will be that this debate was uninteresting to AT LEAST some degree."

Again, the PRO cannot get away with this argument as the resolution does not say "This debate will be uninteresting to some degree." It says this debate will not be interesting PERIOD. Thus, the kind of the argument which my opponent is using only works in my favor.

"Of course, if that is needed, then it goes back to my opponent's original claim about being interested in this debate; if relying on his word isn't good enough, then it would only be logical that my opponent present empirical evidence that shows he is interested in this debate."

Wrong. If I thought this were the case, I would have cited my own interest as means of victory of this debate during round 1. However, this would be invalid evidence while coming from me, given my goal in this debate.

4) HUNCHES

"Furthermore, he did attempted to deceive the audience, by making you think that my debating in a debate is proof of my being interested, when it only shows dedication. If there is any interest from this debate, its only winning. "

I've proven why this is not the case in round 3. In response, my opponent simply replaces a few words, but for the most part, drops my argument.

5) INTENT

"The fact that he is doing so shows that I don't care about this debate, but am just debating. And to care about something, there has to be some level of interest involved, which there isn't. As I've insinuated previously, this is more evidence that I am uninterested."

False. My opponent is debating to win THIS debate, hence, he does care. Also, you can refer back to a comment he made on another debate that had absolutely nothing to do with this one. And not only did my opponent not insinuate this previously, but as show, this is not evidence that he is uninterested.

"However, upon this realization, most (with the exception of Yraelz) have skipped this section."

This goes about assuming that the people in the comment section were the only people to read this debate. Thus, I demand that my opponent prove this to be the case. Furthermore, as I've pointed out previously, this test won't be any means help my opponent. As long as there is some level of interest (even if it be from merely reading the first round alone) that proves that this debate is interesting.

"However, if there is need for another reason of my uninterest from this debate, it is the very fact that I don't think this debate will be interesting."

This is not a valid reason. This is merely begging the question.

"Now, if the resolution had stated an unneeded specific, this would be a valid point on my opponent's part."

I've already explained how it is needed. This goes dropped by my opponent, so dismiss this response for the same reason I provide.

".I will be saving my round 5 for until the debate is 3 spaces down in the Voting Period section, in order to examine the point I hoped to prove as I stated in round 1. "

Any point made AFTER the debate is not part of the debate and is hence not to be considered.

As you can see, my opponent has dropped most of my case in his recent response and is forfeiting this debate to me by claiming that he will respond after it is over. Whether or not he manages to prove anything in the comment section, the actual debate is done and I am clearly the victor.

"So I'll say right now, since I won't be responding in round 5, to vote depending on whether you thought this debate was interesting"

No, as a debate, you should vote based on who debated better. Despite the topic, personal opinion has no room here.

Finally, I will reveal the purpose of the links and all cap comments which I had made in previous round.

Links: From carefully observing these youtube links, you'll notice that they receive high amounts of views. Of course, this doesn't mean that I had to do this. I did it merely to pacify one of the points made by PRO. I presented information which had received thousands of comments/views so that I would be presenting information that MANY were interested in. The best part was that this info could be observed objectively.

All CAPS comments: In general, all caps comments are usually perceived as a way of non verbally yelling. What better way to get someone than to yell? All caps comments will likely catch the attention of even those users who merely glance or scroll through debates.

Anyway, I now await the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
FalseReality

Pro

Vote however you want. I think that because of my bad responce in round 4 this should easily go to Con. I'm not really debating this to win, but to prove a point to myself and any others who think that point is valid, so in truth, I really am not interested in the debate at all, but only in the outcome. 1 last thing: 1) That was a typo, my mistake. EDIT: Clearly, this debate does not have a hold over my attention or has carried my curiosity. So I go back to what I said in round 4 and will save the rest of this round for after the debate is over, however, my opponent is right in saying that you should not take that responce into consideration as it goes beyond the real debate.
Logical-Master

Con

Three important issues were brought up in the last round:

1) My opponent says he is not interested in this debate, but rather the outcome.

2) He says I should easily get your vote.

3) He says that his concession in the previous round was a typo and that this debate clearly did not have a hold over his attention.

I will respond to these issues accordingly and then tell you why your vote must unanimously go to CON.

1) Interest in the outcome:

Let us refer back to a question which the instigator proposed in round 3:

"Also, is it not the goal of all debaters to win by any means necessary?"

This was in response to me establishing that PRO intended to argue regardless of the evidence I provided. If he weren't interested in winning, he would have responded accordingly.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent had only declared a lack of interest in winning on round 5 (and incidentally, this was brought up directly after I pointed out that "wanting to win" would factor into being interested in this debate. Plus, in the previous rounds, he had set up burdens and arguments that were created to work against my position.

2) I should easily get your vote.

Although I do believe that your vote should go to CON, I must contest PRO claiming this. This is merely a further attempt to persuade you into believing that PRO isn't interested in this debate, but rather merely the outcome. If PRO believes I should easily get your vote, why would he attempt to negate one of the claims I made in the last round? Why not just drop this point (like the others)? PRO is still putting up a fight, thus there's no real reason to believe his claim.

3)No hold over attention.

PRO had ample opportunity to refute my arguments in favor of this claim. The fact that he repeats his claim without providing arguments for it or refuting the arguments I provided against it gives you no reason to vote in favor of his claim.

WHY TO VOTE CON:

-As PRO even states, he dropped most of my arguments. Although this was strategically done to get you to believe the he isn't interested in these arguments, you cannot ignore the fact he did drop my arguments.

-Specifically, my claims concerning Youtube and all-caps-text went uncontested. The logic behind these claims was that those pages had received thousands/millions of comments/views; my rounds contained information which millions of people were interested in, hence this debate contained information which millions of people were interested in. Even if you disagree with this logic, PRO didn't respond to it when he had the opportunity to respond, thus concedes it over to my side.

-I've proven multiple times that PRO was interested in this debate. Not only that, but I've even countered the logic of him being interested in the outcome.

-PRO failed to uphold his side of the resolution; he never managed to explain how this debate was uninteresting. He said he'll do it after the debate. Well unfortunately for him, you cannot consider any information presented AFTER the debate is over. Even on the unlikely (and I do mean UNLIKELY) chance he manages to prove that this debate was somehow uninteresting PERIOD, he failed to do this during the debate (he never utilized the 5 rounds he had used to do this), so he loses by default.

-A user passed the "test" which PRO had set up during the round. According to the conditions he created in round 3, merely someone passing his test would make me the winner by default.

There are other specific reasons to vote CON which are located in the round, but I feel that these were the most important.

I thank my FalseReality for debating and I thank audience for "reading." Till next time.
Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I think that because of my bad responce in round 4 this should easily go to Con. I'm not really debating this to win, but to prove a point to myself and any others who think that point is valid, so in truth, I really am not interested in the debate at all, but only in the outcome. "

LOL! This site cracks me up sometimes.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Voteed PRO: 5 round debates bore.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
if the debate was so uninteresting (the voters say so anyway) then WHY re there so many comments?
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
I imagine the Pro in this to sound like Ben Stein... Just an observation...

Vote to CON
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I think I am going to have to vote for logical-master, definitely get the point though.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I've got an idea about the debate. If I'm the one defending the absurd position with legitimate arguments, I'm going to forfeit my last round or post a one sentence response. This will indeed be justified though as this should be a round responding to arguments that have nothing to do with the debate.

If my understanding of the voters on this site is correct, they'll measure the debate by who posts the most text. Once they see that I've done next to nothing in the last round on a debate which they are strongly against, they'll automatically vote against me.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Well, it was interesting to say the least. Greatest thing I've ever seen is takes place as an anime battle though.
Posted by Krad 9 years ago
Krad
Logical master, you didn't think it was the greatest thing you've ever seen?
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
A) I agree with Public LM, choose something new, I'll improvise, and can wait until after Friday

B)Goo thinking PF, but I think your the only person who'd know or care

C) Invader Zim isn't anime, its animated.
Posted by sweatycreases2 9 years ago
sweatycreases2
ANIME SUCKS, ASIDE FROM INVADER ZIM
36 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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: MY OPPONENT IS SO FAT THAT WHEN HE FELL OFF THE BOAT, THE CAPTAIN SAID "Land Ahoy!" Lolz. This debate was VERY interesting. Thus con gains my vote.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
FalseRealityLogical-MasterTied
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