This is a troll debate
Debate Rounds (3)
Debate: Arguing because we friggen can
Thus a troll debate would be arguing over the dumbest things known to humanity. This debate is one of the most worthless things in human history, thus this is a troll debate.
Blankets are very soft
Babbons enjoy bannanas
bannanas are worthless
benches are I if I was imabench
Bad people bring bad presents
Bing sucks, I prefer google
Believe and you will find your way!
In this understanding, we can derive three implicit arguments from the instigator:
A1. That what we are arguing at the moment is "trivial"
A2. That anger is bound to be evoked from the instigator and / or myself during the debate
A3. A2 proves A1
These ideas are not plausible upon careful examination.
A1. "Trivial" means "of little value or importance" (this definition is found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary). Values, naturally, emanate from people as individuals. Since I am an individual, I can determine the value of this debate and have it be relatively correct in my case. As one may guess, I have already determined it to not be trivial.
The instigator might expect to argue in light of this fact (perhaps not in these exact words), "but isn't the fact that we're participating in the "funny" section of debate.org proving that we're not doing anything meaningful?" Were he to do so, it would be ironically laughable; for by the acts of carefully creating and participating in a debate that he derides, he has implicitly judged the debate and any participation in it to be of a value so considerable that he would willingly waste his time. (Of his own free will, he has not instead used his life to do anything else that you can think of. This is also the case of anyone who is reading this debate, you included.)
He and I , essentially, are here debating for a valuable reason: we as human beings want to have fun. Fun provides mental stimulation, and the intellectual challenge and possibility that you can dominate others are very real routes to personal entertainment. In proof of that, I can submit this entire debate and the continued existence of the entire debate.org website.
A2. I have sufficiently demonstrated and expressed positive interests in this debate in my prior paragraphs, so there are only two routes by which this argument can become verifiable: the instigator can suggest that my next post will demonstrated rage beyond a reasonable doubt, or he can hereby attempt to demonstrate his own rage beyond a reasonable doubt. Both routes of argument , from a proof standpoint, are complicated by the facts that we are both self-interested individuals who want to win debates and that it is not easy to conclusively demonstrate what is felt via a text-based medium like debate.org. Although it is theoretically possible for the instigator to attempt either of these and find success, a convincingly conclusive proof is highly improbable given these facts and my demonstration of him finding the debate valuable. (Also, it would be irrational for him to take offense at me complimenting him.)
A3. A2 is yet to be proved. Furthermore, in order for this to be proven, there must be a counterintuitive demonstration that emotional involvements in a debate prove its triviality (the contrary is true, as previously demonstrated).
In conclusion, while the instigator is a smart fellow, his argument is the equivalent of building a trap on thin Antarctic ice and falling into the waters behind him.
msheahan99 forfeited this round.
Corrector forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.