The Instigator
Elonbin1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Turbanator
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

This is not a frivolous debate

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 1 vote the winner is...
Turbanator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 75179
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Elonbin1

Pro

I will be arguing that this is indeed a very serous debate that touches upon important and serous things.
Turbanator

Con

I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Elonbin1

Pro

To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1].

As one can see I listed a source for this definition. One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications.

Also, this debate is listed under philosophy, and thus touches upon the existential nature of the human condition. Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention.

Lastly, I bothered to spell check myself. Clearly I would not not go through such lavish effort if this debate did not indeed have serous ramifications.

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Turbanator

Con

Please post the argument. Do not beat around the bush.
Debate Round No. 2
Elonbin1

Pro

My opponent makes the claim that I should not "beat around the bush" but rather "post my arguments".

As you can see has clear expectations of me. One would not rationally expect anything of ones opponent if this were not indeed a serous debate.

Also not my opponent did not respond to my three very well thought out and deep points of contention in round two and thus you can extend those.

Also note that I have bothered to extend my previous arguments, and am thus attempting to 'win' this debate. Something which I would not do if it were simply a waste of time.
Turbanator

Con

Let me start by saying that no debate is frivolous. We all have opinions that need to be respected. Do not risk your own credibility by stating that any debate at all can be frivolous, as one can easily imply that from the title of this debate, you are saying that some debates can be frivolous.

For your first point, one can take the time to list a source if he wants to. Nobody here knows how much time you have on your hands or what you have for a living, you state, "One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications.". By saying the above, you are conditioned to your opinion that one wouldn't take the time to list a source if this debate didn't have "profound implication". Let me just say that you should approach these absolute statements with an open mind for future debates, as you are WRONG. You could very well be a stay at home person that has nothing to do. You could very well have all the time in the world, not saying you do... but you force me to refute your point by making that absolute statement.

For your second point, you fail to recognize that there are many other topics that are important, just as philosophy is. You mention, "Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention.", and by saying that you have implied that other topics may not be deep and interesting, and they may not merit attention. Sure, I don't disagree that this isn't an interesting topic, but maybe you should acknowledge that there are many other topics that are "deeper", "interesting", and "merit attention"

For your final point, can you prove that you bothered to spell check yourself? I think not, as you may very well be a great typer, and don't make many spelling errors. It is not clear at all why you wouldn't go through the effort to spell check. There are many tools to spell check that you can easily find. We also don't know your personality, so may just happen spell check because you like to be a presentable person. Also, in your first line, "To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1].", there is a punctuation error as there should be a comma after "with".
Debate Round No. 3
Elonbin1

Pro

Responses:

"Let me start by saying that no debate is frivolous. We all have opinions that need to be respected. Do not risk your own credibility by stating that any debate at all can be frivolous, as one can easily imply that from the title of this debate, you are saying that some debates can be frivolous."

I believe my opponent just conceded, but for the purposes of being thorough I will continue.

"For your first point, one can take the time to list a source if he wants to. Nobody here knows how much time you have on your hands or what you have for a living"

I disagree, I know how much time I have on my hands and I am somebody.

" you state, "One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications.". By saying the above, you are conditioned to your opinion that one wouldn't take the time to list a source if this debate didn't have "profound implication". Let me just say that you should approach these absolute statements with an open mind for future debates, as you are WRONG"

To quote the great Joe Abercrombie [2] "'An open mind is like to an open wound. Vulnerable to poison. Liable to fester. Apt to give its owner only pain.'"

"You could very well be a stay at home person that has nothing to do. You could very well have all the time in the world, not saying you do... but you force me to refute your point by making that absolute statement."

I could also be a professional zombie wrangler.

"For your second point, you fail to recognize that there are many other topics that are important, just as philosophy is. You mention, "Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention.", and by saying that you have implied that other topics may not be deep and interesting, and they may not merit attention. Sure, I don't disagree that this isn't an interesting topic, but maybe you should acknowledge that there are many other topics that are "deeper", "interesting", and "merit attention""

Sure other things could be serous as well. For example, zombie wrangling. However, we can still value philosophy while at the same time valuing not being overrun by a zombie horde that wants to eat our brains.

"For your final point, can you prove that you bothered to spell check yourself? I think not, as you may very well be a great typer, and don't make many spelling errors. It is not clear at all why you wouldn't go through the effort to spell check. There are many tools to spell check that you can easily find. We also don't know your personality, so may just happen spell check because you like to be a presentable person. Also, in your first line, "To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1].", there is a punctuation error as there should be a comma after "with"".

My opponent merely supports my claim by bringing up the inherent fallibility of humanity. The fact that I as a human being am subject to failure is clearly a serous matter which we should all ponder.

2) http://www.goodreads.com...
Turbanator

Con

The definition of frivolous is "not serious". My opponent has said that this debate is serious... Correct? By definition, serious means, "acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner." The point to be noted is, "rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner." My opponent has decided to contradict himself when he jokingly states, "I could also be a professional zombie wrangler." ONE DOES NOT JOKE ABOUT ZOMBIES IF THIS WAS A SERIOUS DEBATE! This is extremely ironic as in his previous argument he CLEARLY stated that he bothered to spell check himself as this is a serious debate. Now he jokes about a zombie horde that wants to eat brains, he states, "being overrun by a zombie horde that wants to eat our brains". This is extremely ironic, thus through the very nature of this argument, I suggest you vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
n00b sniping 101: Con, in the opening round, should define frivolous as existing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Elonbin1TurbanatorTied
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: Con points out that Pro's jokes and comedic tone do, indeed, make this debate non-serious and, by extension, frivolous. Obvious Con win. Self-referential debates like this suck. Pro should refrain from making any more in the future.