The Instigator
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.

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...
AlexanderOc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 60618
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

Aerogant

Con

Well Dorthy, you're a bloody ejit. My name is not Tommy - I am a projection of your mind within your dream. I am here to haunt you for your precarious actions towards your son. Here let me show you *transforms into a deadly spider* - now, now, there's no need to be afraid. I'm only a projection of a deadly spider. I cannot really hurt you; everything that you may feel is your own fear deceiving you. Now listen to my disembodied voice through the spider projection and listen well. Your son needs you to help him understand what he is experiencing; telling him that it's all a dream will lead to this *shoots radioactive venom at a wall, causing the wall to deteriorate, revealing a room where an older version of her son is murdering her husband in the kitchen* - why are you crying? Those tears you have are from your shame. You know that deep down your husband is cruel to your son and the monster in his dream is a projection of your husband's cruelty and the pain he suffers being reflected through his subconscious. Telling him to ignore it will cause consequences to inevitably surface one day; your little Tommy will one day lose control over this conflict inside them and act out on it when the human mind cannot bottle it up any longer. You will suffer - your husband will get what's coming to him and your son will have to live with blood on his hands and a monster that eats away what's left of your son when he cannot escape this void, for death is a one-way ticket. When you wake from this dream, you will go to your son and talk to him about what he was dreaming and make sense of the symbols being projected by his subconscious - tie them to what issues may exist in his life and start making connections so you can save your son from becoming the very thing that ate away at him every night, just so you can ignore his pleas as if it was all some sort of imagination. Wake up mother, pain is life; pain is the truth. What you're feeling right now is the best feeling one could ask for. Let go, mother - there's a world inside each and everyone one of us that grows bigger than the reality we share on the outside.

Before I go, I will remind you that your husband is always calling you and your son a "bloody ejit". Do not forget this message - if you do, your son will forget himself.
AlexanderOc

Pro

Con only has a single contention.
"Pro is Dorthy"

Actually, my name Is Alexander. I'm unsure how he confused that with "Dorthy". Alexander is masculine, Dorthy is feminine. Alexander has an "A" in it. Dorthy has a "D".

I'm also confused as to this husband I'm supposed to have. I'm not currently even married, much less to the same sex. Seeing as marriage is not only illegal at my age, but also very rare, I'd have to conclude that me being married is unlikely.
Furthermore, I'm a straight male. Therefore me being married to a man is also unlikely, though I have heard of girls that call eachother hubbys. However I feel that is also irrelevant.

Finally, I do not have a son. His name is not Tommy and he is not a "bloody ejit".

Where's my proof you may ask?

Stop asking questions.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Con

I am not Con; I am Aerogant. I will keep repeating this until you guys learn your lesson. Con is not me - it's my position.

If you're going to troll, can you be more creative? You could really turn the moral of my story around with the right creativity. I know I can.
AlexanderOc

Pro

Con's claim last round was he is not con. Then he proceeds to say he is con.
This shows he is a liar. His word is not to be trusted.

I refer to him as Con because a debate is a presentation to an audience of voters, not a discussion between two people. I'm addressing him by Con because I'm explaining to the audience why he is incorrect.
Besides, there are far more people who read this debate than the single person I'm debating against, I'm speaking to the majority.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Con

While I never claimed your name was Dorothy; that was part of a story that was written as an allusion to realistic issues in life, but you felt the need to claim your name was Alexander.

You cannot call me Con, because Con isn't a person - it's a position. When a skinny guy and a fat guy argue, it's not "skinny guy said I was fat; I am not fat, I am big boned" vs. "fat guy said being skinny was mainstream; he has to prove it's mainstream".
AlexanderOc

Pro

Con says he never claimed my name was "Dorothy"
He's right, he didn't. He claimed my name was "Dorthy". Please review his round 1 argument. He address me as Dorthy without using quotation marks, therefore claiming that I am to be reffered to by the name "Dorthy"
If you call a guy "Idiot", you are suggesting he is an idiot.

Con can also be a noun. For example, Aerogant is Con to the resolution.
His example is not relevant. His example assumes both parties are arguing, not debating. In that case, the parties would speak directly to eachother. In our case, both parties are speaking to an audience, not eachother. Therefore calling him Con still fits.

If you assume in my opponent's example that the fat guy and skinny guy are speaking to an audience, then the dialogue makes sense.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Con

That would be a typo. (Damn it Wizard of Oz.)

Con is not a noun - it's an adjective to describe a position.

My example used the same exact context that you use. You refer to me as Con; I refer to you as Por (well, you expect me to); the skinny man refers to the guy as fat man and vice versa. Throughout this, it's all towards the audience.
AlexanderOc

Pro

Con thinks I excpect him to refer to me as "Por". I most certainly do not.
He may refer to me whatever he chooses, however him speaking to me directly is only a detriment to him, as it causes the readers to feel excluded from his argument. Uninformerd, in a way.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Con is a noun, a position in a debate. One who holds a position in an opinion or view. Con holds his opinion as con, therefore he is Con in this debate.
Con is capitalized when referring to the opposition to avoid confusion.

When I say Con did something stupid, It's the same as saying Aerogant did something stupid. The only difference is the former is more formal and and less personal. A debate is not meant to be personal.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Con

Alexander, you need to stop nitpicking everything. Those who nitpick are those who pick at small things - why? It's all they can do.

You're making it personal, because by doing so, you're resorting to a perceptual fallacy. People can detest you, but they may not exactly be contesting your ideas.
AlexanderOc

Pro

I am only capable of retorting what arguments my opponent provides. If he chooses to provide a small agrument, I am forced to point out small errors.

I'm actually making this debate impersonal, not personal. My opponent did not read the last line of my last argument obviously.
Also, the "perceptual fallacy" is not an actual fallacy. I'm unsure what my opponent is refering to by it.

Furthermore, I'm making no effort to detest Con, I'm rather only contesting his points and leaving it at that.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
"How do you know for certain that I wasn't accepting my stupidity?" This is not the statement of someone accepting their stupidity. I know my psychology more than I know myself.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Just as sarcasm can be lost among people, it can also be unitentionally found.

How do you know for certain that I wasn't accepting my stupidity? One cannot assume verbal irony when it is not implied.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
not grown*
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It's the trait of denial. Denial is why your intellectual capacity has now grown. Thank you for further demonstrating a serious issue you have ignored for far too long.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
That's a shame. Me being such a twit seems to be a major downfall of mine. I should really go explain to all the people I beat in a debate that I did not deserve the win because my mental capacity is so low.

You should go explain to all the people who you've lost to why you're so intellectually gifted and that your losses were just an unfortunate series of flukes.

Because, after all, Mental capacity is the tell-all end-all sign of intellect.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
A story is not always a story - sometimes, there are lessons and allusions within a story. Frankly you do not have the metal capacity to understand such wise words, I'm afraid.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Oh, my bad. I was pro.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
OK,so where are your arguments? You told a story. You didn't back up your points.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
"There are no monsters."

"They can't hurt you."

Please, increase your mental altitude. Everything to you seems so big because you're mentality is so small - expand yourself and all things will be simple as they should be.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Mental ability is not improved by request, much less a one meant to offend.

In the resolution, you mentioned a person named Tommy. Meaning it was addressing a person, and telling him something. It is therefore not making a claim. A claim is a clear statement on a position.

This title was not declarative, but rather informative.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AerogantAlexanderOcTied
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 did exactly this: "."