Tommy, Go Back To Bed. There's No Monsters. They Can't Hurt You.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 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: con did exactly this: "."
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.