The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,093 times Debate No: 2897
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (16)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Rules so far:

1. Rules that come before other rules are of greater importance and will be evaluated first. Rules that contradict earlier rules will be void.

1.5 Rules that force a debater to say nothing in any round will be void. This point can be argued.

2. No rule shall explicitly state that a debater will lose the debate without giving them a chance to avoid the rule. Obviously if a debater feels one of the rules has not given them this chance it will be debated and left to the voters to decide.

3. If a debater has already violated one of the rules before or at the same time that a the rule is put into place this violation shall be considered null and void.

4. A violation of any rule will result in the debater losing this debate unless explicitly stated otherwise in the rule.

5. If a debater uses any of the words: Avoid, bicep, cardiovascular, debater, ethical, fallacy, gargantuan, horse, icky, jungle, keep, llama, magical, no, optical, preacher, quality, reply, salvation, typical, ultra, violates, win, xenophobe, or zipper; that contestant will automatically lose this debate.

6. Both the pro and con may introduce new rules during their rounds.

I now stand open for my opponents first round.
Logical-Master

Con

1. In rounds 2-4, the instigator can only list two rules per round.

2. The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in rounds 2-4

3. The CON only has to abide by rules 1-6 in rounds 1-4.

3. Having a response with more than 177 characters is not allowed in rounds 2-4

4. Forfeiting a round is not allowed.

5. If the instigator uses any form of bad spelling, the instigator loses by default.

6. The PRO must truthfully and coherently answer any question the CON asks in rounds 2-4.

7. If the CON doesn't violate any rules, the PRO loses by default.

8. The word "question" is always allowed.

9. The PRO is not allowed to ask any questions.

10. If the PRO uses the words: Rule, Rules, follow, forfeit, debate, PRO, CON, opponent, adversary, foe, lose, sex, whore, mongrel, wall, Kleptin, carpet, argument, against, instigator, contender, brittwaller, this, but, although, beem0r, he, she, him, Edward, Elric, her, or round; the PRO will automatically lose.

Question: What is the name of the character in your Avatar?
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

(Response 1:) Yraelz accepts every ruling.

(Statement 1:)
4.5. The person contending must produce a minimum of 109 rulings, that apply to himself only, in each of his speeches. Each ruling must be grammatically correct. Each ruling may not result in Logical-Master winning the contest in any way.

5.5. The person instigating cannot use the phrase, "Logical-Master has failed", a violation of ruling 5.5 wins the contest.

(Response 2:) The animated character in my avatar is named Krim.

(Statement 2:) Logical-Master has failed
Logical-Master

Con

The instigator's latest 4.5 ruling is to be dismissed as it contradicts what has been stated previously.

Firstly, this contradicts a rule I had listed in the previous round as it requires that I abide by a rule besides the first six rules listed in this debate. As you can see, the rule which my opponent listed is the 19th rule in the round.

My opponent attempted to resort to trickery by labeling his rules as 4.5 and 5.5, but my opponent has already agreed that lables are irrelevant. How is this you might ask? Well it's quite simple really.

Notice my opponent's response in round 2: "Yraelz accepts every ruling."

If lables were really relavent, he would have objected to the fact that I labled my rules as 1-10 (rather than 7-17). Furthermore, he would have at least objected to the fact that I labled a rule as "#3" two times in the previous round. If lables were truly important, he would have told you that all of my rules are an attempt to replace the previous rules labled 1-6 and are therefore contradictory (thus making them null and void).

There's also the fact that the PRO lables his rules with a ".5" (thus making them sub rules) despite that these rules have nothing to do with the rules they are subbing.

With that said, we must only consider rules by their numerical order.

Secondly, the Instigator has violated the 2nd rule.

This is in reference to his most recent rule which concerns him merely having to state that Logical-Master has failed. He says this makes him the winner (which would automatically make me the loser). As you can see, I don't have a chance to avoid this rule after it is made. Therefore, this ruling of his is null and void.

As for my rules to be added:

1) If the PRO uses the words: Statement, Statements, ruling, rulings, not, grammar, grammatically, correct, speech, speeches, himself, only, good, bad, sentence, structure, rebuttal, crap, responses, rebuttals, winning, contest, food, stamp, computer, type, typing, lable, lables, failed, person, guy, man, dude, words, violation, the, not, character, each, limit, words, lmits; the PRO will automatically lose.

2) The PRO is to address the CON as "Super Great Mighty Awesome Intellectual King Logical-Master" in every response he makes.

3) All of the PRO's sentences must each have a minimum of 50 characters.

4) The PRO's grammar must be flawless.

5) The PRO must say "bonerific" in every sentence.

6) The CON is allowed to include parts of his speeches in the comment section.

7) The PRO can only make rules which involve pizza.

8) Rules which the PRO creates cannot exceed 6 words.

Question: What is the longest word in the English language?
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

(Response 1)My contention is simple, I will prove to everyone how the person contending has just lost the entire contest.

(Response 2)The person contending points out that numerical order of the rulings doesn't matter it is simply the order which the rulings were put into place. (Response 3) It is the person contending's downfall. (Response 4) Let us examine his first ruling labeled 3. It says that the person contending only has to obey rulings 1-6 in argumentation periods 2-4. (Response 5) However my first argumentation period had 7 rulings in it, being:

(Response 6)
1.
1.5
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

(Response 7)
Thus the person contending is advocating that Logical-Master only has to obey rulings:

1.
1.5
2.
3.
4.
5.

(Response 8)
As those would be the first 6 rulings. (Response 9) Unfortunately ruling number 6 states that both the person contending and the person instigating are allowed to make new rulings throughout the argumentation periods. (Response 10) Which means the person contending's first ruling labeled 3 is in direct contradiction of ruling 6. (Response 11) Thus my friends, the person contending's first ruling labeled 3 is thrown out of the contest as it falls under the mandates in the very first ruling. (Response 12) "Any ruling that violates another ruling will be void."

(Response 13) Thus it means that my ruling labeled 4.5 actually does apply to the person contending and has effectively been violated.

(Response 14) Now I would like my voters to look to the 1st ruling. (Response 15) It blatantly states that rulings that come before other rulings are of greater importance. (Response 16) Which means that since the person contending has broken a ruling of far greater importance than any rulings that I have broken that it will be evaluated first. (Response 17) Thus the person contending has lost.

(Response 18) Also since all of his final rulings contradict my ruling 4.5 and his ruling 2 they are all thrown out. (Response 19) Thanks.

(Response 20) P.S. I truthfully and coherently do not know the longest word in the English language.

(Statement 1)

7.The person contending is limited to using the Spanish language for the rest of his argumentation periods.
Logical-Master

Con

This round will be kept nice and simple. I'm going to start things by exposing the flaw in YL's reasoning that proposes my third rule to be dropped.

First, I ask that you examine the wording of my opponent's seventh rule.

"6. Both the pro and con may introduce new rules during their rounds."

What does one interpret from this rule? Both contestants of this discourse have the OPTION of presenting new rules. Now if the rule had stated "Both the pro and con MUST/CAN'T introduce new rules during their rounds", then my opponent would be correct. To make a long story short, it is impossible for me not to abide by (and violate) my opponent's seventh rule. If this is to be the case, my rule does not contradict it. Thus, including it into the list of the rules I proposed CON would have to abide by would have been unnecessary on my part.

Although to pacify my opponent, let us go ahead and assume that my third rule really did contradict his seventh one. If that is the case, then I still would not be guilty of having violated rule 4.5. Since my opponent doesn't have a problem with changing his argument between round two rounds (as in accepting my rule in the previous round and rejecting it in the current), then I see don't see a problem either:

Please take the time to observe my second rule made in round 1:

"The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in rounds 2-4."

A maximum of 110 rules in rounds two through four. In other words, it would be impossible for me to present 109 "in each of my speeches" while following the rules as I am only allowed to present a maximum of 110 rules within the time frame of 3 rounds.

With that being noted, all of my rules which I introduced during the previous round remain in tact. Since my opponent's round 3 ruling exceed 6 words and has nothing to do with pizza, it contradicts the rules of round 2 and is to be thrown out.

Given the fact that my opponent has conceded to violating the rules (response 16), he has conceded to losing this game.

My opponent resorts to some deception by giving you the idea that he really presented twenty responses, but his mistake was combining these responses into a paragraph. If each hinges on the other, that means that they are to be considered the same response. In other words, my opponent has violated the 177 character rule.

As for my opponent, he violated my first round 1 rule in that he doesn't list two rules. Take note that it was phrased in that he could ONLY present two rules per round. The fact that he presented ONLY one is a clear violation. Furthermore, this rule has nothing to do with pizza, so it automatically contradicts.

My opponent uses the sixth taboo word found in the sixth rule during round 3. This violation can be found in response 12.

My opponent uses some of the taboo words which I had listed in my first round 2 rule, thus further violation of the rules.

The PRO also doesn't refer to me as "Super Great Mighty Awesome Intellectual King Logical-Master" during his round.

Question: Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light?

Rules:

1) The PRO is not allowed to wear a hat during round 4.
2) The PRO's next round must be posted in the German language (excluding the answer to my question as well as the obligation in implied in my next rule)
3) The PRO is required to reveal his undying love for Ann Coulter in round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
Yraelz

Pro

(Response 1) Under ruling 3, the person contending only has to abide by rulings 1-6. (Response 2) Ruling 6 however obviously advocates that the person instigating and contending both have the opportunity to produce new rulings in each argumentation period. (Response 3) Ruling 3 however allows the person contending to not have such an opportunity. (Response 4) Such a contradiction has resulted in ruling 3 being dismissed from our contest.

(Response 5) The person contending attempts to justify his loss of ruling 3 by stating that I changed my position from one argumentation period to the next. (Response 6) Such a point is completely moot as the resolution advocates that one must abide by the rulings. (Response 7) Shifting advocacy was not a ruling in our contest.

(Response 8) Next the person contending advocates that my ruling 4.5 actually contradicts his ruling 2. Untrue. (Response 9) His ruling states the person contending can produce a maximum of 110 rulings in argumentation periods 2-4. (Response 10) The fact that his argumentation periods is plural means that it is referring to 110 rulings in each argumentation period. (Response 11) Furthermore there is simply not a way to contradict ruling 2, the operative word here is can. (Response 12) Meaning the person contending can produce a maximum of 110 rulings if desired or Logical-Master can produce a maximum of 1000 rulings if Logical-Master desires. (Response 13) The only thing that could contradict ruling 2 would be a ruling stating that Logical-Master cannot produce 110 rulings per argumentation period.

(Response 14) The fact that the person contending has violated rulings 4.5 once again makes all of his new rulings a direct contradiction of it. (Response 15) Thus they are thrown out of the contest. (Response 16) Which means my violations of such rulings are moot and I have not yet violated any ruling.

(Response 17) Finally the person contending advocates that I violate his ruling 1. which states that I can only list two rulings per argumentation period. (Response 18) (Response 19) Sadly the person contending overlooks the operative word in that sentence, being: Can. (Response 20) The word can urges possibility, ruling 1 simply allows me to do something I could already do. (Response 21) I can also list 1 ruling, or even 100 rulings if I really felt like it. (Response 22) Only a ruling stating that I cannot would contradict.

(Response 23) With everything above in mind I can only see where the person contending has been destroyed in our contest and must be voted down.

(Response 24) P.S. I do not believe I have danced with the Devil in the pale moon light.
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent starts off by stating that my third ruling allows me not have the opportunity of creating new rules. However, according to the wording of that rule, I am allowed to reject the opportunity of creating new rules during my round. This is due to the word "may." Since my opponent has not provided a valid reason as to how I can violate the seventh rule, my first answer on this matter is to be accepted.

Nexts, YL presents a strawman through suggesting that I am attempting to justify my loss, but as you can see, I have not done this. Exploiting the fact that my opponent needed to change his argument shows the weakness of my opponent's case.

As far as 4.5 contradicting my second rule in the debate, my opponent's response on this matter is erroneous. Rounds and rules being plural don't imply what my opponent is talking about.

Take note of the following sentences:

The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rule in rounds 2-4
The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in round 2-4
The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rule in round 2-4.

Noting our English language, none of these sentences make sense. Rules refers to there being more than one rule (as in 110 rules). Rounds refers to my rule's reference to more than one round. Thus, I was clearly applying this rule to multiple rounds. Now if I had said something along the lines of "The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in each of his rounds, my opponent would have a legitimate argument. Therefore, my opponent's 4.5 rule is contradictory as I would not be able to present 109 rules per round while abiding by the rule which I had already set up. Therefore, I am justified in dismissing it.

As far as this business about "can" goes, it still contradicts. This is due to the fact that I refer to me being able to introduce a MAXIMUM (in other words, I am limited to a certain amount) of 110 rules in the time period of 3 rounds. Indeed, can is a matter of choice, and I have the choice and making as many rules as I desire as long as it doesn't exceed 110 rules within the time frame of 3 rounds. Any way you take it, my opponent's 4.5 rule contradicts the second rule I introduced during round 2.

As far as violations go, my opponent ignores the fact he conceded to violating the rules in the previous round.

Yraelz: "(Response 16) Which means that since the person contending has broken a ruling of far greater importance than any rulings that I have broken . . ."

Not only that, but I exposed my opponent on rules which he violated previous to the rules I created in round 2 during my round 3 arguments. Since my opponent has not responded, he concedes to having violated my 177 character rule and concedes to have violated the sixth rule that he had presented during round 1. In short, claiming that he has not violated any rules during this debate is anything BUT true.

And of course, my opponent has violated all of my most recent rulings.

As for violating my first rule presented in round one, my opponent overlooks the word next to can; he overlooks the word "ONLY." In other words, I stated that my opponent's only options in presenting rules was to present two rules; my opponent only had one option. Since he has ONLY presented one, he has violated my rule.

Closing Statements: As you can see, my opponent has not proven the resolution; I have not violated any rules and have certainly not dropped any of the arguments which my opponent has made. On the contrary, my opponent has not only admitted to violating rules (which he even attempts to deny during round 4), but has also dropped several of my arguments that exposed him on his violations. Thus, it's fairly obvious that I have won both the contest and the debate. With that said, at the very least (assuming you buy into my opponent's case), my opponent would still not have maintained the resolution. My opponent has admitted to violating the rules (so there's not a reason to believe that he hasn't violated the rules). If you are to believe that I've violated the rules, you are to (at the very least) consider the contest portion a tie. If that is the case, I haven't lost. Since I haven't lost, my opponent has not upheld his side of the resolution and thus loses the actual debate. However, there is absolutely isn't a reason for you to believe that I have violated any of the rules so this isn't an issue. At any rate, vote CON.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
In which case: Even if that is so, I still win as my opponent guaranteed that I would lose, according to the resolution. However, if we both violated the rules, this would be a tie (for more info, see my last round on this debate), thus, PRO would have failed to uphold his burden.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The debate became over who has to obey which rules and which rules apply.

No one really followed the rules after round 2.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Probably the most amazing debate upon this website!
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I have no idea what this is lol.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Sure, but not soon as I've got midterms. :(
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Want to do a variation of this sometime Logical?
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
..... Please don't flip a coin to decide. Winning isn't worth it if the 2 hours I spent writing this debate are just ignored.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Wow. Makes me wonder if I could have gotten away with forfeiting my rounds.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
What the?

I'm flipping a coin to decide. Whoops...it's pro!
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Oh but I *hate* you two x.x

I don't want to read all of this, but I'm going to...and I have midterms coming up XD

BTW, Yraelz, what were you planning to do with the list of forbidden words? I noticed they each started with a letter of the alphabet excluding "Y".
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
YraelzLogical-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 shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
YraelzLogical-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:43 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzLogical-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:34 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
YraelzLogical-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
YraelzLogical-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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
YraelzLogical-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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
YraelzLogical-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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
YraelzLogical-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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
YraelzLogical-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:30