The Instigator
greatkitteh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,121 times Debate No: 78121
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

greatkitteh

Pro

I'll Try a Slightly Dufferent version of my trick.

PS: I Hope your nearsighted.

Resolved: Kim Jong Un Is My Best Freind, BOP in Both Sides. Con Akso Must Prove that Kim Jong Un IS NOT My best friend.

Rules:
1.Bop is shared
2. Kritiks are legal*

3.No forfeites
4.No Nuditity
5.any violation of the rules is a 7 Point forfeit
6.Always Buckle up
7.You May not be a Beliber
8.You may Not Noobsnipe
9.Any violation of rule 5 Is a 7 Point forfeit
10.Any violation of rule 9 is a 7 Point Forfeit
11.Debate In Wnglish
12.Do Not abuse Report
13.Do Not Cry
14.You may not Cuss
15.No Smeantics
16.Do Not Be Heli in disguise
17.Do Not be genesis in disguise
18.Upon accepting, You agree to all the rules
19. DO NOT Call be a dog
20. DO NOT Gisit Switzerland This week
21.DO NOT visit North Korea and find out
22.If you are the reak Kim Jing Un, Reject the debate
23.Buckle up.
24.Do NOT argue in round 5
25.DO NOT Rickroll me in the sources
26.DO NOT Contact Airmax and tell Him to ban me for Willful Blinding
27.Wikipedia is a Source
28.Your sources may not be From CNN OR FOX NEWS
29.You May Not Mention your ELO
30.If you noobsnipe, It must be a 360 No Scope.
31. Do Not Eat pizza with your buts
32. Eat Your veggies!
33.Do not ask heli To vote on the debate
34.Do not Pretend to be justin beiber
35.Do not make a Vote From A Fake account
36.Do Not Kill llamas
37.Do Not Try to hack me
37.1: Con must conceed the debate in round 2. If Not, Con forfeits 7 Points
38.You May not copy paste
39.All of these rules apply only to con
40.you may be a Juche follower, Unless you are Uther.
41.Do not BARCH in clash of clans
42.Do not be Part of any Mexican Terrorist Group
43.Do Not Speak feench
44.Do not come in like a wrecking ball
45.Do NOT Prank me
46.Do not murder Kim Jong Un
47.Di Not eat Uncle Bem's rice while watching The Interview
48.KASHMIR is india's!
49.Do NOT be dennis rodman
*: that is, if you are pro.
50.Do NOT Be dennis rodman
Bonus 1: Don't kention I Put the same rule twivr
Bonus 2:Don't Kention I put yhe sane rule twice.
tejretics

Con

== Case ==


OVERVIEW: The burden of proof lies on Pro. The resolution is a fact claim, thus is not a plan topic. This indicates that Pro must show the resolution as definitely true.


Rule 37.1 states “Con should concede this debate to Pro.


I argue that: (1) this rule is abuse of debate resolutions itself, and (2) has immense negative theoretical and moral impact. As such, we must prefer the resolution over the rules.


Debate Theory:


The rules are abusive, since they grant a victory for Pro on acceptance. I’m advocating that the nature of the creation of this debate itself is a reason to vote Pro down. Basically, Pro tries to guarantee his victory on acceptance -- this is abusive. This theoretical argument is topical, since I can object to the rules by challenging them. I argue that due to the abusiveness of Rule 37.1, prefer the resolution.


The shell’s postulates: there is a breach of equal grounds for both debaters to argue by this debate. Under standard debate norms, both debaters must have equal grounds for argument, without any unfair advantage, since that would result in inequality, which is morally impermissible.


A - Interpretation - Resolutions and rules must be crafted to allow both sides to have equal grounds for argumentation.


B - Violation - Rule 37.1 is an explicit violation of A, since it says Con loses by default, which means there is no argumentative front for Con.


C - Standards


Such a debate is inherently unfair. Equality is the prime objective against morality, and the right to equality is fundamental. I value morality, thus my criterion is equality. Inequality necessitates a branch between right and wrong, thus all concepts of morality are determined by equality. Violating equality explicitly by Rule 37.1 is sufficient reason for the implication to stand.


D - Impact - The implication: vote Pro down. You can vote Con because the resolution contradicts rule 37.1, so we can prefer the resolution over rules due to to linguistic understanding. You can vote Con because there was no explicit translation, meaning English text is superior. You can vote Con because equality hinges all morality, and this is a Violation of all standards for equality.


The alternative to moral loss is to vote Con, and discard all possible arguments Pro may present after rejecting Rule 37.1. Conduct is critical to any debate setting, and standard appropriate conduct holds more weight than the rules.


The shell is sufficient reason to vote Con and prevent this abuse.


Don’t let Pro argue that it was my decision to accept -- even without my acceptance, the abuse would have still stood. Another debater could have accepted this, and resulted in them losing. The abuse would impact them. Morality means treating all with fairness and respect, and only I have succeeded in proving that true.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
greatkitteh

Pro

Impressive try; Tejas, But I have a few tricks still up my Sleeve.

Arguments:
1.) Rule 30.
Con Has Not k'ed Rule 30, Thus Con agrees on it. Thus, If

1.Con Has Noobsniped

2.Con did Not No-Scope his Noobsnipe

Then Con Forfeites On Seven Points.

Con, (1) As of now, has 4000-5030 ELO Points. I (2) Have 2000-3000. Thus, Cin roughly Doubles my ELO, Counting it as a noobsnipe.
So, Con has noobsniped.

Con also, Did not "No scope" the debate. Con has made multiple Comments concerning rules, Meaning Con Knew The rules. Con Has also Saw My First attempt to this, Meaning Con has prepared, And did not "no-Scope" his Noobsnipe.

2.) BOP

Con also did Not Kritik to two Rules:
Rule 16, And Rule17. Con also, Cannot Indefinately prove He is not Heli OR genesis. Again, Source 2, (2) Proves that con had Multiple debates About atheism, Which Is A sufficent cover for someone like genesis. Although I do not have to Press on, Con Must provide Inrefutable proof that Con is NOT heli or genesis.

3.) Kim Jong Un IS My Best friend.

This Argument is stalemate. Although I Must provide Inrefutable reason why Kim Jong Un Is, Con does not know my real name, Much less If Kim Jong Un Is my Best friend.

However, My Profile Shows That (1) I Have repeatively Defended Kim Jong Un and the regime, And (1) Even had a debate About How North Korea isn't that bad, Which I won. Thus, Kim jong Un would likely be my friend For Defending his regime. In the Other hand, CON cannot provide Evidence saying that Kim jong Un hates me.

4.) Rule 18.

Con missed a rule, Rule 18. I have written evidence up there That it said "Upon accepting, You agree to all the rules". Thus, Teja's ARGUMENT IS ILLEGAL.

P.S. Please don't kick me out of AOW, Younger senpai ;~;

Sources:
http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...

I am 1, Teja's profile is 2.
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttal ==


1) Rule 30


The definition of "noobsnipe" is up for debate. Pro provides us *no reason* to think I have "noobsniped" except the Elo difference. What is a "noob snipe"? It is a term within DDO, and I shall, therefore, use Airmax's guide as a source: "A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record." [1] I'd like to present the following observations:


OV1: I *did not* accept this to "inflate my win/loss record," and unless Pro proves otherwise, the accusation of noob sniping fails.


OV2: This is not a noob snipe even otherwise. What is a "noob"? A 'noob' is "a person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere or activity." [2] Pro has failed to establish an *objective* criterion for who is considered "inexperienced". It is impossible to prove anyone, even Pro, as *objectively* inexperienced, since "experienced" is generally subjective.


As such, I have not violated Rule 30.


2) Heil/Genesis


This commits the fallacy of negative proof. [3] I need not prove that I "am not" Genesis or Heil -- unless proof is provided that I *am* Genesis or Heil, you presume not by default. [3] Secondly, the rule says nothing about certainty, so even abductive justification (such as this) suffices.


3) Actual Issue


Once more, Pro commits a fallacy of negative proof. [3] The BoP is definitely on Pro, so if I have no background knowledge, I have to presume not. My impact here is that the term "best" is inherently subjective, thus, with lack of objective criterion, nobody can be someone else's "best" friend.


OV3: BoP is on Pro to prove that the North Korean Supreme Leader is his *best* friend. I needn't show anything, much less that he "hates [Pro]".


OV4: Pro just shows that the Supreme Leader is his *friend* -- not his "best" friend, as the resolution shows Pro has to prove.


4) Rule 18


My theory shell covers this. There is abuse with the rules, thus the rules can be challenged. Consider this debate as a contract between me and my opponent -- upon accepting, I signed the contract, thus making me follow the rules and resolution. But this contract is problematic -- it is an "unconscionable" contract. This means that at least *one* of the rules is unfair. [4] My theory shell establishes this. Even *if* an unconscionable contract is signed (as I did by accepting and as established by Rule 18), it is invalid by nature of the contract. [4]


Cases such as Lloyds Bank Ltd v. Bundy [5], and Harry v. Kreutziger [6] establish this. [4] Finally, that is the purpose of the shell -- critique an unfair or unconscionable rule.


Conclusion:


The shell still stands, and I have established that I must win. As such, vote Con.


== Sources ==


[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.bailii.org...
[6] http://www.canlii.org...

Debate Round No. 2
greatkitteh

Pro

I will defend my Case this round, And rebutt next round. as per the rules, con must waive round 5, unless con has a serious Kritik battle.

1) rule 30

Every Noobsnipe sees Two things

1. There is the Noobsniper

2. There is the Noob.

Con, Has, Noobsniped before As seen by irrefutable Evidence, Even drawing a comment that said: "Talk about a noobsnipe". There also, As con would admir, Has beem numerous accusations con noobsnipes. Con is the noobsniper.


I also, face a siginificant Disadvantige in the numbers. Con, Although it cannot be shown, has power to Shut down AOW Chats, While I am the 3rd newest Member. Con also Is A Moderator in the ddo wiki, I do not have an account.

So con, is the noobsniper, and i am the noob.

There is evidence that Con has Noobsniped before, And doesn't hesitate to do it again. Con also, Did Not accept a debate that said "Upon request: Kim Jong Un is my friend" Because Con thought It would be hard. In fact, Con has Laugjed in my face, As seen in the comments.

Con refused to acknowledge this is a Serius debate, And admitted to laughing and has a history to noobsnipe. Con also has Enormus power in the ddo wiki, And can shut down AOW messages, While I have none and is the third newest member, Meaning con, combined with The ELO gap, Has big advantiges, Andis a Noobsniper debating a Noob. In Other words . . . Con Is Noobsniping.

2) BOP
Con has repititively Argued for atheism, Meaning for gensis, Con is the perfect hideout. Con also, Almost never polls,meanig gensis can be offense, And Tejas could be a Different account, Scouting people.

3) Kim Jong Un is my best friend.

There is a Rule saying "Do NOT be dennis rodman". So, Con is not Dennis rodman. It is also Probable that, I have a Ablility to go to north Korea, Because Guam Is close enough. Guam is also Snall emough for private Airports, Thus, Itnis probable that I saw dear leader.

I also, Open expressed Frusturation with Guam, Like Kim Jong Un. So, Kim Jong Un and I Have a Common goal. Since dennis rodman is Not con, No One knows Who Kim Jong Un's friends are.


But, I Have evidence next round, That will say Kim Jong Un is my best friend.

4.) rule 18

Con's rebuttal Itself, Is a Violation of rule 18.






Sources:
http://www.debate.org...;


tejretics

Con

1) Rule 30

Pro *drops* all my objections to noobsniping. I showed the *evidence* from the definition that it wasn't a noob snipe. I did not start this debate to inflate my Win/Loss record. *I* challenged Greatkitteh to this, so this isn't a "snipe" either. Pro asserts I "laughed at his face". I wasn't mocking him. Such an accusation is considered severe. If Pro needs to resort to insults, I recommend he report me and close my account, since mocking is insulting. I maintain I did not mock him. Pro drops my evidence, so presume Con.

2) Heil/Genesis

There are multiple debaters that argue against God -- does that mean they are Genesis? Now, Pro is accusing me of being a multi-account of Genesis. I present a solution: Contact Airmax and ask him if my IP is the same. While I *could* be anyone epistemologically, Pro still commits negative proof -- until Pro *proves* I am Genesis, it fails. Multi accounting is also severe, so such an accusation is severe misconduct. I am severely disappointed at Pro's frequent insults and accusations.

3) The Topic

Pro has to provide *complete* evidence that the Supreme Leader is his best friend -- all Con shows is that they have a common goal. BOP is on Pro, and Pro is shifting BoP with the "no one knows who his friends are" arguments, which is logically fallacious.

4) Rule 18

As I said, rules can be violated if they are incredibly unfair, as established by this argument. This is dropped, so extend unconscionability.

== A Note on Sources ==

Pro's source is linking an instigator advantage link, which is irrelevant. The "instigator advantage" is just a +25 Elo granted to the Instigator if the Instigator of a debate wins, thus is irrelevant to all arguments presented.
Debate Round No. 3
greatkitteh

Pro

s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" />

Rebuttals:

A- My previous Source says that As instigator, I may set up ridicolous rules that must be followed. Thus , Con Must follow the rules, And i have complete power to make Ridicolous rules.

B- Also Covered, My Source says That I have complete power to set up and enforce Any rules.

C- Again, My source says I have complete Power To Abuse my advantuges.

D- However, My source says it's bot a Violation, And I can set up rules.

1. I provided Inage evidence That Kim Jong Un is my best friend.
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttal ==

I reject the source Pro presents. The source is a Wikia, thus can be edited by anyone and everyone. The theoretical argument I presented preempts any such sources, since it shows: (1) inequality is immoral, so these rules only result in spread of immorality, and (2) the contract I signed is an unconscionable one [1], which allows me to *reject* the rules like in many court cases. [1] While you can set up any rules, under unconscionable contracts, judges must *not* enforce these rules and must reject the validity of such contracts -- while you can set up such rules, judges must not ascribe to them, as established in Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy and Harry v. Kreutziger. [1]

As for the Supreme Leader issue, I'd like to note some observations.

OV1: The image does *not* appear, therefore can be discredited as a source.
OV2: Even if the image did appear, it's not a credible source since images can be edited, photoshopped, etc. Even *if* it were valid, it would, at best, establish that Pro is a friend of the Supreme Leader, not necessarily the "best".
OV3: Pro *drops* my argument that the term "best" is subjective, and fails to establish an objective criterion for the same, thus you can presume Con.

== Debate Theory ==

I will establish on my theory shell using the stock issues, and shows how my position that judges must vote Con is superior to Pro's objections.

1) Inherency

The counterplan I presented is for voters to halt the debate and presume Con by default. The structural inherency that causes harms to the plan -- common debate conduct requires equality, and Pro has violated common debate conduct. This shall cause harms outlined under "significance". Attitudinal inherency also allows the plan to fail, since common attitude is that unconscionable contracts are to be rejected.

2) Harms

The harms are outlined by the theory shell. Such a debate is inherently unfair. Equality is the prime objective against morality, and the right to equality is fundamental. I value morality, thus my criterion is equality. Inequality necessitates a branch between right and wrong, thus all concepts of morality are determined by equality. Violating equality explicitly by Rule 37.1 is sufficient reason for the implication to stand. The implication: vote Pro down. You can vote Con because the resolution contradicts rule 37.1, so we can prefer the resolution over rules due to to linguistic understanding. You can vote Con because there was no explicit translation, meaning English text is superior. You can vote Con because equality hinges all morality, and this is a Violation of all standards for equality.

3) Solvency

The CP is perfectly pragmatic to implement, and destroys the unfairness behind inequality and an unconscionable contract. Presume Con for all dropped arguments, so the CP can be > than the plan for failure to fulfill burden of proof.

As such, I urge a Con vote.

As a sidenote, I am *waiving* rule 39, which states "All of these rules apply only to Con", since this is an unconscionable contract. As such, both sides must *waive the final round as per rules*.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
greatkitteh

Pro

Good Krtik war, Con.
I urge The Reader to have fun!
tejretics

Con

Thanks, Greatkitteh, for an immensely fun debate. I liked the response to the theory shell TBH! On to voters for the voting! Vote Con.

Round waived as per rules.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
I'm going to try this one more time.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
RFD (Part 1)

== Rules Battle ==

Pro provided an obscene number of rules, many of which are quite ridiculous. Con rejected the rules and showed that they were unfair, specifically rule 37.1 "Con should concede this debate to Pro." This is clearly unfair. As a voter, I will simply disregard the rules and only accept those that are reasonable.

Pro then argued that Con knew about the rules when he accepted the debate. On the same note, Pro knew that Con will be running a Kritik. So I think both debaters are on equal footings here.

Rules 16 and 17 (Do not be Heli or Genesis in disguise) are silly rules and I will ignore them.
Rule 18 )Upon accepting, You agree to all the rules). Con rejected the rules so this point is ignored.

The only rules for debate are: noobsniping and burden of proof

== Noobsniping ==

Pro argues that Con is noobsniping but didn't explain what noobsniping is (The whole "No scope" part is completely silly). As per Pro, Con is noobsniping because he has more Elo points than tejretics.

Con challenges that he is not noobsniping which is "debating someone for the intention of inflating his/her win/loss records". It's like asking my daughter if she ate the chocolate, and she shakes her head "no" even though her face is filled with chocolate. So I'm not buying Con's defense here. Con then argues that Pro didn't really establish that Con's a noob. I think that this was an area that Pro could have really hammered Con with. Pro argues that "Con did it before" providing it in a broken sources (that I fixed). He presented two debates where tejretics appears to noobsniping. Con didn't defend his arguments very well either. He could have argued that Pro knew his intent to debate him, that Pro has a winning record, the he had excellent debates with noob but good debaters and that Pro already debated this very resolution so he has experience more than him on this subject"etc But Pro didn't make these arguments so I'll pretend that I don't kn
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
(Part 2)

What do I do about this rule? It boils down to this. Pro failed to show why tejretics is noobsniping in this very specific debate. Also, Pro is arguing that "A debater with more Elo debating another with less Elo is essentially noobsniping". But I don't see a strong link. Finally, Pro didn't present the negative impacts of noobsniping. So I will dismiss this rule.

== Burden of Proof ==

This is the more important rule. Con asked for shared BoP which is very fair to ask. But because the resolution is a fact claim made by Pro "Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend". This is a bare assertion by Pro and therefore the BoP is on Pro (i.e. he has the burden to prove it). All Con has to do is to attack Pro's arguments to win this debate.

== The Debate ==

This vote will be really about the debate after all, and not the rules.

Con's main argument is that Con defended Kim Jong Un in multiple debates. Seems like good arguments to support friendship. Pro argues that "best" is subjective, and "with lack of objective criterion, nobody can be someone else's "best" friend". I reject Pro's argument because just because it's subjective, the resolution didn't state that he is his best friend objectively. However, Con didn't make these argument, so as an unbiased reader I have to assume that Pro has a point (which he doesn't). Con conceded that Kim Jong Un is his friend (really!), but argues that he didn't demonstrate that he's the best friend. So Pro can win this debate if he can show that Kim Jong Un is the best of his friends. Pro's defense is non existent talking about Dennis Rodman" So Con's arguments stand. Pro prove that Kim Jong Un is his friend, but not necessarily his best friend, and that's why I must vote Con.

P.S. The picture that Con provided didn't upload correctly.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Already is
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
P.s.

Thus debate shoyld be inckuded in the "Instugator advantuge" page.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
My oic was supposed to be a meme that said I'm his best friend.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
*Crys.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
;~; Noo tejas is dissappointed in me.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
GreatKitteh,

Stop worrying about elo lol. And making these debates certainly is not going to get you any higher. You need to actually show some BOP that kim jong un is your best friend, and believe it or not...Its easier to show BOP than to argue for the rules.

You see, your just digging a dipper whole every time you argue about the rules. Because you already lost conduct due to such harsh rules AND your missing an opportunity to make a fairly simple argument about how you can easily show that kim jong un is your best friend .

I wish both of you best of luck
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
You won't lose much Elo at all. You only lose Elo if you've lost two continuous debates, or with people who have around the same Elo as you or less.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
greatkittehtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because pro set up such ridiculous rules. Con has successfully shown that the strict and harsh rules are actually against pro and therefore because of that conduct must go to con. It is up to the voter to decide what is fair and what is not, and in this case setting up ridiculous rules to guarantee win is poor conduct. Con has a choice not to follow those rules, and the voter has the choice to penalize con for it. Furthermore, Pro failed to fulfill is BOP with extremely unreliable sources and he did not even come close to making an argument of how KJU is is best friend. Spelling and Grammar also go to con because pro had multiple spelling and grammar mistakes that were quite absurd. These spelling mistakes include "English" or "Me".
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
greatkittehtejreticsTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TheChristian 1 year ago
TheChristian
greatkittehtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made many spelling issues, such as misspelling of Heil, me, and even English. In edition, Con used DDO, wikipedia, and news sources, which were links to posts by Airmax, a site moderator, who knows the DDO rules, Wheras Pro used only DDO sources, which had little relevance to the debate.