The Instigator
Whataburger
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Whataburger will not contradict themself

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 7 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,701 times Debate No: 69101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (7)

 

Whataburger

Pro

1. Only things that Whataburger writes in this round during the Pro's speech time can be used against Whataburger. Comments are excluded.
2. Whataburger refers to the user on Debate.org, not the Texas-based restaurant or any other entity.
3. Anything written in round one is off the flow and cannot be used against me.
4. Meaning and definitions are contextually defined. Semantics hold no sway.
5. Con cannot urge a vote based on what they perceive to be a contradiction, they must actually prove that Whataburger made a contradiction.

All questions should be asked in the comments prior to accepting. If you find yourself in a difficult position because you failed to do that, that is your own fault. I will not cover for you.

And remember to brush your teeth you bunch of slobs.
Wylted

Con

1. What are the rules again?

2. Are you going to answer my questions?
Debate Round No. 1
Whataburger

Pro

1. Sorry, I forgot what the question was.

2. I don't know, maybe? I guess we'll see.
Wylted

Con

1. Are you a Texas based resaraunt or any other entity?

2. Are you Gay?

3. Are you an alien from outer space, a ghost or a human?

4. Can we use semantics? If not how do we determine the meanings of words?

5. Am I sexy as fvck?
Debate Round No. 2
Whataburger

Pro

1. No.

2. No, I'm Whataburger.

3. I'm not any of these things

4. The rules exist a priori to the the start of the game.

5. I don't know who fvck is or what you look like.
Wylted

Con

Ah ha. I got you. I win. I'll get into that later though.

1. Is McDonalds healthy?

2. Do you exist?

Also from here on out I define the following term

Whataburger- is a homosexual

3. Are you a human?

4. How do you take you like your coffee?
Debate Round No. 3
Whataburger

Pro

Framework is an a priori issues that can't be changed at the will of the Con halfway through the debate. None of Con's definitions matter and are not grounds to vote for him. Con must show a contradiction through the given language of the Pro in a contextually defined sense. Anything else does not warrant a vote for Con. If he even attempts to do this he forfeits the Conduct voter at minimum.

---
1. It can be. Macro and Micro nutrients are complicated things.

2. Maybe. I'm pretty sure I exist, but one can never be absolutely sure.

3. No.

4. In a cup with a little bit of cream.
Wylted

Con

1. What's burger states that he is not homosexual in one of the rounds and a define what's burger as Gay, so I win.

2. I googled Whataburger and it is a Texas based restaraunt so my opponent by claiming to be Whataburger is claiming to be a Texas based restearaunt, so he contradicted himself there.

3. My opponent is a human, so according to the site bylaws requiring only humans to hold an account, his participation in this event while claiming to not be human is a contradiction in itself

4. A Kritik is an argument that challenges a certain underlying premise in the debate. If my opponent doesn't offer rebuttals for my Kritik than by default he loses. My Kritik is this. Contest debates degrade from the quality of the site because they're a way to game the ELO system and they get in the way of intellectual discussions.

5. My opponents name is a question yet it doesn't have a question mark.

6. My opponent has a small penis but is from Texas. A contradiction

Vote Con I win
Debate Round No. 4
Whataburger

Pro

I'm not going to do more work than I need to here. The rules are a priori and Con is grasping for straws.

1. My name is Whataburger, not What's burger. Even if this argument was legitimate it isn't directed at me.

2. The rules are a priori.

3. The terms of use only have the word 'human' listed once, and it isn't listed in the way Con says it is. I am not a human.

4. If you are unfamiliar with what a Kritik is or how it operates in debate, then you can ignore this argument. Con doesn't make the argument properly anyway. There isn't an alternative to the K, there are no standards, and even if the K was legitimate Con links into it at the point he joins the debate. You either don't consider this on your flow or it's turn.

5. My name isn't What's burger or what a burger, it's Whataburger.

6. I don't have a penis and I've never even been to Texas.

***

I never contradict myself. Vote Pro.

Also the rules.
Wylted

Con

pro esponds no to being asked if he's an entity in round 2

Entity

1. something that has a real existence; thing:

2. being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained:

3. essential nature:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Here is how we determine the definition of a word according to Pro from round 3.

Con must show a contradiction through the given language of the Pro in a contextually defined sense.

We can see from context it meets either definition 1 or 2.

Here is the contradiction

Round 2 "I'm Whataburger"

This implies existence which means pro contradicted himself from when he said he wasn't an entity'. I'm is a contraction of I am am being the most relevant part of the contraction is defined in as

"1st person singular present indicative of be" http://dictionary.reference.com...

a contradiction from non entity.

Not to mention in rnd 2 he refers to the rules as singular a priori in 3 plural a prioris
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
True, thanks for voting RD :)
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
Just because it is not explicitly against the rules does not mean it isn't bad conduct.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Nope RD, it's well within the rules pro established.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
:a definition in which the meaning of a word, expression, or symbol is partly or wholly determined by defining the meaning of a larger expression containing the definiendum (as a definition of legal right by the statement "X has a legal right to y=X has a claim upon somebody for possession of y which the courts will sustain") "contrasted with explicit definition " compare recursive definition

http://i.word.com...

Meets the definition.

If you want revenge, why don't you debate me on a real topic?

Or do you just debate things you expect an easy win from such as issuing a challenge where you can forfeit every round and win?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Well on DDO we don't ask people to vote based on information outside of the debate. It should be based only on what's presented within the debate.
Posted by Whataburger 2 years ago
Whataburger
To anyone reading this debate and considering how they should vote, read this thread first: http://www.debate.org...

I'm new to DDO, but I am not new to the debate world as a whole. What Wylted did in this round is unacceptable and should not be condoned in a community like this. Debate is an important activity and we have to maintain the legitimacy of it.

If you give your vote to the Con, you saying that his tactics are acceptable. They are not, and I hope you will not legitimize them.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
This debate was really awful, mostly because of Con being a bit of an a**hat (okay, maybe more than a bit). I made my views on this debate fairly clear in the "Voting Contestion" thread, but in case you didn't read it my views on it are this: Wylted's contradiction was only explained in the final round, which makes me not really want to consider it since that's insanely abusive. I also don't buy it simply because the rules states that "Whataburger refers to the user on Debate.org" which would imply being an entity at least in terms of the internet, which nullifies the contradiction presented. And while he didn't make this argument, he never had the chance to make this argument since the contradiction was only presented after he no longer could respond, so I give him a little lee-way there.

The rest of the contradictions were so blatantly bad that the surface responses given by Pro were sufficient to respond back to them.

The only other place I could vote would be on the "K", but a) as pro points out, it's not even a proper K and without an alternative there's no reason to vote for it, b) there's no warrants to it and the K is just a really bad K, c) none of the impacts are actually true impacts (this debate existing certainly doesn't stop intellectual debates from existing on the site), d) the link turn is just kind of true here, Con's trying to game the game debate to pad his elo...I could go on but you get the point.

So at the end of the day, I don't buy that there's a contradiction that's been proven.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
The last thing you want is for this to go to the front page. You stand less of a chance winning there than you do hidden from the masses. You're better off not doing stuff that will get this on the front page.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Just lay down.
Posted by Whataburger 2 years ago
Whataburger
I wasn't trying to get a cheap win, I was trying to play a game. You're starting from an assumption that I had ill-intent and then transferring that stigma onto me. Now instead of addressing my complaint head-on and defending yourself you're attempting to white-knight your way out of this.

You're not playing the high road, you're wrong and you're not willing to engage in the ethical question underlying your action.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Waiting to make your strongest argument in the last round where your opponent can't refute it is a dick move.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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: That was pretty clever. Burying the question of being an entity within the question of being a restaurant. Yes, the contradiction becomes obvious once that is taken into account.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Whataburger's premise was not to contradict themselves. They did in the first round, so I can't honestly say they made a more compelling argument. Con didn't exactly point out any contradictions, but used a pretty reliable source. Basically, this was one wierd example in hw to ask the right legalese questions.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: EDIT: RFD in comments, now that I think about it.
Vote Placed by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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: PRO denies being any entity, but claims to specifically be Whataburger, an entity. CON points this out, clearly negating the resolution.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for final round blitzkrieg, and generally wasting everyone's time when the contradiction was obvious in R3 when pro insisted he or she is not an entity, yet con chose to delay mentioning it until R5 when pro could no longer respond. Arguments I won't say are won by con, but lost by pro. Sources... There were no sources until the final round, and then they were only key to the case assuming the reader is not familiar with the English language; therefore absolutely no reason to move it outside the tied range.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
WhataburgerWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Wylted was the only one to use sources, thus making them the most reliable. Using the "entity" argument, Wylted showed that Whataburger did contradict himself.