The Instigator
MassiveDump
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
4567TME
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

You Just Lost The Game

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
MassiveDump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,546 times Debate No: 34701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

MassiveDump

Pro

I stand in affirmation that you, the contender, just lost the game.

What is the game, you might ask?

Rules of The Game:
1. Everyone is playing the game.
2. If someone thinks about the game, they lose the game.
3. If someone loses the game, they restart and continue to play the game.

Therefore, I instigate the following:

1. My opponent is playing the game.
2. My opponent has just thought about the game.
3. My opponent must still be playing the game, because if he lost prior, he still continues to play.

Therefore, my opponent just lost the game.

Umad bro?
4567TME

Con

I have not lost yet, there is criteria to officially lose, read rule 3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
MassiveDump

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him best of luck.

"I have not lost yet, there is criteria to officially lose, read rule 3:"

Rule three states that when someone loses the game, they must announce it to at least one person in the phrase, "I lost the game," or the like.

However, to go about following this rule, one must have already lost. As rule 2 states:

"If one thinks about the game, one loses the game."

My resolution was not that my opponent followed all three steps of the game properly. My resolution was that my opponent lost the game by playing it and thinking about it.

My opponent did not counter this, therefore he concedes.
4567TME

Con

My opponent clearly shows a misunderstanding of The Game, or perhaps a misunderstanding of what "rules" mean:

According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
rules - c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Since more than three sources (Wikipedia, which was sourced in an article from The Metro, and http://www.losethegame.com... as well as http://www.ilostthegame.org...) list the additional rule of announcing loss verbally to others, this is not a random byline. By reading this, we can infer that when one thinks of the game, this loss is not yet official until the verbal announcment is made, and I have not yet done so. I would assume you're talking about official loss here.


Furthermore, this shows your initial argument was poorly researched, due to the fact that you never mention said rule, when nearly all versions of The Game's rules contain it.
Debate Round No. 2
MassiveDump

Pro

I can honestly argue everything my opponent just said in a very short amount of characters.

--------------

First Contention

For those of you too lazy to click on links, here's rule #3, word for word:

"3. Losses must be announced to at least one person."

Nowhere in rule number three does it state that "You don't lose unless you tell someone that you lost." Not on any of the sources my opponent listed, showing Con isn't even listening to his own sources.

On the contrary, here is rule #2:

"2. Whenever one thinks about The Game, one loses."

That's all it takes. It doesn't matter whether you announce whether you lost or not if you already lost. And my opponent has not disagreed that he fell into the trap of rule two. Therefore, he concedes that he did in fact lose the game.

Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2.

Second Contention

My opponent has, however, admitted that he did not follow rule three. If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater. And as the saying goes, "cheaters never win". So, if he's not obeying rule number three, it is only fair that he loses the game because he cheated.

--------------

Conclusion

My opponent has nicely dug himself into a no-win situation. Either only rule number two decides whether you lose or not, and since he followed rule two he lost, or rule three does in fact apply, and by not following it, he's cheating and has lost as a penalty.

Either way, my opponent just lost the game, and so did you.
4567TME

Con

First, some synonyms for "concede", because you've used that word multiple times in both debates we've had, and courtesy of thesaurus.com, I have some alternatives:


accept, accord, admit, allow, avow, award, cave in, cede, confess, cry uncle, fess up, fold, give up, let on, own, own up, quit, relinquish, say uncle, surrender, throw in the towel, waive, yes one, yield



First you say: "Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2."
Then you say: . "If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater."
Well, which is it?


"My opponent has nicely dug himself into a no-win situation. Either only rule number two decides whether you lose or not, and since he followed rule two he lost, or rule three does in fact apply, and by not following it, he's cheating and has lost as a penalty.
"
There's leaps of logic and then there's this. A cheater would refuse entirely to acknowledge rule number three, and I have not yet done this for the sake of the argument.

In my theory, your own loss of The Game is not yet counted because you have not publicly acknowledged it. Say it, I guess you could probably even write it.

But if this rule plays no impact in someone losing, then why does it appear? It must be that it plays a part in solidifying one's loss.




Debate Round No. 3
MassiveDump

Pro

"Concede" Is a very common debate word, and my opponent using half his argument to insult it is poor conduct I.M.O.

----------

"First you say: "Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2."
Then you say: . "If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater."
Well, which is it?"

Those phrases have two completely different implications that lead up to the same thing. Here are both phrases summarized:

"It is possible to lose without following rule 3." ; "If you don't follow rule 3, you're cheating and you lose."

One means if you don't follow rule three, you can still lose; one means that if you don't follow rule 3 you will lose. Combined, my opponent can lose, and has lost by cheating, but there is no contradiction here.

"A cheater would refuse entirely to acknowledge rule number three, and I have not yet done this for the sake of the argument."

Not necessarily. One can acknowledge a rule, and still not follow it. Since my opponent has not followed it, he cheated and therefore lost.

"In my theory, your own loss of The Game is not yet counted because you have not publicly acknowledged it."

Let's try this again in case my opponent missed this bit:

YES IT IS.

Rule 3 is not at all affiliated with how you can lose. It simply tells you what to do after you have already lost.

Rule 2, and only rule 2, explains how one loses the game: if you think about it, you lose it. Bottom line.

"But if this rule plays no impact in someone losing, then why does it appear? It must be that it plays a part in solidifying one's loss."

The purpose of rule 3 is for there to be a mechanism for getting other people to lose the game. I encourage voters to read rule number three word for word and see if it says anything about how to lose.

----------

Conclusion

- My opponent has not denied that he thought about the game, and by rule 2, if he thought about it, he lost.

- My opponent has disregarded a rule, and by doing so, has lost by penalty.

My opponent lost the game on two different levels, and can only argue against it by making petty accusations (and apparently various synonyms for "concede").
4567TME

Con

RE: "Concede" synonyms: You calling them an "insult" is simply not true -- it is a legitimate idea. Calling it an insult, in fact, just comes off as paranoia.
-----------
Now, to this debate.

First off, question, where did you base these rules that you posted in Round One? They don't feature the rule we have been arguing over all day.

"The purpose of rule 3 is for there to be a mechanism for getting other people to lose the game. I encourage voters to read rule number three word for word and see if it says anything about how to lose."
While it doesn't say anything about how to lose, it shows what to do once you've thought about the game to legitimize a loss, and also serves the second purpose of spreading the loss to others, which in turn then will have a loss to legitimize.

"- My opponent has disregarded a rule, and by doing so, has lost by penalty."
Repeating the same phrase twice, nearly word for word, doesn't make it true. If I have done so in this debate, I apologize. Now, with the point above cleared up, it becomes clear I have not disregarded a rule -- I have indeed thought of The Game, but my loss is not legitimized because I have not yet used Rule #3 (not your Rule #3), whether in voice or in writing. Simply not yet enacting a step in procedure does not automatically equal complete disregard of a rule, unless the content of the rule explicitly states this.


In conclusion, as we head into the final round of debate, I request that voters note the fact that my opponent...


        1. Considered an actual note and statement I made to be an insult, in a petty attempt for me to lose conduct points.
        2. Used two phrases in his Round 4 argument ("My opponent disregarded a rule", and "lost the game on two different levels" that appear in previous arguments, and are not true either time.
Debate Round No. 4
MassiveDump

Pro

The whole synonyms thing has nothing to do with the debate; I'm not going to argue about it.

----------

Final Rebuttal

I'll open with this: one of the sources my opponent posted in Round 2 (specifically http://www.losethegame.com...) says that you don't have to follow rule three to lose. My opponent just killed his own case; I'm going back to bed.

But if that's not enough...

"First off, question, where did you base these rules that you posted in Round One? They don't feature the rule we have been arguing over all day."


That rule also comes from the sources my opponent posted. While it is not Rule #3, it is part of the game. Notice that I took it back as being rule 3 because I acknowledged the mistake and wish to continue debating the main issue, and not knit-picky stuff my opponent is bringing up.

"While it doesn't say anything about how to lose, it shows what to do once you've thought about the game to legitimize a loss,"

Nope. Never once does rule three say that announcing it legitimizes a loss. My opponent is making that up. Don't believe me? I wrote rule three verbatim in Round 3^.

"I have indeed thought of The Game,"

There you go. He has proven me right.

"Simply not yet enacting a step in procedure does not automatically equal complete disregard of a rule,"

What is does equal is that my opponent did not follow this rule. Therefore he's cheating, therefore he loses. If I have to say that one more time, I can't be held responsible for what I'm gonna do to this guy.

----------

Now let's look at my opponent's "conclusion".

"Considered an actual note and statement I made to be an insult"

Has nothing to do with the actual debate.

"
Used two phrases in his Round 4 argument ("My opponent disregarded a rule", and "lost the game on two different levels" that appear in previous arguments, and are not true either time."

Did he follow rule three? No. So he disregarded it. Did he lose by both thinking of the game and by cheating? Yes. So he lost on two levels. Both statements are true.

----------


So it's up to you: Does rule three have to be followed to legitimize a loss?

Not in any way whatsoever. Rule three says that you have to announce it to one person. It never,ever says that doing so will legitimize the loss. This was a part of the game my opponent invented to save his own skin.

In the end, rule two is the only rule that decides whether one has lost the game or not. So we now must look to rule two:

Bottom Line

P1: If you think about the game, you lose the game. (Rule 2)

P2: "I have indeed thought of The Game," (My opponent's statement)

C: My opponent lost the game.

And They All Lived Happily Ever After.
4567TME

Con

Well, here we are at the end. My opponent put up a brilliant campaign, and I respect him immensely for his persuasive attempts, but this cannot be denied:


"The whole synonyms thing has nothing to do with the debate; I'm not going to argue about it."

So why did you bring it up in the first place? My opponent clearly was just looking for something to trip me up on, something he admits was insignificant.


"P2: "I have indeed thought of The Game," (My opponent's statement)"
Stating the obvious isn't really a good debate skill.

http://www.losethageme.com...
Every time you think about The Game, and hence lose, you must say so.
(This is the only rule that can be broken, but do you really need to cheat..?)
My opponent: "says that you don't have to follow rule three to lose."
My opponent appears to suffer from short term memory loss, why remember how earlier he said: "If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater."

Anyway, when it says "can be broken", this rule means that it's the only rule of the three that depends on your own voluntary actions. Don't believe me? Let's run down the list:
  1. "You are playing the game". (Most versions claim every one in the world is. Obvious.)
  2. "Every time you think about The Game, you lose." (This, the first step towards a total loss (I'll explain later), is beyond your control. For example, if I mention the fact that there's a 1997 movie with Michael Douglas called "The Game"..., you must proceed to rule 3...
  3. "Losses of the game must be announced." (If they must be announced, then I must ask my opponent why he thinks that they don't play a part in losing.)

All my opponent has done so far is shown that he doesn't understand what he's read in Rule 3 -- his entire argument is crashing down around him.

"Did he follow rule three? No. So he disregarded it."

For the third time:

I have simply not proceeded to rule 3 yet. I am in between rules 2 and 3. Rule 3 exists. Goodness, my opponent appears to have an extremely thick skull.

And one last thing.

Rule 1: I am playing the game. Passed.

Rule 2: I thought about the game. Passed.

And now, just now, with Rules 1 and 2 passed, can I officially lose the game, not just by thinking about, but by proceeding to rule 3, which my opponent's evidence explicitly states I MUST FOLLOW...


I have to say.

I LOST THE GAME.

There. I just lost five seconds ago. Not at the start yesterday. FIVE SECONDS AGO. You know why? Because I followed Rule 3.

-----------------------

And now, my final address to our dear voters, summing up my final argument.

  1. My opponent does not appear to follow his own advice. He criticizes me for continuing the synonyms argument, even though he himself dismisses their signifigance.
  2. He uses "evidence" that destroys him, namely http://losethegame.com....

P.S. Oh, and one more thing.

"If I have to say that one more time, I can't be held responsible for what I'm gonna do to this guy."

Not much, I'm guessing, since we're separated through a screen... physical contact... and we have no clue where each other live. Resorting to quasi-humorous rage statements doesn't really do much for you either way, but show that you can't remain cool during a debate.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
Wait- you just said "I lost the Game." is that a concession? XD
Posted by 4567TME 4 years ago
4567TME
Note to all voters:

Please note that my statement " He criticizes me for continuing the synonyms argument, even though he himself dismisses their signifigance," should be replaced with, "He criticizes me for continuing the synonyms argument, despite the fact he felt the need to respond to it.". Also, I admit significance is spelled wrong.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
MassiveDump4567TMETied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro points out that Con admitted thinking about the Game, which results in a loss (in an official sense). Also, Con did not counter a lot of Pro's arguments, which makes his own case less convincing. However, Con did use a lot of links, unlike Pro.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
MassiveDump4567TMETied
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: Pretty obvious win as c on obviously thought about the game and lost. Spelling and grammar was even I suppose.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
MassiveDump4567TMETied
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: This was a surprisingly interesting debate. The crux of the argumentation was on whether or not Rule 3 - which dicatates that one must announce their loss - must necessarily be completed before one loses the game. The very nature of that rule implies that it does not, as the rules explicitly state that losing occurs the moment one thinks of the game. The announcement, then, is an indicator to others that you have *already* lost and a means to get them to think of the game as subsequently lose. Con's second source on the matter supports this, claiming that Rule 3 is the only rule that is allowed to be broken. Very interesting debate but arguments go to Pro.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 4 years ago
orangemayhem
MassiveDump4567TMETied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: If I could award negative points, I would award them to Con for conduct. The whole synonyms saga was his making and was nothing short of unnecessary, unwarranted and downright rude. Equally, saying "this isn't a good debating skill" doesn't look great for him. S/G was brilliant on both sides (I do like a debate with efficiently deployed S/G); and arguments went to Pro because he ultimately proved Con wrong (in my mind, at least). He had lost the game, he was just choosing not to announce it - the very wording of Rule Three states that losing is a prerequisite for its activation. Con was the only side to use sources, but one of them was Wikipedia and Pro successfully used Con's own sources against them. Easy win for MassiveDump.