You will not break the rules
Debate Rounds (5)
0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.
1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.
2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn.
3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.
4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise.
5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.
6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.
7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.
8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate.
9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules.
10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON.
11. CON must use an exclamation point instead of a period at the end of every sentence.
12. CON must include one palindrome, one simile and one pun in each round.
13. Both debaters must not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website:
26. PRO must not post any new rules requiring (or restricting) specific actions of either of us!
27. Each new rule PRO posts must be in the form of a written poem using the style and language of Emily Dickenson and be no less than fifteen verses!
28. PRO must also include one palindrome (such as "racecar"), one simile (such as "this debate is like a cat playing a mouse"), and one pun (such as the Cyanide and Happiness cartoon below, though he can make up his own pun and just write it out) in each round!
Rule #13 was broken in both rules #27 and #28 when he had spelling errors. If you click link http://www.merriam-webster.com... you will find that in rule #27 the word Emily and the word Dickenson are not in there. in rule #28 the word racecar is not in there so therefore he did not include both a palindrome and he also henceforth destroyed his validity on spelling These two rules must not apply if he further continued to break the rules.
14) CON must post a video of a funny cat per round.
15) CON must mention any of the US presidents who were present when the Philippines was under US jurisdiction per round.
16) CON must refer to PRO as Mr. Mister.
PRO broke pretty much all of my rules (and one of his own), so this debate is over.
Violation of Rule 27: Each new rule PRO posts must be in the form of a written poem using the style and language of Emily Dickenson and be no less than fifteen verses!
None of his rules are in the form of a fifteen-verse poem in the style or language of Emily Dickenson, as they must be as stated in rule 27. He makes the absurd claim that I broke rule 13 because the name "Emily Dickenson" isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If he really must resort to technicalities such as his to win, then fine. He, too, used a word not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (beore I did nontheless): "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;. http://www.merriam-webster.com... is not a word as found in http://www.merriam-webster.com....
Violation of Rule 26: PRO must not post any new rules requiring (or restricting) specific actions of either of us!
All of his new rules require specific actions of me when I clearly stated in rule 26 that he wasn't allowed to do that. Rule 26 is in no way a violation of rule 2. My opponent is free to post new rules, just none that require (or limit) specific actions of us. Rules 1, 8, and 9 are all examples of some such rules.
Violation of Rule 7: Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.
Rule 14 is in violation of rule 7: "Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate." Finding a youtube video would require me to do something outside of this debate.
And since I'm on the subject of rule 7 (my favorite rule), rule 13 also violated this rule, in that we must look up words we use to make sure Merriem Webster has them accounted for. "Racecar" for example is a widely recognized palindrome and is found in many beloved dictionaries, including dictionary.com. But in order for me to be sure it was okay for me to post it, I would have needed to access the Merriem Webster online database. By forcing me to do this, my opponent has violated rule 7.
Seeing as how my opponent is guilty of violating multiple rules in this debate, I urge the audience to vote CON. And don't forget to give me all seven points as stated in rule 8!
Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.
This means that there are in this rule loopholes and this loophole was found by Pro. Once again I would also like to state the biggest mistake created by pro was he not only didn't post any rules which disagrees with every rule there is (excluding rules 26, 27, 28 which can not count seeing they are not valid rules) beside this he also broke specifically rule #6 stating 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.
Because of this rule he must forfeit and I win. Beside this just because I want to make specific a couple more of the broken rules and seeing he broke every single one I will elaborate on his lack adhering to rule #12. CON must include one palindrome, one simile and one pun in each round. This rule was completely blown off and this is just one of the many rules Con broke. Vote Pro for the win...
17) CON must respond in R3 (round 3).
18) CON must greet PRO an advanced Merry Christmas.
19) CON must apologize to PRO and the readers for his forfeit.
Happy early Hanukkah.
I don't know if you got my memo, Pro, but the reason I broke so many rules in my previous round is because you've already lost, so it hardly matters what I do. I don't need to post three new rules, don't need to write any palindromes. I just need to wait until everyone votes for me. I only regret this debate is five long rounds.
It's difficult for me to respond to your most recent statements, mainly because I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about. For example, "I would like to just state the for 1 Rules #1-16 were broking seeing you did put up 3 rules." I once did commission work online editing the grammar of foreign company's websites, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to tell me in this statement. I tried, I really did, so apologies for not responding to some of the stuff you said.
One thing I can tell you said is that rule 7 doesn't mean what I think it means. You claim "may not" doesn't necessarily apply to all scenarios. However, if this was truly the case, then it isn't a rule at all, but a mere statement of fact. It's like me making a rule, "Pro might win this debate, but he might not." That's not a rule.
Therefore, your "loophole" is obviously nothing but a desperate ploy to get out of a losing situation using semantics where it's impossible to do so. When used as a legal term (like in rules stating what is permitted and what is prohibited), the term "may not" means "must not in any situation (unless an exception is stated)". It does not mean "might not" because such a term is useless in law. (Can you imagine the Ten Commandments stating "Thou might not kill"?)
Light couldn't get away with fake rules. What made you think you could?
Vote Con. For reasons why (most of which weren't even addressed by my opponent), backtrack to round 2.
Extend the broken rules I stated in R3, and add rules 17-19 and 26-28.
20) Vote PRO.
21) Vote PRO.
22) Vote PRO.
DakotaKrafick forfeited this round.
bergeneric63 forfeited this round.
Apologies for forfeiting my round 4. Though my opponent forfeited a round also, so I don't feel too badly about it. Anyway, I pretty clearly refuted his accusations that I broke the rules in round 2, as well as pointed out reasons why he was the one who broke a rule first (most of which went unaddressed). Therefore, I urge a full 7-point vote to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules. Con wins. Nice debate topic Pro....
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.