The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

You've excluded we, you smartypants.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 95883
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




And balance is coming.


Thank you for allowing me to debate with you.
Now the resolution of this debate is :You've excluded we, you smartypants.
Getting rid of the smarty pants, you can see that the resolution states: You've excluded we.
Now, since the pro side failed to provide any definitions, I would like to provide definitions of my own.

You:used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
Have:possess, own, or hold.
Excluded:deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.
We:used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
"Smartypants":a person who talks and behaves like someone who knows everything.

Now based off of my definitions, the resolution now reads :" You, as in the person I am addressing, possesses access to bar someone from a place, group, or privilege, because I am a person who talks like I know everything."
Now, I negate this for the following reason.

1.Statistically Speaking, not all of us can be "smartypants"

There are those who cannot form coherent words and/or those who are too young to take in intelligence.
"About 15 percent of the world's population -- some 785 million people -- has a significant physical or mental disability, including about 5 percent of children, according to a new report prepared jointly by the World Health Organization and the World Bank. "
Saying that we are all mentally smart is incorrect.

The pro side does not elaborate on what he means by balance is coming, so you should vote con.

Debate Round No. 1


I only need to retort to your first falsehood in order to gain some ELOloliabojanglcepgaticiationism, so the truth is, I did not allow or disallow this debate, but you may have, so stop lying, lawyer, wannabe. It's a war of words, not missiles, chill.\


Thank you for debating with me,
As the pro side has said, he needs to retort my first contention. However, the pro side has not said anything to rebut my case, so please extend my contention.

I will continue to prove to you that the pro side is incorrect.
For all of the reasons above, please vote con.

Debate Round No. 2


Vote con, be conned.


Pro side, has said " Vote Con."

So, Please vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
only a bully would have hoped to win this.
Posted by FurryDragon 1 year ago
He says that people exclude other people because we are smart
Posted by canis 1 year ago
What is it about ???
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
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 told me to vote con.