The Instigator
Nitpelk
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
VenomousNinja
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Yraelz, beem0r, Logical-Master, and SportsGuru ought to be kicked off debate.org

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,394 times Debate No: 3975
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (65)
Votes (16)

 

Nitpelk

Pro

I've been watching these guys debates for 2 months now and I think they've dragged this website straight to hell. The "frightful four" should be removed from debate.org with great haste and I will give you reasons why.

#1. They all clog this site with stupid debates.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... in-schools/1/
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

All of these debates are devoid of any intellectualism. They all concern topics that are the epitome of triviality and are just plain childish. Does "I can hold a chicken with my butt" make any sense to you? Or how about "Under the Below listed rules, my opponent will lose this debate." Utter nonsense. All of these topics only manage to drive away the people who are honestly seeking to be enlightened. BUT I tell you that there is no enlightenment in any of the bullcrap topics listed above.

#2. They are probably the same person. They all like to comment on each other's debates, they all follow the same points of their discussions too closely (as if they know what each other is thinking), they all sound alike ("My opponent did this, my opponent did that), they all seem to be well versed when it comes to logical fallacies, they all seem to be obsessed with video games like Final Fantasy ("DUDE, YOU GOTTA GET THE NEW CRISIS CORE VIDEO GAME, H'YUCK, H'YUCK, H'YUCK"). And with being the same person, they can rig as many votes in debates. I'm not the only one who notices this as people are starting to retaliate against them through voting against them on all of their debates. After you read this debate, I implore you to vote against all of their debates as well.

And I know SportsGuru is logical master. This debate is proof: http://www.debate.org... Doesn't it alarm you that he just HAPPENS to know what Logical master said in his previous debates and that he just HAPPENS to use arguments which Logical master used before? It's all pretty convenient, don't you think? And I've read some comments and have seen sportsguru as being one of the main ones to attack others for claiming that Logical Master is Kleptin. Too convenient: http://www.debate.org...

And I've read the tournament page and facebook and recently saw logical master (aka Apollo Justice) suggest that substitutions be allowed in debates. And guess who he wanted to be his substitute? Yraelz and Kleptin. Awfully suspicious, eh? After getting OWNED by Rob1billion, he knew was in trouble, so he used his other account to put himself back in the tournament. As a bonus, he put his alter ego (Kleptin) back in as well.

This group must be stopped at all cost. I figured one of them would use some stupid semantical argument, so I made this one round so I wouldn't even have to dignify those jokers with a debate. Take that!
VenomousNinja

Con

"I've been watching these guys debates for 2 months now"
Really? You've been roaming around debate.org for two months and JUST joined on the tenth?
Strange.

"#1. They all clog this site with stupid debates."
Debate.org is for almost all debates. Only those deemed inappropriate by the staff actually 'clog' debate.org. If a debate is not deemed inappropriate by the staff, then it matters not if the debate in question is 'stupid' or not.

"All of these debates are devoid of any intellectualism. They all concern topics that are the epitome of triviality and are just plain childish."
Simply because a debate is trivial or childish does not mean it avoids intellectualism. In fact, most of the debates you mentioned require an insane amount of intellict in order to prove their claims.

"Does "I can hold a chicken with my butt" make any sense to you? Or how about "Under the Below listed rules, my opponent will lose this debate." Utter nonsense."
Both of those pharses makes perfect sense to me, and as such, it is your word against mine.

"All of these topics only manage to drive away the people who are honestly seeking to be enlightened."
I doubt that people who wish to be 'enlightened' would be attracted to the phrase "I can hold a whole chick with my butt".

"They all like to comment on each other's debates,"
Wow, it's not like it's possible that they've become friends! That's simply improbable.

"they all follow the same points of their discussions too closely"
Well, seeing as how it's THEIR discussions, and seeing as how there are only a few points at one time to discuss in any discussion, I'd say that following the same point in a discussion as another in that discussion isn't to strange.

"they all sound alike"
Great debaters debate alike. Just as great minds think alike.

"they all seem to be well versed when it comes to logical fallacies"
Great debaters debate alike.

"they all seem to be obsessed with video games like Final Fantasy"
Video games, especially those such as Finaly Fantasy, are very popular. It may turn out that they have similar interests and are friends.

"And with being the same person, they can rig as many votes in debates."
They can do that without being the same person.

"Doesn't it alarm you that he just HAPPENS to know what Logical master said in his previous debates and that he just HAPPENS to use arguments which Logical master used before?"
Yes, it is very alarming that one can simply go and read past debates for arguments in current debate! It's very alarming!

"And I've read some comments and have seen sportsguru as being one of the main ones to attack others for claiming that Logical Master is Kleptin."
Great debaters debate alike. And this is the internet.
Alike people on the internet are many times accused of being the same person.

"And guess who he wanted to be his substitute? Yraelz and Kleptin"
There is the possibility that Yraelz, Kleptin, and Logical Master are friends.

"After getting OWNED by Rob1billion, he knew was in trouble, so he used his other account to put himself back in the tournament."
Actually, maybe he just wanted to debate someone that he knew he had a chance against, seeing as how Logical Master seems to(according to you) comment on Kleptin's debates, so he must read them, and as such must know at least a little of Kleptin's debating style.

"I made this one round so I wouldn't even have to dignify those jokers with a debate"
So, in other words, you completely ruined the point of starting a debate on debate.org?
Debate Round No. 1
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Perhaps you're being truthful in your last comment and you genuinely understand my motivations, or perhaps you feel that posting such a comment would be a clever way of to get me to be less persistent by making me believe that I've achieved my primary goal. Either way, I feel I've made my point.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
edit:

I meant to say "that's not necessarily the case.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
All I demonstrated with that remark was that I was smartass. :P

Of course, even if I was annoyed, that would simply prove that I was annoyed at someone other than you.

As for Kleptin, that's necessary the case. Perhaps he merely wished to make it known that he did not possess another account. After all, you have managed to convince others that him and I were the same person at some point.

I will say one thing though, jamcke. Although I believe yraelz defeated you in this comment section debate and that your methods of trolling are worthless and wrong, I also cannot help but feel enlightened by one of the ideas you brought across here. You suggested your primary motivation for all of this was that you were annoyed at my debate style; that I've pretty much given debate a bad name through debating unfairly, relying on rigged wordplay, and being a jackass through discouraging others in their attempt to understand ideas moreso than they already do. What you said in particular has lead me to realizing that I've been in error for at least half of the time I've been interested in this game (and that's rather long). No, not merely a game, but rather this tool which has the ability to help us reach the truth. From this point on, there shall be a change. That, I will do my best to insure.
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Driving down your win ratio was just one of the methods I used in attempt to annoy you, whether it worked or not. You were clearly annoyed in the debate you had with me / sweatycreases "you have holes in your socks".

In reply to left_wing_mormon's comment "I voted for Pro (sweatycreases), only because of his/her sense of humor, and the lack of it on the Con side..."

you stated

"I have a sense of humour too! Let me think for a second:

Yo momma is so fat that when she crosses the street, cars look out for her! Shazam!!"

and

"In my future debates, I'll be sure to throw pies, use my joy buzzer, and tells jokes for your convenience. After all, what other purpose is there in debate?"

Therefore, not only have you not shown otherwise, you have most certainly demonstrated the fact that you were indeed annoyed at one point in time and that ALL my efforts were not meaningless.

As far as Kleptin is concerned, he was annoyed to the point that he updated his profile page with a message from the web master regarding comments from sweatycreases.

If at any point you were amused by sweatycreases, then I'm glad. Part of the point of creating my rouge accounts was to be funny (hence the aforementioned debate for example). In addition to the amusing manner in which my rouge accounts were managed, annoying you and Kleptin was quite amusing as well.

So long and spanks for playing.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Ha ha ha! No my friend, I believe I've shown otherwise. You were seeking to annoy me through pegging my win ratio. Yet if I truly don't care for my win ratio as I've shown here, then this would simply mean that all your efforts were utterly meaningless. Furthermore, if you read Kleptin's most recent debate with Pluto, you'll note that he disregards the debate and gives away the win and states that he doesn't care for the votes.

At, you managed to get our attention and provide us with amusement.
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Logical Master: I'm glad you see it my way. I was seeking retribution by annoying you, which I achieved long ago, so you can do whatever you want to your win ratio. It matters not to me.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Hey Jamcke, I agree with you on the trolling, so I took the liberty of voting against myself on all of my debates in order to fuel your caause. Hope that helps. =D

Got any other means of punishing me? I'm all ears. ;)
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Finally, you've acknowledged that the aforementioned behavior is indeed wrong. I'm not implying that I will continue to commit the second wrong in this scenario, so your Hitler analogy is irrelevant. I'm simply stating that as long as the first wrong is committed, there will be those on this site who seek retribution. "Trolling" will continue until those who are being annoyed by it stop to consider why it is that it happens in the first place. Sure, there are those who are "trolling" for fun or because they're frustrated that they are inferior debaters to others on this site so it will probably never go away, but if people were a little more considerate of other's intentions it will likely happen less frequently.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
..... You agree that two wrongs don't make a right, then you go on to say that it's going to happen anyways. I agree that it's going to happen, that doesn't somehow justify you doing it also. This would be like you going to out and shooting someone and then being like, "Meh... Hitler did it a lot, it's going to happen anyways."

And you can make a difference by making it happen less. Look at me for example, I am one less person who is not going around functioning on the idea that two wrongs DO make a right. Thus there are people not doing it.
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Clearly, I'm aware of how a semantical argument works, and you're still missing the point. I'm just going to say that we're going to have to agree to disagree because no one is getting any closer to resolving the situation, thus furthering this discussion is pointless.

For now on, every time I notice anyone commenting about "trolls" on this site, I will refer them to this discussion. Whether you feel that unsolicited abuse requires retribution is debatable or not, it's going to happen. Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that the second wrong won't take place. Many of the annoyed invite the annoyance upon themselves. Until they can see this, it will only continue to get worse.

For the record, I've never created a debate calling for the removal of anyone on this site.

Happy debating!
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 6 years ago
SportsGuru
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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 
Vote Placed by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
NitpelkVenomousNinjaTied
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