The Instigator
mikesully99
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

con will break a rule

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: 12/16/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,248 times Debate No: 6252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (10)

 

mikesully99

Pro

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.
This debate poses off of another debate that I found.

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.

4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null.

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 without forfeiting.

8. If neither player breaks a rule, CON is the default winner
(End Foundation Rules)

1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way.
2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con, instagator, contender, opposition and must.
3. CON must use correct spelling and grammar.
Logical-Master

Con

4. In rounds AFF 2 (mikesully99's next round) - AFF 4 (mikesully99's last round), the affirmative side is required to swap positions with the negative side. In other words (during these rounds), Logical-Master will be the affirmative debater (the role which mikesully99 played in his first round) and mikesully99 will be the negative debater.

5. If mikesully99 is upholding the negative side, he is required to only make rules which put no one but himself at a disadvantage for the remainder of this debate.

6. If Logical-Master is recognized as the negative debater during his final round while not having actually violated any rules during the course of this debate, the resolution is to be recognized as having been successfully negated.
Debate Round No. 1
mikesully99

Pro

As pro cannot switch to con mid-debate, rule 4 and 5 are null

7. Con must not use the names "logical-master" or "mikesully99"
8. Con must change his avatar
9. Con must change his name to "oldlady12345"
Logical-Master

Con

Since there are no rules which state that neither debater is allowed to swap stances with the other, you are obligated to dismiss my opponent's attempt to define these rules as null. Furthermore, given that I am currently upholding the stance of the affirmative debater, the rules from the first round as well as this round do not apply to me. In addition, I cannot help but note that my opponent has used forbidden words during his round (CON and PRO), thus this would be sufficient reason to dismiss all of his rules which he has introduced (as each uses a forbidden word). In addition, these rules are not merely limited to "mikesully99" (as I will be playing the role of CON in my final round), thus further reason to render them null and void.

10. Mikesully99 is required to speak french for the remainder of the debate.
11. Mikesully99 must post pictures of hot women from the official victoria secrets website in each of his rounds.
12. Mikesully99 must use the term "bonerific in every rule he creates.
Debate Round No. 2
mikesully99

Pro

my opponent failed to realize what i meant, the title of PRO cant be changed look under my avatar, it still says PRO therefore i must be PRO.
my opponents 10th rule broke my 1st rule
my opponent broke both my 8th and 9th rule
my name is not mikesully99 so those rules do not apply to me.
13. my opponent must not say anything except when he makes rules or says bonerific
14. my opponent must not use the word bonerific
15. my opponent must put "megan fox is bonerific" as his display name
Logical-Master

Con

Now that this is my last round, the original rules brought up in the very first round are the only rules which apply to me. And now that I'm the negative debater, I only have to go through this round without breaking any rules to win (in accordance to the 6th rule).

First, in response to Mr. Sully's previous argument, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at the actual wording of my rule, I clearly stated that the AFF debater would have to support the position of the NEG debater whereas the NEG debater would have to do vice versa. There is nothing within my rule that coerces one into hacking into debate.org. We need only support the alternative stances. In addition, as shown in the debates listed below, there is actually no penalty for ignoring the titles given to both contestants during the debate.

http://www.debate.org...

Second, there is nothing in the foundation rules of Mr. Sully's regular rules which state that we have to actually uphold the titles which are given to us.

Third, as Mr. Sully so eloquently stated in his initial round, we need only make an objection when someone has violated the rules or a rule contradicts a previous rule. Since I have not violated any actual rules and that my 4th/5th rule do not contradict any previous rules, there is no grounds to ignore my 4th and 5th rules.

With that said, given that none of Mr. Sully's recent rules put him at a disadvantage, they are all to be ignored. In addition (and once more), his rulings in his previous round did not do this either (while he was the NEG debater), thus can be ignored.

Now that I'm the NEG debater . . .

16. The neg debater is obligated to treat himself to a lobster dinner when he returns home.
17. All attractive debate.org female users are to hit the NEG debater up next weekend.
18. Joshand is not allowed to vote bomb this debate.

Given that (as the NEG debater ) I've broken no rules, I have upheld my side of the resolution and am hence the winner of this debate.

Later. :D
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
*yawn* Barely anyone is active today. Double post.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Nuh-uh . . . not according to the sixth rule (one which you did not even dispute).

Don't worry though, Mr sully. There is this troll on this site who goes by the name of joshandr30. He'll eventually have this debate tied or perhaps in your favor in terms of votes.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Nuh-uh . . . not according to the sixth rule (one which you did not even dispute).

Don't worry though, Mr sully. There is this troll on this site who goes by the name of joshandr30. He'll eventually have this debate tied or perhaps in your favor in terms of votes.
Posted by mikesully99 7 years ago
mikesully99
he broke a rule, and the resolution states that con will break a rule and if i did debate con in the last round, and broke a rule, then con did break a rule, in the sense that i was debating FOR con
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Josh must be getting sloppy as I usually get vote bombed by more than one account at this point.
Posted by crackofdawn 7 years ago
crackofdawn
You keep hosting these mikesully but you keep breaking the rules. Keep at it and I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I beg to differ. :D
Posted by mikesully99 7 years ago
mikesully99
you did in fact break foundation rule #4
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Three things:

1) Things not brought up in the round are irrelevant. ;)

2) That would depend on what the significance of "later" truly was.

For instance If by later, I was reminding everyone as to when those rules were to be upheld, then that would constitute as being part of making rules as later would signify "when" they were.

Since I didn't say something like "See you later", you cannot possibly prove exactly what I meant by "later" so that it may work in your favor.

3) Let us refer back to your initial line: "This debate poses off of another debate that I found."

Taking note of this, we can only conclude that you mean to suggest that all of your rules apply to the debate. Even if I did mean to suggest "See you later", by no means could this be considered part of the actual debate as nothing is being presented or debated when one states "See you later or Later."

At any rate, I have broken no rules. SEE YOU later. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Two things:

1) Things not brought up in the round are irrelevant. ;)

2) That would depend on what the significance of "later" truly was.

For instance If by later, I was reminding everyone as to when those rules were to be upheld, then that would constitute as being part of making rules as later would signify "when" they were.

3) Let us refer back to your initial line: "This debate poses off of another debate that I found."

Taking note of this, we can only conclude that you mean to suggest that all of your rules apply to the debate. Even if I did mean to suggest "See you later", by no means could this be considered part of the actual debate as nothing is being presented or debated when one states "See you later or Later."

At any rate, I have broken no rules. SEE YOU later. :D

Since I didn't say something like "See you later", you cannot possibly prove exactly what I meant by "later" so that it may work in your favor.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bigtree 6 years ago
bigtree
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 7 years ago
PrvnMthws
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by DeadLeaves93 7 years ago
DeadLeaves93
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 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 burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sword_of_lead 7 years ago
sword_of_lead
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
mikesully99Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07