The Instigator
Pro (for)
13 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points


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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 29447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)




Do you think the circles of life have a nature to them.?If do,please accept.Circles today are too ,and hard to draw.Inverted triangles are a better alternative to circles.The bomb of F-ness was indeed a circle,and Jesus Christ died for our sins on the unslightily circle.But the honest is that spheres and the inverted triangle willend the circular world.


This being my first debate, I feel I am poorly suited to argue against such a profound statement.

I can tell that this is an atypical debate topic, if you can even call it a topic. As I am not entirely familiar with the debating procedures on this website yet (which is to say not at all), I felt this might be a good debate for me to engage in (I must admit I was also attracted by the lovely picture of Yin). The only other reason I chose it is because I did not match the criteria for the other debates that I was actually interested in participating in. If I must claw my way there by embracing in nonsense and emerging victorious then so be it. Constructive criticism would be much appreciated.

I would also like to express my absolute joy (*cough cough* this is the topic I was not eligible to discuss) in having the privilege of debating such a person. Good luck

But enough with this irrelevant talk of mine.


So I will first outline my initial goals in combatting my opponent's argument:
1. I would first like to bring clarity to the topic in the form of more nonsensical gibberish.
2. I will strive to have this nonsense simultaneously converge to create a very sensible argument
3. I will prohibit the chewing of gum
4. I will use such logical fallacies as circular reasoning, straw men, false dichotomies, ad hominem, ad populum, etc. as well as outright lies
5. There will be no candies on Sundays
6. Minimal alliteration

On the Matter of F

First I will address the title of this debate: F
As we can all see, the opponent is Pro-F. Until the opponent has properly defined F I will proceed to make grotesque assumptions about her position. We all know that F stands for "fallacy," "farce," "fear," "failure," "felony," "fickle," "financial distress," "fire," and the f word, "fool." This is simply mathematics. 10/10 politicians agree.

From this we can deduce that the opponent supports all sorts of negative concepts. She wishes our children to be imprisoned after committing their first offense (which is consequently also their final). She offers us no solution to public unrest about such issues as the nonissues of the highly valid blindness of these bold statements. If you want fiery fights to find us all and force the feeble to fall prey to the fortunate, then you are Pro-F. If you desire a final solution of fabrication and false fantasy in the form of forced oral pills, then you are Pro-F. If with a fervor you find that it would be far better for humanity to be famished and froth with fright at the frivolous fugitives that roam free, whilst feeling total and unalterable finality, being surrounded by the figurative fog of this fierce destructive force, then you are Pro-F. If you embrace rigid formality and postulate that food of the federal sort should be financed at a fixed rate by the impoverished peasanthood then you are Pro-F. If you forget to fill your fire engine or fix your freight car, then you are Pro-F. You are a threat to the public. The fallaciousness of this group is undeniable. They are forlorn. We must flee from such faulty ideals.

So friends, frown with me upon the fuming, fibbing faces (that are both unattractive and large in quality/nature) of these Pro-F ers. If you side with them... fully formed, folded, and fined to the utmost degree you will fall to the flames eternally.

The faculty is not at fault, but the foe I fear, for I feel I shall faint.

I cannot fathom.

If you wish for the fulfillment of this fictional fate along with the deconstruction of the foundations of our beautiful society and a return to fiefs... then you Pro-F. You are flamboyant. You have the framework of a bloody fundamentalist. A foe to all human kind.

Furthermore, the opponent wants the figs to ferment. Premarital drinking is a clear Nono, but according to my opponent, this is not the case.

Also, her figurative language and references to the "bomb of F-ness" clearly display her support of underage profanity. And we all know underage profanity is wrong because of how wrong underage profanity simply happens to be. Do not be a fool. There is no consent whatsoever in its design nor in its appearance. It is the blister on my eyeball, a plague unto our society. OH DELIVER US FROM EVIL OH LORDY.

From this I can with absolute certainty conclude that her soul is darker than black.

This is why you must put a stop to this belief and vote CON. It is our only hope.

As for Fickle and Circles

It is clear the opponent herself has yet to make up her mind on certain issues. It is my understanding that I am supposed to be arguing for the case of circles and their nature. Therefore, I find it to be damning to her case to admit that world is circular as she has done. I believe this itself should be enough evidence to support my case. She also admits to the existence of the circles of life. Considering that she has agreed with my position on the matter, I feel no need to argue my case and will instead address the issue of whether or not they have a nature to them. Not only do they have a nature to them, as can clearly be observed, they are also a part of nature. Just take the moon for example. This is obvious, observable evidence that the universe has a favourable disposition to objects with circular appearance. The formation of many structures supports this. The cohesive properties of water, for example. The human eye, which is tasty with tobasco after the plucking out. The bouncy ball even is round in appearance. All of nature's laws are finely tuned to produce these circular objects. As I have mentioned, even spheres, which the opposition claims will overtake the circles and bring an end to the circular world, appear to be circular from a human perspective in many circumstances (for example, with the use of a telcroscope). Without the dark lord Odin to confirm this, we would all be lost in the expanse of random shape chance particle vapor. That would certainly be a frightful situation. A triangular world? I think not.

I have a proof for you:
1. Jesus Christ is God almighty
2. I am Jesus Christ
3. Therefore I am God almighty

1. God almighty is always right
2. I am God almighty
3. Therefore in this instance, and in every instance I am correct.

The fact that I died on the circle to save YOU is yet MORE evidence for the case of the circle.

All of my premises are backed by science. And it is affirmed that I hold the default position. The burden of proof is on my opponent, who uses scientific terms out of context in order to support tyranny.

I will now systematically refute her other arguments.

The difficulty in drawing a circle is a testament to its greatness, while inverted triangles would have no use in a pentagram without the circle itself.

I'd also like to point out my opponents confusion about the bomb of f-ness. I believe she was also referring to the bomb of a-ness, which ended a war. A bad thing? I think not.

My Strongest Evidence

This topic is classified under art. Circles are much more useful in art than triangles. We can observe this in the world around us through the use of the telcroscope. If you are at all familiar with cosmic art, you will know the huge role circles play in it. They are a vital and pivotal part to art and the universe. [2]

I will also argue that the Jesus Christ you have mentioned is clearly on my side (meaning I am on my side). There is also the fact that I am god (which I have already proven). I believe the evidence is clearly on my side. I also have research straight from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Michael's Community College to back this up.

But in all honesty, I would argue that until the opponent brings clarity to what he/she is actually defended before I can properly shoot it down.

In Conclusion

Do the right thing. Consume copious amounts of cereal.

Cheers to you ^^


Not really sure how to do references .-.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I'd like to commend my opponent for his beautiful reference to my profile pic (darker than black) and Welcome to DDO!

Interpretation of the topic
Under the details of this argument, my opponent has only changed into a kibitzer. He continues to argue a definition that isn't really a definition. I challenge his defective and exhausted substratum, along with his impaired and loathsome hypothesis of the meaning of F. We shall now refer to the letter as the "F - word". The F word stands for only one thing, if you could even say it stands for anything at all. As proof, I shall ask you to walk up to the nearest teenager and say "F you." His/her following reaction should be a sufficient evidence to this warrant.

But the sad reality is that the letter F has too many meanings, which for the purpose of debate, it is imperative "F" be left alone. The sole issue of the word is a straw man attack by Con. "F" is a mere title, he attacks that instead of the actual arguments against circles. Assuming that F has to stand for something, and then forcing me to support that topic is outright unfair and a violation of the rules that I mentioned at the beginning. For this sole reason, Con has lost the debate on conduct and procedures.

The bomb itself is another characteristic of the malevolent inconsistency in the position of Con. It is the bomb that will end us, along with our posterity, but the bomb is only detonated by the blood of altruism, loyalty, and respect with the prick of F. My opponent has exploited the letter F - only bringing upon our unsightly and even more rapidly. His profuse and blatant use of "F" on such mediums as DDO only continues to shame the name or this website and burn into the eyes of readers. I ask that the reader (if this debate has ended) stop reading at this point, and scroll back up and vote Pro.


My opponent’s argument in this section is purely that since circles come in nature, they are better than inverted triangles. My response is that nature is evil. Does Con endorse natural disasters? Was he turned out when he heard news of Sandy or Katrina? Nature is a horrible example to morality. Sadly, the fact that circles are so associated with nature is a reason to vote against con.

Now, on his proof, premise two is false. He claims that he is Jesus Christ, but I challenge this piece of information, for I am indeed actually Jesus Christ.
1) If I am Jesus Christ, then you will vote for me.
2) If you vote for me, then it is set that I am god.
3) Since I can be god, it becomes imperative that you do vote for me.

1) People who support God will be saved.
2) I am God.
3) People who vote for me will be saved.

Therefore, if you vote for me, then you will see that I am god and you will be saved

The fact that circles are impossible to draw with just paper and a pencil, coupled along with the reality that they are apparent in nature, just shows that circles are hellspawn. They could have only came from hell.
P1. God created man in his image
P2. God created the world
C: Man should be able to recreate the world.

This is true, to some extent.

P1. If man should be able to recreate objects in nature, then everything should be within grasp.
P2. If God created circles, then man should be able too.
P3. Man cannot create perfect circles with his own power.
C: God did not create circles. (We already know that God exists, because I am God)

Since God didn’t create circles, it becomes reasonable to assume that Satan has created these devilish like shapes.


Circles are all the same. They all look the same, with only slightly different radii. Triangles, however, are far more random and customizable. It becomes apparent that drawing triangles is far more fun than drawing circles. If you know geometry, then you also know how important triangles are in proofs and etc. Vote Pro, because Pro endorses math. Math is good for science. Science is good for health. Pro wants you to live longer lives! Pro means less death. At best, weigh the impact of human life to “cosmic” art. Intentionally giving up lives also means the loss of morality and ethics. Without these important meaning, we will lose meaning to life. Not only will Con destroy human lives, but Con also destroys the meaning to those lives.

I have shown you how on multiple levels, good will be done if you vote Pro. I shalt become known as Jesus Christ; the voter becomes saved, and morality is preserved.
Voting for Con is a direct link to Satan and Hell.
It is obvious which side to choose, but I still shall give my opponent another chance to speak.


I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for her welcome and highly entertaining debate as well as point out the fact that Yin has beautiful, circular irises.

The Topic Has Indeed Been Clarified

Being a jolly old chap, simultaneously ancient, wise, and youthful in my progression of years over the eons, I am the first to admit when I am mistaken. I admit I was mistaken in a highly embarrassing manner. In fact I am now on the run from my tiny tree brethren, but that is beside the point. I refuse to take back my point about my opponent supporting tyranny. I will elaborate further later on and extrapolate from my hallucinogenic visions of circles.

I have done as the opponent has suggested. I ventured to the room of my brother and declared pompously, "F you!!!" His response was to shift his position in his chair momentarily and then resume staring at his computer screen. I also tried this on myself. As I looked in the mirror, I continuously chanted "F you!" with a great amount of cheer. I am not sure what my opponent's point is, as this seems to be a good phrase to use when engaging in jubilous celebration of celibacy. I mean Celebi, the pokemon that coined the term.

But yes, I was wrong about what the opponent meant by F it seems. The opponent has indeed set fire to my man of straw, but this does not mean that I will concede. The opponent never set forth any rules or procedures by which I could be condemned for this action.

As for the bomb, I would argue otherwise. The bomb not only is irrelevant but from inference I conclude that it is inherently inconsistent with the implicit environment envisioned by the arrogantly amazing- err- apathetic ... person that is my opponent. She has stated that such an instrument will be the end of us all, but as it has also been stated, "We got the bomb. We got the bomb. Let's go." [1] So I cry out to you know my fellow homo sapiens. Let us be off. It is not one of us that carries the burden of the bomb, but the entirety of our collective consciousness. I may have exploited the letter after G which also precedes H, but my opponent has exploited you with her failed attempts at covert hypnosis.

Since the opponent has cleared up the issue I will drop the f bomb, or rather, the issue of it.


There is only the natural. Morality is nothing more than an artificial human construct, a mere extension of the human biology into a ghastly outlook on nature. Morality does not exist anywhere but in the minds of humans.The opponent is clearly quixotic. Furthermore, this is a fallacy of composition. Not all of nature is a disaster. Also, Pro does not seem to understand that without nature there would be nothing to destroy. Nature is not evil. It evolved under my direct benevolent guidance. And it is all that there truly is.

My opponent has so far made very many much contradictabling claims to the nth degree even. Tis a pity shame sight eh? She claims to be Jesus Christ, a man. One might also note that on her profile, she claims to be an atheist. Also, apparently, her name is Jason. From this we can know that she not only is both man and woman but also does not believe in her own existence. So why listen to her?

I am merely Santa Claus. I won't send you to hell if you don't vote for me, but if you do I will provide you with copious amounts of presents and pentacles.

In other news, since I'm God and provide the world with objective morality that exists apart from humanity, I declare her to be an immoral creature.

Unless the opponent can provide absolute proof that I am not God, then I am God (argumentum ad ignorantiam is valid because both it and circular reasoning are).

As for the difficulty in drawing a circle, I would argue that an inverted triangle is also quite difficult to draw. "The fact that circles are impossible to draw with just paper and a pencil, coupled along with the reality that they are apparent in nature, just shows that circles are hellspawn." This same logic could be applied to my opponent, who both is hard to draw and occurs in nature. She comes from hell and therefore cannot be Jesus. Jesus only went there for three days. And we know this because it is written in the Bible by Me.

Also, having drawn many pentagrams in the bathrooms of the little town of town, it should be noted that they involve both a circle and inverted triangles. Therefore, we are both satanic. Satan created both the circle and the inverted triangle. This knowledge is known to me because I am Enki, Lucifer, and Satan the saviour of humanity. I have set you free and ask nothing of you. I gave you the knowledge that you God tried to hide from you. Who is really the satanic one? Don't listen to the propaganda she put in her book about me, the Bible.


If the opponent knew about trigonometry, she would be familiar with the UNIT CIRCLE. [2] It is extremely important, and triangles are constructed INSIDE IT. Need I say more? This is very solid evidence.

In Regards to Death

Do not listen to Pro. She gives you false hope. Life is utterly meaningless. But since I am not God, since I am not a tyrant, I want you to be free. Free to choose your path, and believe what you want. Free to create your own meaning. This is my offer. Do not listen to her false claims about the extension of life. If you give in to her, yes, your lives will be longer, and they will be more miserable too.

From the Tale of the Three Brothers, we can know that the triangle is symbolic of the cloak of invisibility. [3] She merely offers you a life filled with fear, where you must constantly hide from death. Invisibility. Is that what you desire, my brothers?

What my opponent has not told you is that she advocates the Ragnarök system. She wants a stagnant world free from change. One where all identity is lost and time ceases to progress.

"... Life without change might be called anything except life, it's nothing more than experience. ... Yes, Emperor Charles sought the past, you seek the present, but I seek the future." [4]

My opponent does not truly offer you life. So stand with me, my brothers. I seek progress. I will let nothing stand in my way. Evolution favors death for a reason. The old must make way for the new. This is simply the way it must be.

My soul, corrupted by vengeance
Hath endured torment, to find the end of the journey
In my own salvation
And your eternal slumber
Legend shall speak
Of sacrifice at world's end
The wind sails over the water's surface
Quietly, but surely [5]

"Perhaps this is what I have always wished for since that day. The loss and destruction of all. That's right, one must destroy before creating. In that case, if my conscience becomes a hindrance to me, then I will simply erase it. I have no other choice but to move forward" -Me [4]

"When there is evil in this world that justice cannot defeat.Would you taint your hands with evil to defeat evil?Or would you remain steadfast & righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" [4]

"To defeat evil, I shall become an even greater evil." [4]

I will bear the burden of this sin. You need not follow me into the abyss. But be free and prosper. This is all I ask of you. Even if you are deceived by her... even if you vote pro... do not give up the fight. For freedom. For a future.

My opponent is the status quo. She is depraved society. There has been a plague on this world for far too long. Suffering.

Life is a cycle. A loop. A circle, that we must break free from. A new circle of life is one the horizon. A world that is a gentler place.

I am change. I am salvation. Progress. Hope. For a better future. For a world less hellish. Vote con. Con for liberty. Con for an escape. Con because you give a damn about something. Con because this world is rotten.

"Shadow, I beg of you! Give them a chance, to be happy!" [6]

[1] Gerard Way
[3] J.K. Rowling
[4] Code Geass, Lelouch vi Britannia (myself)
[5] Loveless
[6] SBA2
Debate Round No. 2


vmpire321 forfeited this round.


All arguments extended. Thanks for the great debate xD
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vmpire321 3 years ago
D: sorry for forfeiting
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
You used to be able to do indefinite. My first debate on this site nearly two years ago is still open to voting.
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lmao how are there 175 days of voting left?!?!?!
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
Ah well I'm going to go ahead and finish. Thanks for the debate ^^
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
Guess you won't be able to finish this one ._. If you still want to debate and have the time to, I'll put your argument as my final round if you post it in the comments since I got two arguments and you only really got one. Or I'll just forfeit the round too. Cheers.
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
But can you top that? ;P
Posted by vmpire321 3 years ago
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
Wow this is probably the best debate I'll ever have xD
Posted by anonynomous 3 years ago
wow tying the resolution of f to tyranny is quite a feat
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
xD This is true.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't forfeit.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: So, i see you people are having a fun time trouncing logic and what-not, lemme intrude to post this deciding vote.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Utter gibberish. Let's make this one a tie and then never speak of it again.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years 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 drops all arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb.
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What in the hell is this?