The Instigator
jamielynn
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Xer
Pro (for)
Winning
60 Points

i am a idiot

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 16 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,591 times Debate No: 10089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (16)

 

jamielynn

Con

i am not an idiot and because i am con my opponent must prove that i am an idiot and because he is not i win.

good luk
Xer

Pro

I thank Con for the opportunity to debate and I bid her good tidings.

============================================================================Definitions
============================================================================

i - Con, jamielynn

idiot
- somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way [http://en.wikipedia.org...(person)]
- a foolish or stupid person [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

foolish [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- devoid of good sense or judgment
- having or revealing stupidity

stupid [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- a person who is not very bright

self defeating [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- acting to defeat its own purpose

uneducated [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- not having a good education

counterproductive [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- tending to hinder the achievement of a goal

============================================================================
Burden of Proof
============================================================================

Pretty straight forward in my opinion - If I can show that my opponent is an idiot, than I win.

============================================================================Arguments
============================================================================

Contention 1: Con is uneducated and stupid.

As my opponent has just clearly demonstrated, she can not spell well and she can not form proper sentence structure. These basic attributes are learned in grammar school and my opponent shows poor command of them. Therefore, my opponent is uneducated and stupid.

Contention 2: Con is self defeating.

My opponent made a perfect case for Pro. She failed to capitalize the first letter of the first word of the sentence, she did not capitalizes "I", she made numerous grammar mistakes, and mispelt "luck". Thus, my opponent just defeated herself.

Contention 3: Con is counterproductive.

My opponent's goal is, presumably, to win this debate. However, my opponent does not appear to have made a good case for Con. A much better case would have been... Resolved: I am an idiot. Notice "an" instead of "a". Argumen: Prove it. If my opponent's case was as above, she would have been much more productive - but instead Con wasted time and made a self-defeating case. Thus, she is counterproductive.

Conclusion: Con is an idiot.

The conclusion, clearly, directly follows the contentions/premises of what an idiot is defined as. Resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
jamielynn

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate.

"i - Con, jamielynn"

I agree that the "i" is reffering to me.

"idiot
- somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way [http://en.wikipedia.org......(person)]
- a foolish or stupid person [http://www.merriam-webster.com......]

foolish [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......]
- devoid of good sense or judgment
- having or revealing stupidity

stupid [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......]
- a person who is not very bright

self defeating [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......]
- acting to defeat its own purpose

uneducated [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......]
- not having a good education

counterproductive [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......]
- tending to hinder the achievement of a goal"

Agreed.

"Pretty straight forward in my opinion - If I can show that my opponent is an idiot, than I win."

Agreed.

==Contention 1: Con is uneducated and stupid.

As my opponent has just clearly demonstrated, she can not spell well and she can not form proper sentence structure. These basic attributes are learned in grammar school and my opponent shows poor command of them. Therefore, my opponent is uneducated and stupid.==

However, it now appears as if I can create proper sentence structure using proper grammar. You see, I cleverly tricked you into thinking I was stupid so that you would take this debate. This proves that I am not an idiot and that I am indeed educated.

==Contention 2: Con is self defeating.

My opponent made a perfect case for Pro. She failed to capitalize the first letter of the first word of the sentence, she did not capitalizes "I", she made numerous grammar mistakes, and mispelt "luck". Thus, my opponent just defeated herself.==

Yes, but that was all just to lure you into my trap. Because an idiot can't think of traps like this, I am not an idiot.

==Contention 3: Con is counterproductive.

My opponent's goal is, presumably, to win this debate. However, my opponent does not appear to have made a good case for Con. A much better case would have been... Resolved: I am an idiot. Notice "an" instead of "a". Argumen: Prove it. If my opponent's case was as above, she would have been much more productive - but instead Con wasted time and made a self-defeating case. Thus, she is counterproductive.==

Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2.

==Conclusion: Con is an idiot.

The conclusion, clearly, directly follows the contentions/premises of what an idiot is defined as. Resolution affirmed.==

Not quite.

CONTENTION 1: I am clever

As idiots are not clever, I must not be an idiot. I am clever because I used a trap in the first round to set myself up for contentions in the second round. I fooled my opponent and made him look incompetent.

CONTENTION 2: I am educated

I obviously know correct grammar and spelling to an acceptable degree. Thus, due to Pro's own arguments, I must be educated.

CONTENTION 3: I plan ahead

I obviously knew from the beginning how I would play this debate and figured out how I would set up my first 2 rounds. An idiot would be too "stupid" to think ahead and create a trap for his opponent.

CONCLUSION: I am not an idiot

Good luck on your next round. :D
Xer

Pro

Well, my opponent is right that I didn't see this one coming. However, only a simple rebuttal is necesarry.

============================================================================
Definitions
============================================================================

I forgot to define a word in the previous round.

am [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- have the quality of being

============================================================================
Defense
============================================================================

My opponent still had numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He had three sentence fragments - "Agreed." - "Agreed." - "Not quite." My opponent started a sentence with "Because" which is grammatically incorrect. Also, my opponent used "the" twice in the same sentence incorrectly - "Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2."

============================================================================
New Contention
============================================================================

Note that the resolution is "[I] am a[n] idiot[.]" "Am" is defined as "[to] have the quality of being". This means that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, as evidenced by his opening argument. Also, more evidence of my opponent's idiocricy is seen in his first debate [http://www.Debate.org...] where he is losing 89-0.

============================================================================
Rebuttal
============================================================================

My opponent's arguments are either irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" or have been effectively refuted above. There is no need to further refute them.

============================================================================
Conclusion
============================================================================

My best argument, among others, is that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, which means that my opponent can be an idiot sometimes and the resolution is affirmed. My opponent can be seen as being an idiot in his first round and in his first debate. Resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
jamielynn

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely rebuttal.

=="My opponent still had numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He had three sentence fragments - 'Agreed.' - 'Agreed.' - 'Not quite.' My opponent started a sentence with 'Because' which is grammatically incorrect. Also, my opponent used 'the' twice in the same sentence incorrectly - 'Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2.'"==

Yes, it's true that those are sentence fragments. However, that doesn't make me an idiot. Great writers often use sentence fragments so the writing will be similar to dialogue. Since I was talking to you, I wrote a sentence fragment to allude to such a literary tool.
http://jpicforum.info...

I do not see the "the" mistakes that you are referring too.

Using "because" is not grammatically incorrect in all instances. It's okay to start with "because" as that means you are starting that sentence with a phrase. The only requirement is that sentence must also have a subject and a verb. My sentence was grammatically correct because it clearly had both "I" as the subject and "am" as the verb.

=="Note that the resolution is "[I] am a[n] idiot[.]" "Am" is defined as "[to] have the quality of being". This means that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, as evidenced by his opening argument. Also, more evidence of my opponent's idiocricy is seen in his first debate [http://www.Debate.org......] where he is losing 89-0.=="

As I have already explained, the opening argument was setup to get you to take the debate and to prove my cleverness.

You see, that first debate was also setup as a trap for this debate. I figured that if anyone alluded to that debate, I could disprove their point as it is now obvious that I CAN write correctly. I knew that I had to keep up the "idiot" facade until this debate was taken. So I acted like an idiot in that debate so that people would believe I was truly an idiot and take this debate.

=="My opponent's arguments are either irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" or have been effectively refuted above. There is no need to further refute them."==

First off, where have my arguments been irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" and this debate? Every argument I've made has been about why I'm not an idiot or why I'm smart (thus disproving the "idiot" theory).

=="My best argument, among others, is that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, which means that my opponent can be an idiot sometimes and the resolution is affirmed. My opponent can be seen as being an idiot in his first round and in his first debate. Resolution affirmed."==

To reiterate, I am not an idiot. All the "qualities" of being an idiot that you have provided have been disproven. Both my first debate and first round were traps for this debate. They were not idiotic as they enticed someone to take this debate so I could win it. I negate the resolution.
Xer

Pro

My opponent is an idiot. His sole contention is that all work he has done so far on this site has been a trap for this debate. First off, my opponent can be easily making this up. It is an unfounded claim. I could just as easily say this his previous work on this site was not a trap, and should be accepeted just as much as his claim. Even if my opponent's claim is accepeted as truth, then he would be being counter-productive - which is a quality of an idiot. Furthermore, my opponent has spelled and used grammar incorrectly more often than not during his time on DDO, which means he is an idiot at least some of the time. Just because my opponent can plan ahead, does not mean that my opponent is not an idiot. Idiots can plan ahead, the definition of an idiot never says that an idiot can not plan ahead. In conclusion, my opponent has many qualities of being an idiot as evidenced by this debate and previous debates - and his ability to plan ahead does not affirm the resolution. Resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
jamie's account is closed
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
jamielynn, I am sorry, but I highly doubt that you are more intellectual than Nags.
Posted by Sylux 7 years ago
Sylux
Well, I used to be Sylux Optimal, Professional Troll!!
But I retired, and so deperately try to be hilarious.
Kinda like Mermaid Man and Barnicle Boy.
Posted by jamielynn 7 years ago
jamielynn
"Do you even know who I am, jamielynn?
DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!"
Not really.

Hey, why are you guys voting against me. :(
I totally proved I'm smarter than him, the first round was just a joke/trap.

Oh well, I guess the debate was fun anyway.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Wikipedia is a source whether you think it's a reliable one or not. Dood is not a word.
Posted by Sylux 7 years ago
Sylux
Do you even know who I am, jamielynn?
DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!
Posted by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
dood. wikipedia is not a source.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Um, I voted against you on conduct for continuing to refer to your opponent as 'he' right after she corrected you AND you apologized for it."

That still sounds like a pretty strange reason haha. Such unusual explanations aren't uncommon, though; the vagueness of the conduct category allows voters to send points to their favored debater for almost any reason, leading to off the wall and often hilarious justifications =D
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"Don't worry Nags, Nails said a very similar thing about me in my debate. Apparently he doesn't understand what conduct is. I lost the entire debate because I referred to my opponent as a "he" whereas my opponent was in fact a "she".

Nails is a poor voter, therefore ignore his vote."

Um, I voted against you on conduct for continuing to refer to your opponent as 'he' right after she corrected you AND you apologized for it. You didn't 'lose the whole debate' from that. There's no need to attack me like that, either, just b/c I voted against you.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Well, this was fun =)

C: Tie
S/G: Tie
A: Con
S: Tie
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
jamielynnXerTied
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 Kaylus 7 years ago
Kaylus
jamielynnXerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
jamielynnXerTied
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:14 
Vote Placed by InterB 7 years ago
InterB
jamielynnXerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by jamielynn 7 years ago
jamielynn
jamielynnXerTied
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 crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
jamielynnXerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
jamielynnXerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by kalyse020908 7 years ago
kalyse020908
jamielynnXerTied
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 lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
jamielynnXerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
jamielynnXerTied
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