The Instigator
Raccoon98
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

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 7 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 67940
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

Raccoon98

Con

i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l0;l9;l7;l6;l3;n0;k9;m1;n2;m0;l9;n3; m0;k7;l8;l8;l6;l8;l0;l9;m0;l0;m5;k7;l9;l2;l0;l4;l0; l7;l6;n1;m0;l6;l4;m1; l6;l5;l0; l0;l4;k7;n2;m0; i7;i5;h8;h4;l6;l4; l0; l6;l5;l0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;k2;.
16kadams

Pro

My opponent clarified what he means with his gibberish. He noted:
Raccoon Von Faget: it's about turbants [turbans] meaning terrorism
Raccoon Von Faget: and how they have Aids [HIV/AIDS]

However, most terrorists are from the middle east, which has low HIV prevalence (http://www.prb.org...). Therefore, terrorists likely have *lower* AIDS rates than a typical person. So, I presume that the resolution is negated. My opponent mixed up pro and con (I am con). Here is proof (Steam message):
Kealy: Are you saying terrorists have AIDS?
Raccoon Von Faget: No terrorist with turbants have aids (turbans; AIDS)
Raccoon Von Faget: because of teh turbants (turbans; the)
Raccoon Von Faget: m8 (mate)

So not only do terrorists have AIDS, but terrorists have AIDS because of Turbans. However, the source above notes how must HIV/AIDS transmissions in the Middle East are due to injection drugs, unrelated to terrorism or turbans.

Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 1
Raccoon98

Con

Well turbants of olama plus pi times 1000000000000 pi = c*ncer so sir you where wrong your d*mb and ret*rded.M8 if you think your better than me your not your just sh*t like a f*g named arthur and a nazi canadian called eddard, if you rly have eb*la like you said you should go to UK they need that sh*t now go s*ck a horse di*k furry f*ck.

U wot m8 u gonna replay replay than u lil b*tch i rek you again h*e 1 v 1 m8
16kadams

Pro

My opponent fails to refute my argument. Extend arguments. I win.

Further, my opponent does not come anywhere near proving that either Terrorists have AIDS nor has be proven that the Turbans are the reasons they have contracted AIDS. Therefore, I win the debate. I have provided legitimate evidence in opposition. My opponent merely speaks gamer.
Debate Round No. 2
Raccoon98

Con

I will fooking rekt u m8
16kadams

Pro

Extend arguments.

I suppose my opponent has contracted a disease which has destroyed his capacity to critically think. Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
Raccoon98

Con

Well allah is with me so fooking rekt m8
Debate Round No. 4
Raccoon98

Con

I won allah will always prevail m8
16kadams

Pro

THE BLOOD OF JESAS
THE BLOOD OF JESAS
THE BLOOD OF JESAS
I REVOKE YOU SATAN
THE BLOOD OF JESAS
THE BLOOD OF JESASAH
THE BLOOG OD JESUSAH


But yeah extend. I win.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Does my vote really need explaining?
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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: Con effectively proved that ALLAH is always right, and ALLAH always wins. Kidding, pro wins because they were the only side to offer a case.
Vote Placed by Geographia 2 years ago
Geographia
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 wasted people's time.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con was cursing, extremely rude, and relied on threats of physical violence, all of which is awful conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Pro. Con failed to spell a majority of his words correctly, when comparing the two, Pro had little to no errors whereas Con had multiple instances of spelling and grammar errors. Arguments - Pro. Pro was the only one to really present 'anything' to be honest. Con just talked $hit, and wrote unintelligible things. Since Pro was the only one to present any form of real argument, and Con failed to rebut his points specifically, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Although Pro did utilize a youtube clip in this debate, it did nothing to really strengthen his arguments, plus the link was broken. Thus, this stays tied. Overall, this is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I could only understand Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 2 years ago
jzonda415
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It was difficult to understand the Con side, between his improper language and text-language and grammar. Pro had successful arguments that went unrefuted by Con. This is a clear Pro win. Always happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Raccoon9816kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Ad hominem. 2. Gibberish. 3. Con failed to make any contentions or rebuttals. That is all I have to say.