The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

lol101 vs vi_spex: Who's the better debater?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 77460
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that I am a better debater than vi_spex. vi_spex will be arguing that he is a better debater than I.

Round 1: Acceptance (If you post an argument, you lose your conduct point)
Rounds 2-5: Arguments and Rebuttals

Use evidence


only now is true
Debate Round No. 1


So vi_spex doesn't really "accept" the debate. He automatically comes up with a claim to argue with. Firstly, that breaks one of the rules. Round 1 is supposed to acceptance, not arguments. Even if the argument is very weak, it's still an argument nonetheless.

lol101: Has a win ratio of 76.47% and has an elo ranking of 2,625.

vi_spex: Has a win ratio of 6.64% and has an elo ranking of 1,089

My win ratio is MUCH higher than vi_spex's and my elo ranking is more than twice as much as vi_spex's. I await Con's argument.


my low win ratio is the evidence that this is a religious website, and that the voters in the favor of my opponent are all wrong, and your high win ratio is a solid proof that i am right

is future or past true?
Debate Round No. 2


How is that evidence that this is a religious website. And how can you prove that the votes in favor of me are wrong. You are only making bare assertions, rather than supporting your reasoning or possibly showing evidence.

This debate is about who's better between you and I, not whether future or past is true or not. Even if that WAS an the topic, it's simply just a question, not an argument. If you have to ASK something rather than argue it, you are not a good debater. I suggest that this is also a reason that I am a better debater than you. I do not get off track when it comes to debating topics, and I especially have never done it TWICE like you did.

"only now is true"

"is future or past true?"

Now, please give me a better argument. Support it with reasoning and evidence please.


i should have said opponents, im talking about almost all my debates..

is now not true?

the argument is the evidence, like an equation you cant argue with
Debate Round No. 3


In most of your debates, you literally just spout off nonsense. Once again, you present a claim that has nothing to do with the debate. Your argument is simply not evidence because a) An argument and evidence are by definition different b) There is no source whatsoever that debunks my claim. It's not evidence, rather it's just an assertion.

Argument- "a statement or series of statements for or against something"

Evidence- "something which shows that something else exists or is true"

I await a solid argument, and a concrete rebuttal.


the only non sense i see is you asseting that i spout non sense

i dont see an argument
Debate Round No. 4


"the only non sense i see is you asseting that i spout non sense i dont see an argument"

I have come up with an argument by the 2nd round, and you have failed to refute it. This is an example of you spouting off nonsense. Here's an example of another debate you just spouted nonsense in.

"i'm taking a stroll :]"

Which had nothing to do with the argument.

Which proves that I am the superior debater over vi_spex.

S&G: Pro. I have quoted vi_spex several times, so you have examples of his poor quality in grammar.
Sources: Pro. I have provided 5 sources, which are examples of evidence. Con hasn't provided evidence.
Conduct: Pro. Con refuses to follow my "evidence" rule and comes up with an argument during the 1st round, like I told him not to.
Arguments: Pro. vi_spex literally got off topic on Round 1, and didn't come with any sort of good reasoning that suggested that he was a better debater than I.


Vote PRO


still dont see any arguments

a stroll
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
hehe :)

i like your new duck man its awsome
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
to win, you must win

votes determine nothing, and you dont feel like you have beaten me unless you have a belief, and belief proves nothing
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
Like this?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
but.. claiming you win will never result in a win, you will get it at some point im sure man
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Wylted// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were even, the only one to use sources to support their argument is pro, so he gets source points.

[*Reason for removal*] Doesn't explain why Pro's source support tilted the debate in his favor or even why the sources were relevant at all. When awarding sources, an RFD must show why there was a significant difference in source from both debaters and *why* this difference impacted the outcome of the debate.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
Although, I'm confused to why you only gave me sources, I clearly had the better grammar. I also explained why I should win arguments and conduct in the last round.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
I was being sarcastic, but I love vi spex
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
Ok thanks. Sorry if the 30 days thing annoys you. I have no clue why I did that.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
I just did. And why is the 30 days thing a big deal. Some debates have even longer voting periods.

I meant are you being sarcastic about vi_spex winning? He couldn't have won.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Nevermind it was accepted, lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year 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: PRO provided reasons as to why lol101 is a better debater. Even though he didn't establish this objectively(ELO isn't an objective criteria) he showed that on a balance lol101 would be a better debater.