me grammar suck
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
phantom
| Started: | 3/19/2012 | Category: | Entertainment |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 438 times | Debate No: | 22158 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)
 Pro me opponent argue me grammar good me argue me grammar no good luck good you my friend  Con To win this debate I have to demonstrate that pros grammar does not suck. If we look at his other debates we will find that he has fine grammar. http://www.debate.org... In this debate pro uses commas, capitalization and periods. His grammar does not suck. Now my case is very believable. It is obvious pro has purposfully had bad grammar in this debate. Just look at the title. We cannot go by this debate on whether pro has good grammar. |
 |
|
Con My opponent has so far failed to meet his BoP. His arguments are based solely on trust. Should we trust my opponents word that his grammar somehow magically lessened drastically in a matter of minutes? Or do we accept the obvious fact that pro is using horrible grammar for the sole reason that this debate is about his grammar. So far he has been very unconvincing, thus I contend that we have very little reason to accept pros word based on trust rather than my logical arguments. |
 |
|
Pro my brain bad me grammar literally is suck please vote me because me grammar suck it story true i sad now me grammar suck :( Con To conclude we still have little reason to accept pros word which is solely based on trust. Pro has not given suffecient reason as to why we should believe him, thus faild to meet his BOP. The evidence is conclusive. In other debates pro has good grammar. In this debate he has bad grammar. There are no good reasons to believe his grammar has agresively decreased in a matter of minutes, due to a brain disorder. There is not even any evidence such a brain problem exists, let alone that pro has it. |
 |
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that Pro's grammar in other debates does not "suck".
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: I give S/G to Pro for the lulz, but con had a clear win here.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: con proved that pro's grammar is fine by referencing other debates. arguments to the con, sources to the con, conduct to the con since pro lied about his grammar basically. Also, pro's grammar in this debate sucked
Vote Placed by Travniki 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con played the debate by his terms and won it. He couldn't match Pros spelling and Grammar however..
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: lol another quicky debate...but, Pro never proved his grammar always sucks....Pros grammar did not in the past and they were just faking it for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 1 year ago
| iAnonymous | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pros grammar is fine in other debates. I find it ironic that his grammar only sucks in this debate.
*suggestive wink*
.....no! Not that you pedophile! Get away from me!
*suggestive wink*
a quick game of chess