The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
spencbeth2
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

retardation of ddo..

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
spencbeth2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 93719
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

FUUUCK you people are retards... what the FUCCCCK do yo need sources for.. are you that mentally handicapped? that you need some one to tell you what you already well already fuckinggg know you denying self deluding cluster stink blob

and whate about votes... what the FUUUCk is up with your mental handicap...

AND 5 ROUNDS... DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE IF YOU CANT GET TO THE OTHER PERSONS POSITIONS.. GET THE FUUUUUUCK OF THIS WEBISITE AND GO TO FACEBOOK OR TETRIS THE FUUUCK YOU WASTE EVERYONES TIME FOR

and what do you think the rules are for... ok first round acceptance.. last round not reallt a point to write anything there.. 3 rounds.. thats it, thats what it takes for you to get on this website and copy paste yourself into proven oblivion.. what the fuckkk

it took me a few months to get smarter than all scientists on the planet... how come? why is that? do you just not give a fuuuck?

biggest FUUUCk to the person that came to any near vacinity of accepting the idea of 5 rounds... holyshit you are dense
spencbeth2

Con

I've noticed the pro has over 350+ losses due to random topics and nonsensical comments just to try and get his/her win limit up. Will the pro finally come up with a good argument or shall you sit there like a fool posting illiteracy.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i dont lose.. and its because i am undefetable.. this is known to everyone on ddo that knows about my debates
spencbeth2

Con

To be fair, your posts are the the very extravagant and I cannot prove many to be fallacious in the slightest... Because they do not make sense.
But the point of having a source is to prove the credibility of factual information, in case you didn't already know.
Linking/Citations do not make you retarded, they are so people do not have to prove their argument on baseless opinions.
Debate Round No. 2
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: 42lifeuniverseverything// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments).. Reasons for voting decision: Pro I think I know why you wanted to debate this, you should have challenged me. I give Con conduct because Con didn't swear, while Pro did numerous times. I give Con arguments for two reasons. Pro's initial argument is why must I have sources on DDO. Con's response is that sources prove that what would be baseless claims are actually factual in nature. This is a very useful tool in logic, and thus Con wins this argument. Pro's second argument is based on round structure, and how most people on this site are retarded. Con responds that Pro has lost 350+ debates, and thus is most likely not credible of a source on this issue. Con also points out most of Pro's past arguments are nonsensical. I give this argument to Con. Overall, Vi_spex should have ranted in the forums, not done a debate on this. I VOTE CON.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Arguments are sufficiently explained, with the voter examining points made by both sides and using them to inform his decision. With regards to conduct, voters are allowed to award conduct points on the basis that one side circumvented site rules with regards to swearing in round.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SJM// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Spenc didn't swear.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award conduct points on the basis that one side circumvented site rules with regards to swearing in round.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RonaldTrumpkin// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON as PRO not only swore multiple times, he also made personal attacks on the people of this site as well as CON. Spelling and Grammar to CON as PRO fails on capitalization, overuses punctuation, and is missing proper sentence structure. Arguments to CON as PRO makes no attempt to explain what he is arguing or why sources are actually not needed, Instead he resorts to saying such junk as "are you mentally handicapped?" CON easily refutes what little PRO states by actually addressing the vague topic and actually explaining why using sources are necessary.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. While the voter sufficiently analyzes Pro's argument, he does not analyze Con's argument, instead just stating that Con accomplished two goals without actually explaining how he did so. With regards to conduct, voters are allowed to award conduct points on the basis that one side circumvented site rules with regards to swearing in round. Personal attacks are also sufficient reason to award this point. S&G is also sufficiently explained, as the voter goes through a number of reasons that can affect reading comprehension.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes very valid points that as long as information stated is factual, providing where the info was gotten is unnecessary

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. If the voter feels that one side was more factual, it should be clear why those facts swayed either of these points to his side, which requires comparisons between specific arguments from both sides. Those comparisons don't appear in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont see a question

one can spend time trying to sound intelligent
Posted by Otto_Hasenkamp 1 year ago
Otto_Hasenkamp
Recently I've been taking a look at Pro's debates and such, and, with no intention to offend, I'm honestly questioning this person's age or mental stability. They either have the mental capacity of a baby or have reached an enlightened state where they preach matters that we, as human beings, can't understand.
I'd probably go for the for the former though.
Posted by spencbeth2 1 year ago
spencbeth2
When you're feeling confident 5-0.
Then 10 straight votes go to the other side FeelsBadMan
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
wrong
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
The only retard here is vi_spex
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
but this post is simply true
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 1 year ago
zmikecuber
vi_spexspencbeth2Tied
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: Con doesnt address Pro's arguments until the last round and just does ad homs.
Vote Placed by SJM 1 year ago
SJM
vi_spexspencbeth2Tied
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: Spenc didn't swear.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
vi_spexspencbeth2Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro I think I know why you wanted to debate this, you should have challenged me. I give Con conduct because Con didn't swear, while Pro did numerous times. I give Con arguments for two reasons. Pro's initial argument is why must I have sources on DDO. Con's response is that sources prove that what would be baseless claims are actually factual in nature. This is a very useful tool in logic, and thus Con wins this argument. Pro's second argument is based on round structure, and how most people on this site are retarded. Con responds that Pro has lost 350+ debates, and thus is most likely not credible of a source on this issue. Con also points out most of Pro's past arguments are nonsensical. I give this argument to Con. Overall, Vi_spex should have ranted in the forums, not done a debate on this. I VOTE CON.