The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

truth has evidence advantage

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 395 times Debate No: 101223
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

and the lier has a lie
Mharman

Con

"truth has advantage and the lier has a lie"

Depth analysis:
"Truth" and "lie are compound subject nouns, "advantage" and "lie" are direct objects. "and" is a conjunction, and "has" is a linking verb, and "a" is an article adjective.

Notice that A is part of the subgroup AA, which is a mathematical impossibility. AA should be the subgroup of A.

Notice also that T and L are in the subgroup SN. Now notice that AD, and LEIR are all in the subgroup DO. Notice that DO and SN are a subgroup of N, which is a mathematical impossibility, Since SN should be a part of S, not N. If it were a part of N is would be NS. T and L are one letter groupings, so they should not be subgroups. The same is the case LEIR and AD being a subgroup of DO. Thus, DO should not be a subgroup in the first place.

It is also a mathematical impossibility of having two groupings labeled H. Notice how both are a subgroup of LV, which also makes no sense at all.

If..
A > AA and AD, in which AA + AC = AD,
L > LE > LEI > LEIR,
N > NS,
S > SN,
T =/= L,
H^2 = LV,
and DO = 0...

Then..

L must be a constant doubling variable, since you can keep adding variables on to it. Thus, L = {2, 4, 8, 16, 32,...}
This would also mean that T =/= {2, 4, 8, 16, 32,...}.

E, I, and R must also be constant doubling variables, since they are part of the equation with L. L must be the smallest one of the four since it comes first, and so on.

Notice that the relationship between H and LV. V cannot be 1, H cannot be one, and L cannot be 2 since 1^1=1, not 2. However, it works if H=8, L=4, and V=16, since LV = 64 and 8^2 = 64.

Thus...
L = 4, H = 8, and V = 16. This also means that E skips the next two numbers in the sequence, and that is the pattern.

Thus... E = 32, I = 256, and R = 2,048.

If AA + AC = AD, then A = 1, C = 2, and D = 3.

Notice how the smaller variables are greater than the multi-digit variables. Thus, they are all negative, but we can cancel them all out.

Since D = 3, then O = 0, since 3*0=0.

S and N are two variables not in the sequence that still are greater when together than alone. Thus, N = 12 and S = 19, which is also their placing in the alphabet. It is important to note that A is a part of this sequence as well. Notice how T is related to N and S. It is not a factor, but it is related to the number 20. (12*19)/20 = 11.4, thus, with rounding, T =11.

Later, the rest of the alphabet fills into the rest of the spots. All the numbers not in the sequences are in the sequence Prev. Value * Fill-in Value = New Value, skipping 13, because having 0 is a chance to get rid of bad luck, and if they interfere with any other sequence, they will be added 1 until there is no conflict. 20 is also skipped due the earlier equation.

So, to recap:

O = 0
A = 1
C = 2
D = 3
L = 4
H = 8
B = 10
T = 11
N = 12
V = 16
S = 19
E = 32
F = 36
G = 49
J = 90
K = 110
M = 182
P = 240
I = 256
Q = 289
R = 324
U = 441
W = 528
Y = 575
Z = 624
R = 2,048.

We get nothing by multiplying these, but we do get something by adding them all together.

The alphabet = 5,900.

Thett3 has a similar elo. Thett is also a dude pretending to be a girl, which means there is a reverse on what vi_spex said.

CONCLUSION: By saying "truth has an evidence advantage", he really means that "lies have have an evidence advantage"!
This is however, not true. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Mharman

Con

Con has not refuted my points, instead he insists on arguing that lies have evidence advantage. In fact, the truth is that I proved that what he ACTUALLY said of what he really "said", and the evidence is my Round 1 argument. Thus, I win; vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
as if to conclude something
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
he needs votes
Posted by Mharman 10 months ago
Mharman
Anybody wanna troll vote bomb in my favor?
Posted by Confucius1 10 months ago
Confucius1
lol vi_spex is back
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
huh
Posted by Sonofcharl 10 months ago
Sonofcharl
Check in the dictionary.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
dont see any proof
Posted by Sonofcharl 10 months ago
Sonofcharl
Liar
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
canis <3
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
It seems not to be an advantage to have evidence if you want to believe.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
vi_spexMharmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, I believe that truth has evidence advantage, so I agree with vi_spex before and after the debate. Conduct and sources are tied. vi_spex failed to use capital letters and punctuation, so Mharman is awarded one point for that. As far as arguments, vi_spex pulls up a teeny-tiny argument with barely any explanation, yet he still argues that truth has evidence advantage by simply stating it. Mharman makes a lengthy argument that this is not what vi_spex is truly meaning, but it's obviously just a long complicated, funny explanation. However, the point of the debate is not trying to be funny but be convincing, which is why I side with vi_spex. Also, if you disagree with this, I have one more reason why Mharman loses in my opinion. He chose Con to "truth has evidence advantage", meaning he disagrees with this. vi_spex is pro, so he believes in this statement, and Con has not convinced me otherwise. So yeah, in my opinion, vi_spex wins, Mharman loses.
Vote Placed by Cat47 10 months ago
Cat47
vi_spexMharmanTied
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: Pro never makes an argument, thus by default Con gets argument points. PS: gdfsgdhgfdgdfigdjbgdfihgffdghjdsfhbhjgfgd
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
vi_spexMharmanTied
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 never actually makes an argument "huh". Therefore, I automatically negate on all unrefuted round 1 points.