vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture
Debate Rounds (5)
vi_spex will have to prove me wrong on this.
(Btw, my apologies for misspelling "resulting", I know it said "resulltinf". I'm going to put that out there.)
I would like to point out that my opponent has not proven that he could beat me in a debate, nor could he support his claim with evidence
"i have beaten you in all our debates so far and you dont have a single example that i am wrong"
No evidence is to be found here. Meanwhile, you assert that I have no examples without waiting to see if I have any examples.
http://www.debate.org... 4 of my losses. Nowhere does it say that I have lost to you. This means that you have never "beaten me in a debate."
http://www.debate.org... are my ties. I have tied one debate with you so far.
http://www.debate.org... are my wins. I have won 7 debates against you.
At this rate, you will never beat me in a debate. You could've used reasoning to support your bare assertion, but you decide not to, as always. You will sometimes get off topic, spout off random nonsense, and make bare assertions. The sources will show the voters that what I had just claimed is true, and that you haven't beaten me in a debate yet.
I have put out evidence to reject your claim, so in return, I ask that you use reasoning or other evidence to debunk my claim. Since I already addressed that you have the BoP, you HAVE to prove me wrong. So far, you haven't done anything to debunk anything that I said. You don't use any sort of logic or statistic that proves that you could win a debate against me.
My opponent makes a false assertion that I don't have an argument and that I still cannot present one.
"man sry i cant take you seriusly.. you dont have an argument, and you never did, and you still cant present one now"
Can you please *prove* this? I just posted an argument. Remember, I made a rule that required the BoP to be passed on to you, and yet you don't come up with a single argument, so I believe this is quite the contrary my friend.
Con tells me that I cannot present an argument, even though he cannot come up with rules and this is not his debate.
I shall extend my argument
I have proven with sources that vi_spex hasn't beaten me in a debate so far, even though he asserts that he always did. I made an argument supporting that at this rate, vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, since he always makes bare assertions rather than using actual logic or reasoning. The logic he ever uses is his own made-up gibberish. Look at my wins and tell me this is not true. And to add insult to injury, getting off topic definitely hurts his reputation as a debater. My opponent has one last chance of coming up with an argument and properly refuting my points, although, according to my sources and argument, he is never going to do said actions. I rest my case.
Conduct-Pro. vi_spex didn't come up with even a half decent argument like he was supposed to. He basically forfeithe this debate.
S/G: Pro. Yes I had a grammar error on the title, but I make less grammar mistakes than Con in general. Especially considering Con cannot capitalize his "I's".
Arguments: Pro. Read everything that I said above.
Sources: I am the only one to provide sources.
This should result in a clear cut 7-0.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sara_ann_dee 1 year ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: It was kind of instigating to attack someone like this - but PRO does have more convincing arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.