The Instigator
lol101
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture

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...
lol101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 77627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

lol101

Pro

Provided that I don't forfeit, you could never beat me in a debate.

vi_spex will have to prove me wrong on this.

Round 1-Acceptance
vi_spex

Con

what is the subject
Debate Round No. 1
lol101

Pro

The title already says it all. I think that you could never beat me in a debate, not counting the fact that I could forfeit the debate. And since you have to prove that you COULD beat me in a debate, (as I've stated) the Burden of Proof is on you.

(Btw, my apologies for misspelling "resulting", I know it said "resulltinf". I'm going to put that out there.)
vi_spex

Con

i have beaten you in all our debates so far and you dont have a single example that i am wrong
Debate Round No. 2
lol101

Pro

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.


vi_spex

Con

man sry i cant take you seriusly.. you dont have an argument, and you never did, and you still cant present one now
Debate Round No. 3
lol101

Pro

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.

vi_spex

Con

you havnt posted anything
Debate Round No. 4
lol101

Pro

My opponent chooses to lie instead of argue with me. I posted alls arguments as seen in the debate, which YOU were supposed to do. Even if I didn't post an argument, you were supposed to do so, as I clarified in Round 1. I have introduced actual arguments and sources while my opponent lacks it. Thus, I can conclude that vi_spex will NEVER win a debate against me. I have also rebutted all of what seems to be false claims and bare assertions. Con has failed over and over to come up with an argument and refute mine. I should win every point:

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.

Vote PRO
vi_spex

Con

you havnt posted anything
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Why did I laugh whilst reading this?!!
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
And even if I didn't, then it would be a tie. vi_spex didn't do anything to win the debate. He didn't make an argument like he was supposed to. "vi_spex will have to prove me wrong on this" was a rule. He didn't prove me wrong, he just said I didn't post anything.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
*has
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
I know I can't predict the future, although, vi_spex is been in over 200 debates and he still hasn't improved. Maybe he could beat me in the debate, but the truth of the matter is, he didn't prove that. Even if you agree with vi_spex, he still didn't support his reasoning. It's about who did the better job of supporting their argument, not whom you agree with.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
He just wasn't specific enough. He could have said that it wasn't good evidence using reasoning. But the voters are not part of the debate, it's his job to actually debunk this. I still win due to the fact that vi_spex also didn't post anything. I used sources and reasoning to suggest that he's never beaten me in a debate, therefore, he never will. He also addresses that he beat me in every debate, and I disproved that. All he has done is posted lies and refused to refute my sources and argument, so my point still stands.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
@Rami I showed my reasoning, vi_spex didn't even counter it
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
@Lol, you have the burden of proof too, to show that Vi_Spex can't win a debate agaisnt you. I belive that's what vi_spex meant when he said you haven't wrote anything. @Vi_spex, all you have to write is that in the future, people will understand your line of reasoning and vote for you.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
@Preston Did you even read the debate? I think that you only vote against me because you dislike me. Please leave me alone and stop trolling.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
*vi_spex, terrible auto correct
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
@Preston Seriously? Do you hold a grudge against me? Agreeing with vi_spec isn't enough, he HAS TO ARGUE with me. He did not use reasoning or sources, so therefore, he loses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sara_ann_dee 1 year ago
sara_ann_dee
lol101vi_spexTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: It was kind of instigating to attack someone like this - but PRO does have more convincing arguments.