The Instigator
crazypenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

you are more evil than I am crazy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 12 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,423 times Debate No: 5415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

crazypenguin

Pro

You are evil......please start this debate now. For those reading, this is a inside joke that must be settled between us two debaters. LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
burningpuppies101

Con

Hello everyone. Before I proceed to rip apart my good friend's argument, I just wanted to provide everyone with a little background information. Me and crazypenguin have been good friends for a few years, and us being us, we loved to tease each other about the most random things. It was just for fun, and recently, we have begun teasing each other about a subject which is very controversial and is a inside joke for me and him. If you don't understand the topic, there is a reason. However, for the purpose of this debate, I'm going to explain the topic is a way that should be easiest for everyone voting.
You are more evil than I am crazy is the exact wording of this topic. "You" would be me. "I" would be my opponent. When he says that I am more evil that he is crazy, he means that if you were to measure my "evilness" and his "crazy-ness", and you got a number (hypothetically speaking), then whoever had the higher number would be the one who is either more evil than the other is crazy (if I was to lose this debate) or one is more crazy than the other is evil (if I were to win this debate). Hopefully this will alleviate any questions you might have, but if there is still confusion, feel free to leave a message on this debate.

Now to the debate itself:
I know this will sound repetitive because I just said much of what I am about to say. The topic states that "You" (burningpuppies101) are more evil that "I"(crazypenguin) am crazy. So what my opponent has to prove is the following:
Burningpuppies101 is more evil than Crazypenguin is crazy.

What I have to prove is the following:
Burningpuppies101 is NOT more evil than Crazypenguin is crazy.

So at a first glance, it may see, as though I have to prove that Crazypenguin is more crazy than I am evil.
However, I will not do that seeing as that is impossible. My stance only states that I have to prove that I am not more evil than Crazypenguin is crazy. So I just have to disprove my opponents statements. I don't have to prove my own, I just have to disprove his arguments to win. However, my opponent has not provided any statements with which I can refute, so I will just have to forward some of my arguments for my case. Note however, that even though I am presenting arguments, my job is not to prove my case. My job is to disprove my opponents case, and if in doing so I present my own arguments, so be it.

1. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to the fact that I am more evil than he is crazy. There is no way to actually measure evil-ness and crazy-ness, because we do not have a standard with which to measure. Therefore, any argument my opponent puts forth "measuring" my evil is false. However, this is the only way with which to prove this topic right, so in a nutshell, I just kind of won this debate.

2. I want to submit some definitions from Merriam Webster(a source I believe we can all agree is a very good and reliable source)
evil
1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful , wicked b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a:archaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive c: disagreeable
3 a: causing harm : pernicious b: marked by misfortune : unlucky

To clarify the definition above, I offer the following definitions:
reprehensible:
(side note: I had to paraphrase the definition a little since there was a trail of words I had to follow before I got the definition)
1. to be able to voice disapproval of
Morally reprehensible:
1. to be able to voice disapproval of something. The disapproval is usually based on a moral ground.
Pernicious:
1.highly injurous and destructive
Harm:
1 : physical or mental damage : injury
Damage:
1: loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation
Below is a definition for crazy:
crazy
1 a: full of cracks or flaws : unsound b: crooked , askew
2 a: mad , insane b (1): impractical (2): erratic c: being out of the ordinary : unusual
3 a: distracted with desire or excitement b: absurdly fond : infatuated c: passionately preoccupied : obsessed

3. This is my third argument, not to be confused for another definition.
I'm going to disprove anything my opponent might have to say about my being evil.
Evil's first definition says that evil is something that is morally reprehensible. I have not done anything that would deserve to be morally reprehesive. Even if I have, my opponent has no way to prove any claim that he makes.

Evil's second definition. The first part doesn't really make sense(if anyone can explain it, please do in the message section.) So I'll go with the second part, which means that I cause discomfort or repulsion in those around me. Again, like the first definition, there is no way to prove that this is true. Also, this is not true. If you choose to believe me(which you don't, and probably shouldn't), I'm going to claim that I am in the middle of a library typing this argument, and all around me are people, and none of them are expressing any sign that I am causing them discomfort or repulsion. In fact, there is someone withing 2 feet of me looking over my shoulder as I write this argument, and he has shown no sign that I am causing him ANY discomfort or repulsion.

Evil's third definition. I have never harmed somone in my life (harm has been defined above), and evil if I have, there is no way to prove it. Also, when you say someone has harmed you, you do not mean someone has tickled you. When you talk about someone harming another, you mean that one has been hurt much more than just tickling someone.

4. Normally, I would go on to prove that my opponent is crazy, and I would probably follow the above format for doing so. However, there is nothing I can say in this argument what would objectively prove that what I say is true, so I'm not even going to try.

Conclusion:
My opponent has not way to prove any claims he makes about me being evil.
I do not have to prove that He is more crazy than I am evil.
I only have to prove that I am not more evil than he is crazy.
In otherwords, I just have to disprove his arguments.
I don't need to present any arguments of my own to prove that he is more crazy than I am evil.
Instead, I just presented arguments that will show that I am not more evil than he is crazy.
My opponent has NO WAY TO PROVE ANYTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE (I know I just repeated myself, but I wanted to make sure you knew.)

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
crazypenguin

Pro

Thank you for the background information.

I would like to start with a few reasons of why my opponent is more evil than I crazy,

1. My opponent started off by stating "Before I proceed to rip apart..." This is one example of him being evil, he could have stated to refute my argument or even debate my argument but he chooses the word RIP APART.

2. My opponents screen name is burningpuppies101?!?!?! That is pure evilness, who has a screen name BURNINGPUPPIES101???

3. As my opponent gave the definition of "Harm: 1 : physical or mental damage", my friend here likes to tazer me (when I say tazer, I mean with his hand he jabs me in the stomach) especially when he knows I despise when he does that. After I told him it hurts because it does...He continues to do it.

4. My last point is that I am not crazy...All though I like the crazy bunny because he looks funny and its a funny message and my name is crazypenguin because I like penguins and without the crazy its just bland old penguin, so that is my point that I am not crazy!

Thank you,
I will enjoy reading your argument.
burningpuppies101

Con

Well, I think that before I'll launch into extending my case, I'll refute some of my opponent's points.
I'll just number my refutations just like he numbered his arguments. So if I'm refuting his first point, it would be labeled under 1.

1. Yes, my choice of words may have been a little harsh. However, I do not think that that one reason is enough to target me as an evil person. My reasoning is because when you say someone is evil, you usually are talking about them being really really bad. You do not mean that they may have chosen a harsh set of words to begin a debate with, you would mean that they have done something so bad, it warrants calling them evil. For instance, you could call Stalin evil for killing millions of people. You could call Hitler evil for killing millions of people. You could call anyone evil, as long as you had a good reason. My words that happen to be a little more harsh than most people would choose is NOT a good reason.

2. First off, CRAZYpenguin, you have no right to say that I am evil just based off of my username. If anything, you are the crazier one by using the word CRAZY(the quality we are debating) in your username. However, just in case none of you buy that argument, I'll explain my username to you. Earlier this year, I had taken a philosophy course in ethics, and on the second day of that course, our teacher decided to begin a discussion about justification, and one of the examples she gave me was thus:
Let us accept that assisted suicide by the patients choice of death is ok.
Seeing as the patient has a choice of death, he/she/it could choose any method that he/she/it wanted.
Let us say that the patient is a puppy. Let us also say that in this hypothetical world, we can understand the puppy.
The puppy has more than enough reason to want to die, and would like to die by his/her/it choice of method.
The puppy chooses death by burning.
The question at the end of this was; Is burning the puppy justified?
(side note: this is a very extreme case, and in no way reflects upon my own character. Of course, if you buy that or not is your own choice, but you would have to prove it first.)

The whole class loved the example, and I decided to use that example to inspire my username.
Therefore, my username has no bearing upon my character, and even if it did, my opponent has no way of proving it, which is his job. My opponent's job is to prove that I am more evil than he is crazy. He has not proven anything. All he has done is throw accusations at me, accusations with which he has no way of proving.

3. About the "tazering," I just want to clarify it for all of the audience. Are any of the audience ticklish??? If the answer is yes, then you know what tazering feels like. A "tazer" is essentially when you lightly jab someone in the side, provoking a jump or start in the person. It doesn't do mental or physical damage. Also, I provided a definition for damage, and clearly, tickling someone in the side does not do mental or physical damage. If it did indeed to mental damage, I can disprove that because there is a way to prove that my opponent is not suffering mental damage. Look at his debates. He uses his mind to debate. His debates make sense. His debates follow a logical order. Even if my opponent might lose his debates every so often, he only loses because he fails to refute all of his opponent's points. In a nutshell, my opponent is on debate.org, and is able to debate, so therefore he can't be mentally damaged, or he would not be able to debate as well as he is. Physical damage I can't prove on this site, but even so, I don't have to prove it. My opponent does. So me not proving anything is ok, as long as I disprove anything my opponent says.

4. First off, his point isn't really a point, since it has no logical order, has no proof, and has nothing that would suggest he is trying to refute something I said. Also, he isn't really saying anything in this debate that would forward the debate. He is just saying that he is not crazy. He is not supposed to prove he is not crazy. His job is to prove that I, burningpuppies101, are more evil than he, crazypenguin, is crazy. He has not proven objectively that I am indeed more evil than he is crazy.

Seeing as my opponent has not refuted any of my points in any meaningful fashion, I do not really have anything to say about my points, so I'm just going to rehash my points by copying my conclusion from my last speech. However, please do read my points from the first speech so that you actually know what I am saying.
Conclusion:
My opponent has no way to prove any claims he makes about me being evil.
I do not have to prove that He is more crazy than I am evil.
I only have to prove that I am NOT more evil than he is crazy. (small difference, but it's important)
In otherwords, I just have to disprove his arguments.
I don't need to present any arguments of my own to prove that he is more crazy than I am evil.
Instead, I just presented arguments that will show that I am not more evil than he is crazy.
My opponent has NO WAY TO PROVE ANYTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE (I know I just repeated myself, but I wanted to make sure you knew.)
Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
crazypenguin

Pro

Now to refute the refutations of my opponent:

1. What I mean to say is that is my opponent is evil by using those words because it has a negative impact on the other person as my opponent said:"wicked " which is exactly what my opponent had in mind.

2. Whatever the reason you have for putting that name I already explained my username to you. Your username has a reason to it but is it necessarily a good one?.....

3. Lets stop at "does not do mental or physical damage." As I explained before it does cause me physical damage. For example when he tazered me quite badly this one time and I was writhing on the floor and a close friend commented me as a "Tickle me (my name)" or a spazzing person (no offense to people who like Tickle me Elmo's). Another time when he used both his hands and jabbed them in my sides, it hurt a lot and i had two red marks on the side. EVIL

4. Summing up his arguments, I have 3 ways to prove he is evil
5. My way to prove that what I say is true is all in my opponents arguments, when he said what tazering is I took it tha now you can believe me that he is pure EVIL.

6. I am not crazy becuase other than have my username which i already explained. Otherwise there is no implication or any sign that I am crazy.

Thank you,
burningpuppies101

Con

Before I start my arguement, I want to thank everyone who is reading this, I want to thank my opponent, and I want to thank Debate.org for creating this wonderful medium with which we can use.

Now I'm going to refute my opponents points.

1. First, you cannot prove that, and you have the burden of proof. Seeing as you haven't proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt, you have lost this point. Also, this is just an accusation, seeing as there is no way for you to "see" into my mind and determine with what intention I tickle you. There is only one person who can say with conviction what I am thinking, and that person is me. I can tell you now that I do not intend to cause pain or inflict mental damage upon my good friend. However, believing that argument is up to you.

2. Yes, you explained your username. Let me post that argument that you used:
"4. My last point is that I am not crazy...All though I like the crazy bunny because he looks funny and its a funny message and my name is crazypenguin because I like penguins and without the crazy its just bland old penguin, so that is my point that I am not crazy!"

Let me mention now that this argument is not really an argument but rather a run on sentence, and it doesn't really prove anything, other than the fact that you claim to like penguins. You claim that I do not have a good reason to make my username Burningpuppes101, but does it really matter? My choice of username will not make me evil. Also, my reason for making my username Burningpuppies101 was an act of rememberance of that day. I think that what our usernames are should not reflect on what we are like as people.

3. I do not see how tickling someone will cause them physical harm. I can see how stabbing someone with a knife would cause them hard, but tickling someone in the side does not cause physical harm. Even if I did accidentally poke crazypenguin too hard, I would immediatley say sorry and ask for forgiveness. However, I have not done that. Also, my opponent hasn't offered any proof for any of the claims he has made. Since he has the burden of proof, he has lost this point and this debate since he has not proven anything.

4. I just disproved all of you claims.
5. I know what rape is, does that mean that I am pure Evil??? Does that mean I have raped someone??? This argument makes no sense. Plus, tazering is a inside joke between me and him.

6. I'm not trying to prove that you are crazy. I am trying to disprove his statements. I do not need to prove that he is more crazy than I am evil. I just need to prove that I am not indeed more evil than my opponent is crazy.

Conclusion:
My opponent has still failed to disprove my statements, seeing all he has done this entire debate is throw accusations at me, and hope that I will forget to refute one of them, and he will claim it as a vicotry on his part. However, HE STILL HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING, AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HIS SIDE. I got to go, so for my arguments, look to my first speech.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Interesting debate, but I voted CON.

First, PRO never attempted to dispute CON's rigid idea of the burden of proof (in that CON merely had to refute PRO's arguments to win. Thus, I don't have to buy any of CON's "proof" of the topic in order to vote CON.

Second, PRO pretty much dropped CON's points in R1 and provided no objection against his definition of evil (morally reprehensible). Given that PRO failed to prove that CON's action were in fact morally reprehensible, I'm pretty much forced to side with CON. Thus, taking into consideration that CON has a user name about "burning puppies" as well as the fact that CON likes to "pal" around with PRO through tazing him, I pretty much see nothing to suggest that he is evil.

So yeah, those are the biggies. Definite CON vote.
Posted by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
seeing as padfo0t, you agree taht you cannot prove anything you type, then surely you should have voted for me. However, you did not. My opponent never proved anything to me, and was never able to. Therefore I won this debate because the burden of proof lies on him, not me to prove something.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
You are both incredibly stupid as to suppose you can prove anything you type.
You cannot prove any tazing, burning, crazyness, or other flaws.
Crazypenguin and Burningpuppies101 are both evil and stupid in their own ways.
Posted by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
sagarous, your second comment is basically my second argument in my second speech. thank you for repeating it for the audience
Posted by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
And crazypenguin's Round 1 was quite a waste of time when he could have started his constructive argument against burningpuppies101, who immediately jumped into the offensive and took away much of crazypenguin's ground
Posted by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
Anyways, even if this point held any weight, it would be to burningpuppies101's advantage because:
1. crazypenguin's name has crazy in the name, and in the picture itself
2. burningpuppies101 gives a logical explanation for the reason of his username, and his username is indirectly suggesting that he's evil, wheras crazypenguin, again, uses crazy in its name and pic.
Posted by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
Both your usernames reflect nothing about you, anyways, this point is pointless, no pun intended
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Paramountdesktop 9 years ago
Paramountdesktop
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
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 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 9 years ago
spinnerclotho
crazypenguinburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07