My Opponent Will Lose This Debate
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 4/1/2014 | Category: | Games | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 2,198 times | Debate No: | 51352 | ||
 Pro -- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con (this debate is essentially a challenge game for Con). If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default, so please, no disputing a rule after accepting the debate --
Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them. Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent *Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance *Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with an upper case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes. Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted Rule 6: Shared burden of proof
Have fun, it should be entertaining ha |
 |
|
Pro I believe my opponent will lose because his task is tedious and time consuming, and he has been allotted only 5 minutes to write each round. He may claim this was unfair, but he garnered 6 wins himself using a variation of the same tactic. The time allotted to write your arguments is disclosed before you accept, and by the definition of the word itself, this is a rule he must adhere to. If he contests this rule, or attempts to argue it’s unfair, then according to rule 1, having broken rule 5, he’d automatically lose. I only said I’d copy your resolution, not every rule of the debate. And regardless, you had all information disclosed before you accepted; if you were opposed to the rules, you should have been more careful. This seems only fair since you would have had more time to prepare yourself for your own resolution. Happy Debating. :)  Con Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro I further believe con will lose this argument because he’s done this debate a total of 7 times now, with a general feedback of distaste from most people. He’s been repeatedly accused in these debates of using this resolution to boost his stats, and those who agree with that sentiment will vote for me simply because they believe he shouldn’t be able to continue to do so. He may argue that I’ve done something unscrupulous by giving him so little time to reply, asking voters to vote against me because of this, but I’ve only made the “game”, as he calls it, more challenging. If he wasn’t up for the challenge, he shouldn’t have accepted. It shows the time you have for each debate before you accept. I further argue he will lose because he forfeited his last round. This is a clear loss for round two of the game, meaning I get the win for that round. Con If I just cared about boosting my stats I wouldn't have accepted this debate in the first place lol People are reading into it all wrong. Anyway, I wasn't aware of the 5 minute limit until after my opponent's first round (which was my fault). Pro won fair and square. Good Job! My social experiment still yeilds the same results, the Con side always loses ha |
 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 1 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 1 | 0 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 7 | 0 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 1 | 0 |
| BananaPhilosopher | Rational_Thinker9119 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 1 | 0 |
Then they are idiots because the opening round clearly outlines this "trap". Therefore, if they are expecting something different, they need to learn how to read.
"You've done this on the side that cannot lose four times, not once."
Well, the side can lose, it is just very hard. Yes, I have done it four times, but I have no problem doing this debate again while being Con three more times. Would that make you feel better?
"Banana had an good reason to challenge you, not just to get easy unfair wins."
I didn't do it just to get wins. If all I cared about was wins, would I have accepted this debate with the cards stacked against me? I don't think so.
" I see no evidence you didn't do this to get easy wins, as i'm sure you know you have 4 wins from the side that cannot lose."
The evidence is simple. If all I cared about were adding debate points to my record, I wouldn't have accepted this debate. I would accept more debates with this resolution where I am Con as well.
----
- People accept these debates expecting a fun debate, but instead find themselves in a trap they cannot win.
- You've done this on the side that cannot lose four times, not once.
- Banana had an good reason to challenge you, not just to get easy unfair wins.
- I see no evidence you didn't do this to get easy wins, as i'm sure you know you have 4 wins from the side that cannot lose.
You're question ignored the fact that I might be okay with being wrong. Some points end up being proven wrong. I'm okay with that.
When are you doing to go back to actual debating instead of setting up near impossible challenges to increase your win total? Also sad to see that BP would stoop to your level to get revenge from the loss you gave him.