The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Once a cheater Always a cheater

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 109736
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




There is no denying it, a majority of cheaters never feel bad for the ones they hurt, and the only ones who do only feel bad for a few days

Here is proof supporting this:

also, all of their reasons to cheat are inexcuseable

"i was drunk" People who are drunk always have some way to control yourself, they are still concious, the only thing that drink did was do what the person who got drunk was going to do in the next few weeks

"our relithionship was toxic" so why didnt you guys break up? their is no need to have sex with someone else.

"i wanted to get back at him" this reason makes them hypocrites for saying that they should forgive them, when they wanted revenge in the first place.

"I got tired of having sex with my spouse" ok, so why didn't you just wait a bit, and than have sex with her/him again?


Thanks for the debate Pro.
I think this topic is rather odd, but if it helps people see clearer, why not discuss it?
Truth be told, this topic needs to be seen from a particular lens.
It also could use some definitions, which I will supply later.


Look, I get it.
Cheaters can hurt you, frustrate you, and leave you downright uncomfortable; they truly can be harmful.
It also sort of feels like no matter how much you try to adjust them, they stay the same and just hurt you even more later.

I even agree with Pro that cheaters likely never feel bad for the ones they hurt, but, then again, who cares?
They don't actually have feelings themselves...they're cheaters for cryin' out loud!

I think the problem is really that some people don't see things clearly and thus are more likely to be with cheaters in the first place. This then makes those individuals likelier to be hurt by cheaters more than once.

Over and over again, instead of exploring other options, these people instinctually reach for the cheaters they're used to having with them all of the time, and, since these cheaters aren't a good fit for these people, the cheaters end up causing some minor trauma.
This is the vicious cycle people with ill-fitted cheaters experience.

It's sad because just having a little bit better vision could solve all of it; no cheaters necessary, right?

*Remaining Cheaters*

The good news is that harmful cheaters do not forever remain cheaters, especially after setting them on fire and melting them down!
In about 10-15 seconds after putting them into a large fire pit, the cheaters begin to melt and you can watch everything from their outsides to their insides burn and singe, and then slowly watch their overall structure gradually fade away, negating their existence as cheaters for all future time.

What's left from the fire is a mound of hydrocarbons and silica that can be a doorstop, a paperweight, a crude representation of Jaba the Hutt, an eccentric piece of jewelry, or a kid's toy, but this lump cannot be considered cheaters.

Therefore, contrary to the resolution, cheaters are not always cheaters...they can be melted down into other things.


once - at some time in the past.

cheater (cheaters) - a pair of glasses.

always - for all future time; forever.
Debate Round No. 1


Technically.... if they are called a cheater, wouldn't they still be a cheater? plus, most cheaters have no spine, and do The glasses have spine? no. so technically, they would still be a cheater


Thanks for your lengthy response Pro.
Pro attempts to use an association fallacy; it didn't go well.
I'll use this round to address Pro's 3 sentences.

*Responding to Pro*

Pro asks:
"Technically.... if they are called a cheater, wouldn't they still be a cheater?"

My response:
I believe Pro is asking about melted down cheaters here despite Pro's ambiguous antecedent.
If that's the case, the implication couldn't be further from correct.
Cheaters are a pair of glasses, and when melted down, as the picture I provided in the previous round clearly shows, the remaining mound of plastic/glass/metal is not a pair of glasses, thus not called cheaters nor remaining cheaters.

Pro gets fallacious:
"plus, most cheaters have no spine, and do The glasses have spine? no. so technically, they would still be a cheater."

My response:
Pro is committing an association fallacy by trying to put melted plastic/glass/metal in the category of cheaters simply because neither the melted amalgamation nor cheaters have spines.
The problem is that not having a spine doesn't qualify something as cheaters, or else squids, octopi, and jelly fish would all be a pair of glasses.
Sharing one characteristic with members of a group does not make something a part of that group unless that group only has one characteristic, and cheaters have tons of characteristics that make them a pair of glasses.

The resolution has been negated because cheaters do not remain cheaters forever.
Debate Round No. 2


Yeah but if you cheat on a math test, you still cheated on a match test, that will forever be in your records as a cheater, so technically your still a cheater

there, i just countered all of your arguments with one statement


Thanks for the debate, Pro.
It took me all night to read Pro's last round.
I'll still respond to Pro's objections.
Let's end this.

*Responding to Pro*

Pro reasons:
"Yeah but if you cheat on a math test, you still cheated on a match test."

My response:
Aside from the unexplained concept of a "match test" this doesn't make any sense at all within this debate.
People who use cheaters on a *math* test are just trying to read the test items more clearly, and this does not make the people themselves a pair of glasses; it makes them resourceful test-takers.

Cheaters are a pair of glasses per the accepted definitions of this debate no matter how people perform on tests.
Therefore, things that were once cheaters aren't always cheaters, because pairs of glasses can be melted down into other things and Pro never touched on this.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
are you saying bacon is not pig? are you high? next time when you eat bacon, know that the pig soul is happy you released its vessel. god bless you
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Pigs have backbones, bacon doesn't, done.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
yeh it is man, you see after the bacon has been produced, the pig soul vessel transfers into sh1t, and that sh1t becomes sewage, which filters back into your water reservoir, entering the lifecycle of water, becoming rain, eventually landing to form mud for the pigs children to roll around it. because energy can not be destroyed. Same goes for burnt glasses.

Now am I wrong?? NOPE.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
The rest of their days is not forever, now is it?
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
well if they are burned, they died n lived the rest of their days as a cheater, therefore always being a cheater. Much like how a dead pig will always be a pig, even when its cooked in to bacon.
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
no never mind, I cant spell.
Posted by Minddagger 3 years ago
the sexual ones
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
cheater the animal, or cheater the sexual ones???!?!
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
I think you're about to see why.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 exploited an ill-defined resolution. Pro seemed unprepared (and unable) to follow the direction Con took his debate. This is why it is always a good idea to define your terms!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.