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

You choose the topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/2/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 92258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Whoever accepts will offer three silly topics (Ex: macaroni is better than spaghetti, we should all wear bowler hats, pokemon is better than yu-gi-oh, etc.) in their first round And I will choose the one I like best.

If all of the topics offered by con are offensive, overly serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely.

There are no hard line rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to. Just be a decent human being, and let's have a fun round!


1) Females Like Arrogant Men

2) I can be more inspiring than you

3)Dragons and unicorns exist
Debate Round No. 1


I can be more inspiring than you


I - A pronoun used to refer to one's self
You - A pronoun used to refer to the person or people one is speaking to
Inspiring - Verb: To fill with an animating, quickening, or exhalting influence

1) In this debate Pro is not attempting to argue that he can be more inspiring than Con, rather that the self can be more inspiring than another. The use of 'I' or 'You' should be understood as referencing the concept of self, and the concept of another respectively rather than the Pro or the Con specifically.

2) If Pro can show that I can be more inspiring than you, he deserves to get the vote. In order to do this, Pro does not have to prove that I will always be more inspiring than you, only that I can be more inspiring than you. If any instance of I being more inspiring than you is upheld throughout the course of this debate, Pro has won.

1) Self Preservation-
One has a natural desire to ensure that she or he stays alive. In the mornings we wake up, get out of bed, use the bathroom, maintain our personal hygiene and eat because we have an inherent desire to sustain ourselves. If one has an itch, she scratches it; if one is tired, she rests. The driving force behind ensuring that we stay alive doesn't come from you, but from I. One may understand the importance of their life beyond themselves, but in a moment of danger the driving inspiration to take care of one's self comes from within.

2)Boredom and entertainment-
When one becomes bored, she does not seek out entertainment for the sake of others, but for her own sake. We don't play with straw wrappers to stack items on our desk in order to satisfy another, we do so because our own brains drive us to find ways to keep ourselves entertained and occupied. This argument is important as it shows instances of spontaneous play as being motivated from the self rather than from another

3) Mental illness doesn't undo self preservation-
If one lacks any desire to take care of themselves, that doesn't disqualify those who do have an urge to take care of their own needs. Pro does not have the burden to show that everyone will always be more inspired by the I rather than the You, only that I can be more inspiring than You. Although it has no direct bearing to his advocacy, Pro also wants to caution against disablist rhetoric when it comes to those who are unable or unwilling to satisfy their own biological needs. If this happens he has no qualms with kicking the topical debate in favor of a kritikal one.

The argument rests. Pro will expand in future rounds as necessary, but under the above framing and the two arguments provided I can be more inspirational than You. Self-preservation and boredom satisfaction show this to be the case, and instances of mental illness or You being more inspiring than I do not undermine the arguments.


You(Another) is more inspiring than I (the self).

A person could try to find inspiration within themself, digging down, and searching deep for what they need. Or...they could get it quickly from outside of themself by hearing someone else who is inspiring.

Let's do a test. Sit for a moment and try to inspire yourself.

Okay. Now watch this short video.

Which inspired you more? Yourself or the video? If you inspired yourself more, then "I" was more inspirational. If the video inspired you more, then you got more inspiration from another.


When one is down the self looks to another, and in some cases it might be their own mother.

The self gets weak, so it looks outside self. Santa Claus might look to an elf.

Self might get down and look to foods like cheez its. A Christian might look up and look up to Jesus.

There are things in this world that Con cannot know, so Con might try to get inspired by Pro. Pro might have all kinds of goodies all up in his brain, that if told to Con would keep Con sane. Inspiration givest me Pro. There's inspiration in you that I Con must know. You could be an angel sent down from Heaven. If you'd share with me, my IQ'd go up by eleven. Inspiration in thou Pro resides. From you Pro my gloom all subsides.

Con needs another for inspiration and strength. Others give it in droves of much breadth and length. We can muster it up on our own if we can. But how much time would we waste in that span?
Debate Round No. 2


That video was quite inspirational, quite inspirational indeed.

It is not a reason to vote Con.

First, Con concedes the entirety of the Pro Framework. This means the analysis of can is a voting issue - Pro does not have to show that I will *always* be more inspiring than you, just that it Can be more inspiring than you. At the point con never contests this, he loses.


The self is motivated by the force that is within,
The burning inner fire that has surely always been.
Release your inhibitions - feel the rain on your skin!
To thine ownself be true rather than to your kin.

Oh pish, oh posh another loss, but what could be expected?
When one centers their motivations on the derelicted?


I'm not sure what Pro is talking about, so I am changing the debate topic. The name of this debate is "you choose the topic". Thus, I am changing the topic to "I'm in Your Brain and You Can't Get me Out".


I'm in Your Brain and You Can't Get me Out-

Point #1

Num num num num num num num...

The Num Num Song-


I am in your head, and you can't get me out. You know you like it so don't make a pout. Break it down.

Afro Circus-


As a finale of this round, I will sing you this song to blow your mind...

Debate Round No. 3


I'll take that as a pretty solid concession. The only part of Con's prior round that warrants a response is the argument that since the topic of this debate is 'You choose the topic' that he can change the topic at any time.

First, this is a wildly unfair reading of the debate's parameters and any reasonable person would understand it to be a last-ditch effort to get the win.
Second, this is a dick move - that is a reason to vote Pro unto itself. Allowing that kind of reasoning degrades the activity and encourages future poor etiquette.
Finally, Even if you vote on Con's new topic none of the arguments presented affirm it.

So yeah, Con forfeits - it's an easy vote for Pro.


Pro made a format that was hard to follow. I then made an attempt to follow and Pro forfeits me. Thus, I am a victim of unfair conduct by Pro. And since it is so, to save the debate I showed you a good time.

Why should you vote Con?

1)Pro told you that you couldn't vote Con.(You can prove Pro wrong.)

2)Pro is trying to strongarm you into voting Pro. You don't have to take that kind of abuse.

3)Pro has done this exact debate many, many times. Here is an example debate of Pro attacking another opponent.

Pro used obscure wording and confounding rules to get an easy win in the debate.



a. If I can show that Youtube is better than Netflix on a consumer level, then the vote in this debate deserves to go to the Pro. Con could show that Netflix is more profitable, but that has no impact on consumers such as me or you. Your vote should be reflect which platform is better for you personally

b. This debate should be voted on-balance. The debater who best presents the advantages of their platform deserves the vote. If both platforms are shown to be equal, no vote should be cast.


In this debate Pro used the "F" word towards Con at the bottom of round 3. Con did not respond in the next round.


In this one Pro said, and I quote,

"All of the topics con offers are frankly awful. We are now arguing about coffee


And yet another. Ambiguous wording was used once again by Pro to attempt to get an easy win. Con dropped out from confusion of the rules and regulations or even what the topic "really" was.


The point? This is Pro's strategy. Pro doesn't want you to understand the format of the debate. This is Pro's attempt to get easy forfeit wins. I did not forfeit, thus, Pro is frustrated that I made an easily defined topic and format.

My way actually fit by definition of the name of this debate. "You Choose the Topic". I did, and Pro did not rebuttle. Pro scampered off into a bed of weeds. The end.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: lord_megatron// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: After choosing the topic and being close to losing the debate, con simply argued the resolution is "you choose the topic" and that he will choose another topic again. But the resolution doesn't say you choose the topic over and over, for otherwise there will be no debate. Therefore pro wins

[*Reason for removal*] In the RFD, the voter is required to explain the decision itself on the basis of arguments made by one of two means: either examine specific points made by both sides, or examine the points made by one and explain why that side had the burden of proof. In this case, the voter does neither, instead addressing an issue with Con's change in perception of the debate and the subsequent choices he made. While this can certainly be a factor in deciding the debate, without explaining why Pro's arguments were sufficient to net him the debate, without explaining why Con had the burden of proof/what that burden of proof was/why he failed to meet it, the vote is insufficient. The voter could conceivably state how this shift in tactics is itself reason to vote against Con, but that still requires analysis of why Con's tactics harmed the debate as a whole and why that suffices as a reason to vote him down. The same is true with a potential rule violation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.