This Debate is Stupid
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 11 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
stupid: duke pasur ose treguar një mungesë të madhe inteligjence ose sens të përbashkët.
rules: يجب أن تكون كل جملة حجة بلغة مختلفة غير الإنجليزية.
hierdie debat is dom omdat dit nie 'n gesonde verstand het nie.
asnjë nga fjalitë nuk mund të jetë në anglisht.
በተጨማሪም ፣ ይህ ክርክር ከዚህ በፊት ተከናውኗል እናም ምንም እንዳልተማርሁ በመግለጽ ጠፍቼ ነበር ፡፡
هذا النقاش لا يزال جولة واحدة وما زلت لا أستطيع دحض حجج منافسي.
այս բանավեճը նույնպես երկու շաբաթ տևում է փաստարկների համար, ինչը թույլ է տալիս ինձ փախցնել աբսուրդ ժամանակի պահից առաջ:
68 65 72 65 2c 20 49 20 75 73 65 20 68 65 78 2c 20 77 68 69 63 68 20 69 73 20 68 6f 72 72 69 62 6c 65 20 61 6e 64 20 65 78 74 72 65 6d 65 6c 79 20 65 73 6f 74 65 72 69 63 2e 20
ausazko ikuslearentzat, spam ari naizela eta arauak urratzen ari direla ematen du.
sigurno se slažete, dobivanje zabrane bila bi najveća glupost
i když tento není o ničem. Vidste du, at Jorden er flad? Sillä ei selvästikään ole merkitystä ja tuhoa. Svo ekki sé minnst á hreina fáviti.
ahiu, poiu abnk ush oowem coun lo pooula we thiho.
-- לאָזן מיר צעלאָזן איר, דאָס איז געווען ומזין.
First, as per my last debate, instigating and accepting a debate demonstrate intelligence as anyone who does that have some sort of intelligence. Keep in mind that dogs are among the smartest non-human animals on earth, and dogs can't comprehend your debates, even if it is just 2-sentence paragraphs.
Conclusion: This debate, in itself, is not stupid.
Since I only have 1000 characters, I will simply state my opponent's view: This debate is stupid because no one can understand it and learn anything. The argument time is too long, nonsensical garbage, etc. However, because he used different languages that no one would want to understand, it would mean:
1. It requires intelligence to translate into languages
2. The expression with numbers means that goes through coding and it requires technological intelligence
3. My words certainly make sense, meaning that there are some levels of intelligence
4. My opponent made an argument that clearly helps him, which means he is smart in some way
I am done...
No, because this debate (the word 'debate') refers to the overall debate, when in the title. Your 'debate' or rather your 'side of the debate' can be stupid, while the debate itself is not.
dude, isn't my post equaling to nothing meaning this debate is stupid? It would mean there is no debate at all
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro used reasons well Con was too focused on semantics and tiny details.
>Reason for Mod Action: As this is a troll debate, which is defined in the Moderator Extended Policies and Interpretations as
"any competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition,) a debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content, or a debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried"),"
the vote is unmoderated.
I think ragnar is busy. Anyways, you will complete 2 full debates that are moderated.
why can't i vote? Is there a requirement for me?
"If all Of an organization are geniuses and all of them tries, then no matter what weird thing they do, the organization is not stupid."
Incorrect, you are conflating the structure with what a structure is made up of. Sometimes very intelligent people, even geniuses work on stupid things and even try really hard, but the thing is still stupid.
There is evidence of why the Earth is flat, and if the circumstance is that the alien's manipulated our vision, government, schools as well as our planet when our planet is truly flat, then the earth is flat. Of course, it is most likely made-up and false, but under a very unlikely circumstance, it could be plausible.
This is on top of that in the BC era, Flat-Earth view was common.
the Finnish sentence says that The earth is flat, which I later admit has no meaning and is pure destruction XDDD
Full translation follows:
This debate is stupid because it lacks common sense. None of the sentences can be in English. Also, this debate has been done before and I was off to say that I did not learn anything. This debate is still one round and I still cannot refute the arguments of my competitors. This debate also takes two weeks to argue, which allows me to be abducted before the time of the absurd. Here, I use hex, which is horrible and extremely esoteric. For the random viewer, it looks like I’m spamming and breaking the rules. Surely you agree, getting a ban would be the biggest nonsense. And you must check each sentence to see if it contains any important information. I do not know how much. [random Finnish sentence]. It clearly has no meaning and no destruction. [random Finnish sentence]. [random Hawaiian sentence]. Let me spoil you, it was nonsense. I rest the case.
If both debaters are smart, then the debate wouldn’t be stupid. Especially since both debaters are giving effort. If all Of an organization are geniuses and all of them tries, then no matter what weird thing they do, the organization is not stupid.
I wouldn't even put them top five.
"dogs are among the smartest non-human animals on earth"
Do you actually believe this?
WHy did con argue that the users of the debate are not stupid. It seems off topic. I am sure you are both very bright guys, but that has nothing to do with whether the debate is stupid or not, and it is undebatable that this debate is stupid.
"Obviously, another way to look at the matter is that this debate is a colossal waste of time and energy, thus making it stupid."
Well debates about theoretical philosophy are also a waste of time and energy because they aren't practical, but the fact they are having clash of ideas means that every debate is not stupid.
"I do not understand your judgment." I never said Pro's argument lacked intelligence. I said it exhibited intelligence, in agreement with Con, but I also said the debate was not about relative intelligence, therefore, Con's argument lost the debate.
"In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American." Nope. Take a look in your dictionary; I don't care which it it is if it of your nation's mother tongue. It does not say it is an American Dictionary, does it? The Dictionary I always use is the OED. Yes, a British production, but in it, "bonnet" and "boot" are defined both as Americans understand the sense of these words, as well as the British sense of them. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in parsing details, we parse then out of rational existence, which is what you tried to do with this debate. Stop it.
also I'm joking about the total forfeit idea, anyways, the rule was silly to begin with.
Good God, step away from yourself for one minute. Of course, some intelligence went into the debate, BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE!!!!!!
The debate was: it is stupid. As I said [again, for the third time: The debate was not about intelligence. It was not "about" anything. The debate was stupid.
Look, there is a painting by Rene Magritte from the early 20th century. It is a painting of a smoking pipe on a plain background. Beneath the image is a phrase, in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. One will wonder, even when fluent in French, what that means because, clearly, it is a picture of a pipe, and you will argue that it is a pipe. No, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. The painting is titled "The Treachery of Images." The image is not the object, just as intelligence was not the nature of the debate.
Also, the word "esoteric" would actually make you smart instead of stupid because you know more than I do, and since I have intelligence, you would also have intelligence.
In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American.
Do you have any idea what debating is? If I have a debate where the opponent must forfeit, then who the hell on the green-and-blue earth would even try to accept this debate?
thats a neat idea
Next what? Accepting a debate but my opponent must forfeit all rounds or he loses?
If this were conventional voting, I will get S&G and Conduct lost if so, but knowing good argument is 3 points, so I am still winnin'.
read the arabic rules. It said each argument must be in a language other than English. Since con violated this rule, he failed the debate.
I do not understand your judgment. All you stated was that Pro's argument lacked intelligence, however, that does not mean the entire debate is stupid. In fact, Con brought up some very valid points, clearly demonstrating intelligence which is an antonym for stupid.
This debate is not stupid. Some intelligence are into it. We may be stupid but at this point we are doing smart things.
Like I said, the issue of the debate was NOT relative intelligence. Intelligent people can still do stupid things, yeah? Like accepting a debate that was stupid. Get it?
Stupid means not intelligent. Me proving that this is intelligent means that this is not stupid.
Nonsense doesnt = stupid. Lack of intelligence =stupid.
Learn to pronounce
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
You can also argue common sense as a debate
You would be better off trying to prove stupidity rather than say things in a nonsenical manner
Bruh this is an encrypted message.
Having the ability to encode and translate into different messages is a smart move.
BOOM Uno Reverse Card
or are YOU the one who can't win this debate? ;)
Bruh, you can't even win this debate.