Instigator / Pro
Points: 3

This Debate is Stupid

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Con
Points: 6
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
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

并且您必须检查每个句子以查看其中是否包含任何重要信息。

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.

私はケースを休ませる
Published:
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...
Added:
--> @seldiora
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.
#35
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
dude, isn't my post equaling to nothing meaning this debate is stupid? It would mean there is no debate at all
Instigator
#34
Added:
--> @nmvarco
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
#33
Added:
--> @User_2006
k thx
#32
Added:
--> @Crocodile
I think ragnar is busy. Anyways, you will complete 2 full debates that are moderated.
Contender
#31
Added:
--> @Ragnar
why can't i vote? Is there a requirement for me?
#30
Added:
--> @User_2006
"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.
#29
Added:
--> @seldiora
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.
Contender
#28
Added:
the Finnish sentence says that The earth is flat, which I later admit has no meaning and is pure destruction XDDD
Instigator
#27
Added:
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.
#26
Added:
--> @truthbomb
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.
Contender
#25
Added:
--> @User_2006
I wouldn't even put them top five.
#24
Added:
--> @User_2006
"dogs are among the smartest non-human animals on earth"
Do you actually believe this?
#23
Added:
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.
#22
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
"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.
Contender
#21
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
I don't quite understand what point Pro was trying to make. Even if the reader could comprehend all the languages posted, they would need to admit that this is an English speaking website and that basically Pro's Round equals posting nothing at all.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro used reasons well Con was too focused on semantics and tiny details.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
I'm making a meaningless vote to contribute to the stupidity of this debate. If this helps Pro's case, try not to hurt your brain about it; it's not quite a paradox, only nonsensical.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
By speaking 13 different languages, including what seems to be Egyptian hieroglyphics, Pro has failed to give proof of the stupidity of this debate, because by forcing me to Google translate every single statement, he has shown that there is an intelligent process going on in this debate.
Win to Con for pointing that out and presenting 4 relevant substantives.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con prevented Pro from meeting his burden of proof as the claimant. Con points out that setting up this debate and making a gibberish argument is smart, in a way. Obviously, another way to look at the matter is that this debate is a colossal waste of time and energy, thus making it stupid.
But since Pro didn't do much work to make me prefer the latter interpretation over the former, he fails to meet the burden of proof. Con wins.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
With some facility with recognizing the ciphers of a number of languages I do not understand, and having fluent facility with four, including ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, I can attempt translation by an internet translator once having nailed down a few of the foreign languages offered by Pro, sufficient to conclude that, indeed, the debate is stupid, as each phrase, though loosely related to relative lack of understanding, expresses an element of lack of sufficient intelligence to debate, and, therefore, met the demand to demonstrate the proposal of the debate.
Con, however, merely by Pro's use of several languages, argued that Pro exhibited intelligence. But Pro did not imply intelligence as a factor, having or lacking it; but merely that the debate was stupid. It is.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
I think Con needs to work on being less confrontational in their narrative. That being said Con brought up great points. The translation and decoding required is a form of intelligence. Con did not properly prove that intelligence or being intelligent is an antonym for stupid, however, it would be safe to say that unproved contention would not be in widespread dispute.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con proved that there is some intelligent process that went into the debate (as given with his point on the translation).