I trolled the taco so I wouldn't have to face the evil burrito

admin (CON)
WINNER!
19 points

Debate
Comments (4)
Rules
Judging (11)

nolongeractiveuser (PRO)
It was necessary. I mean, a burrito is larger and stronger than a taco. And who would want to face it? Not me. So I just annoyed the taco by saying random stuff to it, and it ran away. The evil burrito saw what I did and walked away. So trolling the taco was necessary in not facing the evil burrito that everyone dreads.

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-01-19 01:35:20

| Speak Round

admin (CON)
I thank my opponent for opening his case.

My opponent has the BOP. He has to prove that he both trolled the taco and did it with the intention of avoiding facing the evil burrito.

Rebuttal

"I mean, a burrito is larger and stronger than a taco."

Burritos are tiny: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3229/5830484359_4ae7975ee3_z.jpg
Tacos are huge: http://173.254.28.117/~antonio4/antoniocalero/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/big-taco.jpg

As for strength, burritos are floppy pieces of bread. Tacos are so strong that they can often stand upright with no supports.

"http://173.254.28.117/~antonio4/antoniocalero/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/big-taco.jpg"

Pro has no evidence for this. I for one would be OK with facing a burrito. Additionally, pro doesn't even prove he thought this through rationally. Just because it would be the logical thing to do doesn't mean pro did it.

"So I just annoyed the taco by saying random stuff to it, and it ran away."

Pro has no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, tacos do not run away. They are incapable of self movement as they lack legs. Especially in response to annoyances that their lack of a mental capacity cannot understand.

"The evil burrito saw what I did and walked away."

Not only can burritos not also walk (or be evil, since they lack mental capacity), but pro has not proven that the burrito would be at all intimidated by his trolling. I mean, according to pro's narrative, a taco is a wimp compared to a burrito. Why would a bully care what wimps think?

"So trolling the taco was necessary in not facing the evil burrito that everyone dreads."

Non-sequiter. Not only were other methods perhaps available other than trolling the taco to avoid the burrito, such as running away from both the taco and the burrito, or eating said burrito - pro has still not proven why he does everything that's necessary.

Good luck to pro for round 2.

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-01-23 08:11:13

| Speak Round

nolongeractiveuser (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-02-26 02:21:01

| Speak Round

admin (CON)
My opponent appears to have been attacked by the evil burrito. ):

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-02-26 07:37:27

| Speak Round

nolongeractiveuser (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-03-26 07:38:01

| Speak Round

admin (CON)
Vote con.

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-03-26 09:59:27

| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment

admin
Wow, you're back! Awesome!

Posted 2014-10-27 12:48:33

nolongeractiveuser
Yeah, I was on an 8 month hiatus. Did I really create this? This looks awful.

Posted 2014-10-27 12:47:34

9spaceking
what a hilarious debate

Posted 2014-08-26 02:19:41

nzlockie
RIP Tacolord.

Posted 2014-03-02 07:01:46

The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-03-26 13:27:41

Judge: DTinfinity
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
The basis of this debate relied on whether pro was capable of proving his BoP. However, it was obvious that pro did not do that. He claimed that he did things without sources or evidence. Con pointed this out by effectively refuting each one of the pro's points. Pro forfeited rounds 2 and 3, making con's rebuttals stand as the main point of this debate. Since pro did not fufill his BoP, he loses this debate and my vote goes to admin.

Feedback:
Pro: Pro should not have asserted a topic that put him in a bad position for the BoP. Since no burritos or tacos can talk, run, or do anything to be classified as "evil" or be "trolled," he would've had to rewrite a long-standing law that objects that are not alive can be trolled and are evil. He also should not have forfeited rounds 2 and 3, as that ruined any chance he possessed at winning this debate.

Con: Not much helpful feedback here. You killed pro. However, I suggest putting your rebuttals into a more professional format (as I see it, at least.) Instead of doing this:

"I trolled the taco." -con

Do this:

A. My opponent states that he trolled the taco, but this can not be true because [put rebuttal here.] Also, use the two remaining rounds to extend upon your rebuttals just in case pro comes back. Good job!

1 user rated this judgement as constructive

0 comments on this judgement

2014-03-28 11:34:22

Judge: Romaniii
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
Pro failed to fulfill his BoP+FF

2 users rated this judgement as exceptional

0 comments on this judgement

2014-03-30 12:37:00

Judge: nzlockie TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
PRO had no case here. There was clearly no need to troll the Taco. CON exposed the obvious flaws in this argument in his first round and there was no coming back from that.
PRO forfeited which is also a bad move but it really didn't matter in such a losing position.
CON wins by reasoning and by forfeit.

Feedback:
PRO should choose cases which he can have at least a small chance of winning. Even in this one, if he is going to make stuff up, at least try to make it believable.
And don't forfeit. If PRO could have proved that he did actually troll the Buritto, then he may have actually won this. The resolution could have been less about WHY he trolled it, and more about the fact that it happened. It's a pretty weak argument, but better than a forfeit. Plus I resent PRO's assertion that everyone dreads the evil Burrito. I'm not scared of mexican food at all. I will literally eat it for breakfast.

"Non-sequiter" is too complex a word for this debate. CON should consider the level of his opponent before using 4 syllable words again.

2 users rated this judgement as constructive

0 comments on this judgement

2014-03-31 10:25:15

Judge: JustAnotherGuy
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
While PRO failed to provide fully his burden of proof, CON eloquently rebutted Pro's points and the forfeits by PRO didn't help.

2 users rated this judgement as exceptional

0 comments on this judgement

2014-04-04 06:20:39

Judge: Pinkie TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin

2014-04-08 01:33:34

Judge: Wylted
Win awarded to: admin

2014-05-24 00:26:06

Judge: 18Karl
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
The evil burrito has attacked the tacolord!

1 user rated this judgement as exceptional

0 comments on this judgement

2014-07-04 01:39:20

Judge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
The basis of this debate relied on whether pro was capable of proving his BoP. However, it was obvious that pro did not do that. He claimed that he did things without sources or evidence. Con pointed this out by effectively refuting each one of the pro's points. Pro forfeited rounds 2 and 3, making con's rebuttals stand as the main point of this debate. Since pro did not fufill his BoP, he loses this debate and my vote goes to admin.

Feedback:
Pro: Pro should not have asserted a topic that put him in a bad position for the BoP. Since no burritos or tacos can talk, run, or do anything to be classified as "evil" or be "trolled," he would've had to rewrite a long-standing law that objects that are not alive can be trolled and are evil. He also should not have forfeited rounds 2 and 3, as that ruined any chance he possessed at winning this debate.

Con: Not much helpful feedback here. You killed pro. However, I suggest putting your rebuttals into a more professional format (as I see it, at least.) Instead of doing this:

"I trolled the taco." -con

Do this:

A. My opponent states that he trolled the taco, but this can not be true because [put rebuttal here.] Also, use the two remaining rounds to extend upon your rebuttals just in case pro comes back. Good job!

1 user rated this judgement as constructive

0 comments on this judgement

2014-07-10 16:18:10