Category: Sports
The Detroit Red Wings will win the Stanley Cup
This debate began on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 2:13:29 PM Pacific Time.
| Who Won This Debate? | ||||
 3 Votes |
4 Votes |
|||
Versus |
||||
Pro ~ Round 1
The Red Wings have dominated all year and I argue that the dominance will continue all the way to Lord Stanley. The Wings have all the necessary components to win the cup and as a huge Wings fan I am hoping for it. Someone give me a reason to doubt myself.
The Red Wings have dominated all year and I argue that the dominance will continue all the way to Lord Stanley. The Wings have all the necessary components to win the cup and as a huge Wings fan I am hoping for it. Someone give me a reason to doubt myself.
Con ~ Round 1
1) You can't prove if it will happen or not, because you can't predict the future.
2) You can't prove that anything exists. So the Red Wings may not exist and neither may the Stanley Cup, hockey, TV, etc.
1) You can't prove if it will happen or not, because you can't predict the future.
2) You can't prove that anything exists. So the Red Wings may not exist and neither may the Stanley Cup, hockey, TV, etc.
Pro ~ Round 2
GOD DAMN IT!!!!
I wanted to have a god damn hockey debate. I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating this with you.
I realize you are perfectly within your rights to pull this, but I wish people would respect the wishes of the person who creates the debate. What about my opening argument in any way suggested I wanted to debate realism and perception?
If you want to debate hockey, I will rephrase the claim to: It is more likely than not that the Red Wings will win the Stanley Cup this year.
If not, enjoy padding your win %
GOD DAMN IT!!!!
I wanted to have a god damn hockey debate. I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating this with you.
I realize you are perfectly within your rights to pull this, but I wish people would respect the wishes of the person who creates the debate. What about my opening argument in any way suggested I wanted to debate realism and perception?
If you want to debate hockey, I will rephrase the claim to: It is more likely than not that the Red Wings will win the Stanley Cup this year.
If not, enjoy padding your win %
Con ~ Round 2
OK, I'll debate on the Wings.
I believe they're still in the semi-finals, so they may have all of the necessary components to win, bur then again, so may any of the other teams.
OK, I'll debate on the Wings.
I believe they're still in the semi-finals, so they may have all of the necessary components to win, bur then again, so may any of the other teams.
Pro ~ Round 3
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Con ~ Round 3
Well, this wasn't much a debate. Oh well.
This argument is now truly and completely 100 characters.
Well, this wasn't much a debate. Oh well.
This argument is now truly and completely 100 characters.
Member Comments (6)
Only members can post comments.
"...so may any of the other teams."
I think that's a good enough argument, as I could just as easily prove that any of the other teams will win the Stanley Cup/have the "necessary components" to win.
Also, it isn't always necessary to have more knowledge of the subject than your opponent does.
"He didn't go round 3 because you twisted the debate into something it shouldn't have been (clearly)."
How would you know? He could've either told me this in the comments section, or said it in his third argument, instead of completely skipping it.
I think that's a good enough argument, as I could just as easily prove that any of the other teams will win the Stanley Cup/have the "necessary components" to win.
Also, it isn't always necessary to have more knowledge of the subject than your opponent does.
"He didn't go round 3 because you twisted the debate into something it shouldn't have been (clearly)."
How would you know? He could've either told me this in the comments section, or said it in his third argument, instead of completely skipping it.
1 Month Ago
He didn't go round 3 because you twisted the debate into something it shouldn't have been (clearly). He wanted a good hockey debate and you gave him sheer crap. You knew exactly what this was supposed to be about and instead you come up with, "You can't prove that anything exists."? Then you go further on to portray how very little you know about hockey in the first place?
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
1 Month Ago
"Pro should win this debate on the simple fact that that quote there is pretty funny and says it all."
And you voted for him because of that? He didn't even go round 3.
And you voted for him because of that? He didn't even go round 3.
1 Month Ago
By the way, Zander... Pittsburgh is going to win, you'll see.
1 Month Ago
...What about my opening argument in any way suggested I wanted to debate realism and perception?"
Pro should win this debate on the simple fact that that quote there is pretty funny and says it all.
Pro should win this debate on the simple fact that that quote there is pretty funny and says it all.
1 Month Ago
I'd like to take this debate, but I just don't think it's worth it... neither one of us knows who's going to win. Just shhh and watch the game tonight.....
1 Month Ago
Copyright © 2007 WebCorp, LLC™, all rights reserved.