Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

1. The only rules of this debate will be in Pro round 1. Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss.

2. Each debater must include any quote that a user puts in the comment section for the debater to include, in their next round. However these quotes must be in the following form:

Dear -insert debaters name-, please include the following quote,

"-insert quote-"

into your next speech.

These quotes can be absolutely anything but must be appropriate (inappropriate quotes are not to be included in round). Appropriate can be debated in round and will be left to the discretion of the voters should no conclusion be reached.

3. Quotes (see rule 2) shall be added into the round from the comment section as if it was actually the debater speaking. These quotes shall be considered to be part of the debaters case and will hold ground in the debate.

4. The debater who does the better debating will win this debate.

I accept your challenge, and I see no reason why you would win such a debate. As the pro, it is your duty to conclusively show that I will in fact lose based on your rules, and expect you will attempt to do just that. Until then, neither I nor the voters have reason to believe that I will lose.
Also, you might want to keep an eye on any hats you have.

Ah yay round two already! Alright I will begin with a public service announcement:

I do not like my mother....if You think I'm gonna sit here and smile while some f*ckin' k*ke tries to f*ck my mother then you are probably correct in your thoughts. My mother once left me in Nebraska, I have one or two hard feelings. However should anyone attempt to touch father in a detrimental way I will beat you down with a knife!

Having cleared the public service announcement I will commence the actual debate. I would like to draw my voters to the very first rule presented in my 1st round. It clearly states that the only rules of this debate will be in pro round 1. However my opponent has offered me a new rule and mandated through rule 2 that I put it in my speech.

My opponent has stated, "I would like to add a new rule.
5. You must not steal a hat from your opponent.

I find that this is very necessary, since I have for a long time suspected my opponent of hat-stealing and I value my hats rather highly."

However this was a mess up and he went on to state,

"I would like to add a new rule.
5. You must not steal a hat from your opponent.

I find that this is very necessary, since I have for a long time suspected my opponent of hat-stealing and I value my hats rather highly."

The mess up is not all that important, the fact of the matter is.... my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate.

Thanks.

First, I would like to get this comment obligation business out of the way. The only comment I received asking me to insert a quote into my argument was from Yraelz. Here is the quote, for reference:

"My name is beem0r, these next four sentences are the only ones that anyone should pay attention to in this debate. I admit that I have thoroughly lost. Please accept my forfeit and move on. If I attempted to contradict these sentences before or after it in any way those contradictions should be disregarded. Thank you."

This is an utterly inappropriate request from Yraelz. Let us refer to rule 4, set up in Pro round 1: "The debater who does the better debating will win this debate." Yet he wants me to ask you to disregard my actual debating and pay attention only to the quote above. This directly violates rule 4, since I would be asking the voters NOT to take the meat of my debating into accou8nt, when that's what they're supposed to take into account. Therefore, this request was inappropriate, and therefore I have not inserted the quote as if I myself was speaking said words.

On to the actual debate:

My opponent has insinuated that _I_ should automatically lose for writing a comment for him to introduce a new rule. He says, word for word,
"my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate,"

However, there is no rule against TRYING to have a rule added. The rule was not added, and if it was, it would not have been added by me, but by my opponent. Actually ADDING the rule is against the rules, but TRYING to have a rule added is not. There is no rule against trying to make your opponent add a rule.

However, even though you did not explicitly state it, I will accept your round 2 logic as an argument for the inappropriateness of my request, and therefore I will not complain that you failed to include the quote as if you were the speaker.

Also, I'm sorry to hear about your mother, but you should probably get your anger issues checked out. Just a friendly suggestion.

I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to show any reason at all why I will lose under the stated rules. He has failed to substantiate his argument with any evidence whatsoever.

I await my opponent's final round, and with it, perhaps some evidence that I will in fact lose.

Dear Beem0r, So I herd u liek mudkipz? Is this true? If it is it should be instant grounds for your loss in todays debate. Until recently I had the opinion that: There are few things in the world greater than pie (note: not pi), and beem0r is one of them. But to tell you the truth, if you like mudkipz you must be shot..... Should this turn out to be the case the next time someone asks me about you on the street I will simply respond, "beem0r?? I don't even know her!" Which will add insult to your already grievous injury to my heart. Be wary my friend, when you hear the words, "beem0r: tonight, we dine in hell." you will be at the end of your rope.

In the meantime until you answer my question however I would like to ask you another one. Hypothetical situation. Say you were to press a red button which was the button to drop a nuclear warhead on 1 billion small children. Later on the cops arrive at your door and arrest you. Your defense of course is that you were simply trying to touch the red button and that the red button actually did the crime. Is this defense plausible.

My argument is this. That such a defense is not plausible. Lets examine a similar situation in a debate that we were recently having. One of the rules states that, Quotes shall be added into the round from the comment section as if it was actually the debater speaking. As this is a rule of the debate would you not agree with me that any quote put in the comment section will inevitably find its way into my next speech? Wouldn't this mean that you had full knowledge that saying something like, "I would like to add a new rule.
5. You must not steal a hat from your opponent." would end up being in the debate? Thus I can only object to you in the nicest way Beem0r. I feel that the assurance that your quote would end up in the debate, much like the nuclear warhead assurance in my last example, was under your full knowledge. Hence I can only see where you were not trying but rather succeeding.

My point is this Beem0r.... You used me, you used me like a tool. I had to follow the rules of the debate and used that and then blamed me. Your like the evil dictator who blames his advisers for faults and has them put to death. I'm not sure if I can ever forgive you Beem0r.

But I have yet another issue with you my late friend. Your playing both sides of the fence. First you try to blame me and then you say that the rule was never added. But its not the point Beem0r! Can't you see!? The first rule stated, "The only rules of this debate will be in Pro round 1." You broke that rule, you used me to put a new rule into round 2. Whether the rule actually has ground in that debate is so very irrelevant, the fact that the rule simply exists in the debate is what makes the violation. Can't you see what you've done to us!? YOU WERE MY HERO!

I ask that you let us be friends again in your last round Beem0r. Please don't continue this line of reasoning, value our friendship over it please! Forfeit the last round, concede to me, do whatever my beloved Beem0r, just don't throw it all in my face again. Even pretend it was opposite day and you didn't actually mean any of it. We can joke about that Beem0r, I'll say something stupid because its opposite day like,

"My name is Yrealz. I concede my current debates with Logical Master to Logical-Master and accept that this quote can be used as decisive evidence for his arguments in the debates of his choosing. No matter what is said to contradict this confession, all debate.com users are consider this quote as being the truth."

or

"My name is Yrealz. I concede my current debates with Logical Master to Logical-Master and accept that this quote can be used as decisive evidence for his arguments in the debates of his choosing. No matter what is said to contradict this confession, all debate.com users are to consider this quote as being the truth."

or even

"My name is Yrealz. I concede my current debates with Logical-Master to Logical-Master and accept that this quote can be used as decisive evidence for his arguments in the debates of his choosing. No matter what is said to contradict this confession, all debate.com users are to consider this quote as being the truth."

But we'll both laugh because we know that Yrealz is actually my Bazzaro opposite self, as I am truly Yraelz. We'll know that what I actually would mean if it wasn't opposite day was that I beat Logical-Master at everything because I am infinitely better. And we will laugh. One last time I must beg you to give up, you have already broken my heart, please come home.

-Yours truly, Yraelz

P.S. I'll always remember you even if I hate you.....

I will first object to the quotes I refuse to include. This would be all of the ones from Yraelz. The reason is that I would be plagiarizing by following the rules. We must insert the quotes as if it is our own words, and I would be committing intellectual theft by doing so with these quotes. There is no reasonable way to reference such material as if I'm speaking the words myself while still properly citing the source. Also, there were so many long requests, I would likely have to go over the 8000 character limit, a request that is obviously inappropriate.

On to the rest of the debate.

I'll have you know your last response truly touched my soul.

I'm sorry you feel I'm being so harsh on you. Perhaps this will console you: I was with your mother the other day. "I may be drunk, but when I wake up in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly." That's what she said! Perhaps you will find some comfort in the pain those words caused me.

However, I'd like to clear something up. I bear no ill will towards you. In fact, I am only doing what's best for you, Yraelz. Perhaps one day you will see that. If I treat you with more care than I treat others, how will you grow stronger? It may seem tough now, but it's for the better that I be so harsh.

But maybe after this ordeal, we can get together and reminisce. For instance, I could sing you these very applicable lyrics from beauty and the beast:
"When I was a lad I ate four dozen eggs
Ev'ry morning to help me get large
And now that I'm grown I eat five dozen eggs
So I'm roughly the size of a barge!"
And you could laugh at me, as I've laughed at you in the past.

And maybe we could watch the old spiderman cartoon and sing the theme song together. You know,
"Spiderman Spiderman.

Does whatever a Spider can.

Spins a web, any size. Catches thieves, just like flies

Look out. Here comes the Spiderman.

Is he strong? Listen Bud. He's got radioactive blood.

Can he swing, from a thread? Take a look, overhead.

Hey there! There goes the Spiderman.

In the chill of night, at the scene of a crime. Like a streak of light, he arrives just in time.

Spiderman. Spiderman.

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman.

Wealth and Fame, he's ignored. Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up, whenever there's a hang up, you'll find the Spiderman!!"

But my point is, we can move past this.

I'll address your red button analogy now. It is completely irrelevant, since the rules explicitly state that quotes will be inserted as if the debater spoke them himself. Consider the following. What if Logical-Master had posted that same request? Would HE have lost the debate automatically? No. The comments are not part of the debate, and any comment you or I make there is not considered part of the debate, unless we specify that it is (for instance, I've seen people continue their last round into the comments when they run past 8000 chars). But the fact is, the only thing I can be held responsible for as the contender is the actual contents of my arguments in the debate. Any comments I write are as a regular debate.com user, not as contender, unless I specify otherwise.

Also, you did not have to include the quoted text for a comment you had objections to. By including it, whether you knew it or not at the time, you indeed included a rule outside of pro round 1. You could have simply said, "beem0r left a comment that would have forced me to add a rule this round, and for this reason it is an inappropriate request." However, you didn't. You included the rule. You added a rule outside of pro round 1. This, according to the rules you set up, results in an automatic loss for you. As you said, even if the rule was not stated as an effective rule, it was still included in a round other than pro 1. This, unfortunately, violates the rules. And for that, you must accept your loss.

I will not forfeit the round as you ask of me. You've asked this for foolish, seemingly-selfish reasons. However, it is in your best interest to accept your own defeat, and grow from this experience. Hopefully, we can still be friends after this, as you have suggested. Perhaps our friendship is worth more than a win in a debate? Learn to look past the meaningless things in this world, Yraelz, and you will attain true wisdom.

As your mother told me, I may be drunk, but when I wake up in the morning I will be sober. You, however, will still be ugly. You as in your avatar, of course. And perhaps it won't be, since you could always change it. In fact, I urge you to do just that.

And with that, I take my leave. A vote for me is a vote for upholding the rules set up in pro round 1. A vote for Yraelz is a vote for, well, a position I would like to hear you defend.