LM Classic: mongeese vs iamadragon

"Okay, so the entire argument around the atom and the rock becomes this: if you believe that non-living things have to no longer exist to be defeated, you side with my opponent on this issue. If you are already convinced that non-living things are already defeated, you side with me. We have both presented numerous points on the issue. All I would be doing would be repeating all of my points." My opponent has essentially conceded the argument. I hope the audience and judges understand clearly what has happened now. My opponent didn't refute anything I said above and gave up instead. This is a debate, not a "who do you agree with?" competition. Votes go to he who argues his position better, even if a voter doesn't agree with the viewpoint. This is why the categories for with whom you agree before and after the debate in the voting ballot aren't actually worth points. "However, my opponent makes the generalization... concept of being "usable" out of context." Actually, what I'm doing is the *exact* opposite. I'm looking 100% in context. In the context of the battle, all living characters' usages only work while the character is alive. Similarly, in the context of the battle, the rock's usage works while it exists. "Well, where do you think the objects went? They're obviously still inside of him" In which case, Kirby's swallowing becomes limitless and illegal. "He can only inhale the matter that is within the limited range of his inhalation." Irrelevant limit. "Therefore, he could inhale and eject out of New York City pieces of Uluru one at a time, still accomplishing the same effect." First, you would have to break it into manageable pieces. Second, how long would that take? Uluru is massive. Kirby would have to swallow each small fraction individually, then make a long trek from the rock to the outskirts of NYCï¿½€"also, Kirby walks way more slowly when he has something in his mouthï¿½€"and back and forth. Third, the rock is in the air. Kirby would have to fly all the way up to the rock to get a piece. Since he can't fly with objects in his mouth, wouldn't he die when he fell from such heights with pieces of rock in his mouth? Yes, he would. My opponent provided 1,250 feet as a number for the highest object in NYC. We can just use 1,000, since that's easier. If Kirby falls 1,000 feet at an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s^2 (gravity) [1], then using Galileo's kinematic equation [2]: final velocity ^ 2 = initial velocity (0)^2 2 x acceleration (32.2) x distance (1000). Kirby would hit the ground with a speed of root(64,400) ft/s, which is about 255 ft/s. Kirby would be destroyed. "You assume that the laws of physics actually apply to video games." We aren't in a video game. You're using video game characters–but in the real world. "This would be comparable to asking how many punches Superman can throw over time." No... throwing a punch is not creating matter. You haven't shown that there's a limit to Kirby's ability to create matter. This is an important lack of a limit–Kirby is illegal. "However, you have no evidence that sumo-kills are illegal... sumo-kills are legal." Why are they technically legal? When Logical-Master outlawed teleportation out of New York City, it's very possible that the intention was banning forced removal from NYC. This is especially evident through his wording of the resolution about exit from NYC–he calls it "leaving" NYC. Leaving implies a consent/choice in the action. "Otherwise, there is no way to defeat your atom, and it therefore has the unlimited ability of being undefeatable." Just because you haven't come up with a way, doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, this should count as conceding the point–I showed why your only strategy doesn't work, and you seem to believe that there is no other way to defeat the atom. Really, no other way. You have conceded the battle with that statement. "In the Light world, she can still become solid, as long as she is with Wolf Link, which I can have Link transform into." Source? I don't remember that. "Also, Midna used her powers in the Light world to move the piece of bridge from the Gerudo Mesa to the Bridge of Eldin. Therefore, Midna could easily move Uluru." Psychokinesis. Illegal. "Midna would then release the rock, and it would either orbit away from New York City or burn up on reentry." Haha, very creative. I'd like to just point out that my opponent is getting ridiculous with the height limit, though. "Space," meaning outer space, is not New York City. The height limit applies to what can reasonably be called New York City–I don't know what this is exactly, but it certainly doesn't include space, or any height high enough where my opponent's strategy can feasibly work. If it's defined as below the atmosphere, then the strategy about burning up doesn't work. "If the Pharaoh still has the power to create visions, then he is still 'usable.' Also, as long as there are circumstances under which the Pharaoh can project himself, then he can reside safely in the Millennium Puzzle to outlast Uluru." First of all, you didn't address my arguments regarding the necessity of a separate entity, or even the environment of the sacred tomb and the pyramid, to activate the Pharaoh's power. Second, Uluru is FAR larger than the Millennium Puzzle. The Puzzle would easily erode/rust away before Uluru–but even so, if Uluru erodes, how does that remove it from existence? Law of conservation of matter. It still exists. "Second, if I left my game on for years on end, with thousands of days going by in-game, Link would not age a bit." Link is not "in-game" in these battles. He's in the real world. Thus, your strategy doesn't work. "There is no indication in the rules of any commands." Uh... I just explained why there was. You didn't really make an argument. Anyway, look at your own language earlier in the round–you speak of "having" your characters do things. Sounds a lot like a command. Sounds a lot like a team leader, without whom the team wouldn't be a team. "'Facilitate' was probably supposed to affect the subject of 'the debate.'" Probably? That doesn't really make an argument. Considering how the previous sentence said that the team leader may not directly participate "in the competition," facilitate clearly referred to the competition, which is the battle. "Ah, but is there any indication of ordering anybody around? I only explain how my five guys would beat your five guys. That is my role. I don't actually direct anybody. I explain their skills." Refuted above. "Then explain how I'm both the team leader and a team member. The only real solution is a cloning." What? It's all right there. You're on my team, ordering your team around. "so that I forget that I am a team member, but I can still remember that I am a team leader." LOL, you're taking selective memory to new levels there. You can't just forget what you want to forget. Anyway, mongeese would obviously question why the opponent only had four characters and realize that he was the last one. "Finally, one other thing. If I leave New York City, I am defeated. However, at that point, neither my opponent nor I would be in New York City. Therefore, it stands that I would no longer be a team member, but team leaders are allowed to be outside New York City, so leaving would free me from my opponent without death, which creates no paradox." First of all, if you leave, you're defeated. Thus, you can't do anything with regards to the battle. Second, how do you know that team leaders can't leave the field? No source. Third, the rules states that leaving constitutes defeat. This can be applied to anyone. I have refuted my opponent's arguments. Short conclusion: My opponent conceded the points about the rock and atom, and I refuted his other strategies anyway. Victory to Team CON. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...