Instigator / Con

ihadsexok

1493

rating

debates

35.29%

won

Topic

#4515

mama mia

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

Average_Person

Tags

gay pride

gay marraige

Gay mafia

Parameters

Publication date: 05.22.2023 05:37PM
Last updated date: 06.01.2023 01:15AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

Average_Person

1516

rating

debates

82.0%

won

Description

mama mia means gay. like bro, you wanna suck wang? vote me if you support gays

Round 1

ihadsexok

05.22.2023 11:33PM

Con

Leviticus 20:12-13 motherfucka

Average_Person

05.23.2023 04:14PM

Pro

1. Preamble and BOP

I as PRO will prove that mama mia is a good expression (friendly/nonoffensive to gays as CON mentions) and does not mean “gay”. Conversely, the instigator (CON) will prove both that mama mia is a bad expression and that it means “gay”. Therefore, BOP is shared.

2. Definitions

Mama mia - borrowed from Italian mammamìa, mamma mia, literally "my mother!"

3. Arguments

In this round I have one argument which shall be sufficient, proving the meaning of mama mia.

4. Meaning

Various dictionaries and forums say mama mia means “my mother”, borrowed from italian, and is an expression used in surprise, shock, anger, joy, fear, annoyance, and disappointment (even Urban dictionary and Quora) [1.1][1.2][1.3][1.4][1.5][1.6][1.7]

In fact, it is a harmless expression which can also mean to agree with someone.

No reasonable dictionary mentions that mama mia means “gay”.

Here are some examples of its usage:

“Mamma mia, cos’ha sbagliato!”

From italian pub, just meaning “Mamma mia, what a mistake”. Here it is also a harmless expression just expressing disbelief about a soccer goal. [2]

5. Refutations

I would like to refute CON’s point:

“Leviticus 20:12-13”

Let’s see what CON is referencing:

“If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.” (12) [3]

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (13) [4]

Although 13 is related to gay (man-man sexual relations), neither have anything to do with mama mia as an expression.

“motherfucka”

Incest is illegal in the United States [5].

6. Conclusions

CON has not put a point on describing the expression mama mia as bad or as gay, whereas I have described that it is a harmless expression that is said to express surprise or shock.

Sources are linked wherever applicable.

Round 2

ihadsexok

05.23.2023 09:19PM

Con

he's wrong because mama mia is the word I use to DESCRIBE gay people. I'm saying that GAY PEOPLE are bad, not the fucking phrase "mama mia" you dork

Average_Person

05.23.2023 09:32PM

Pro

Thanks for your round 1 argument.

I’ll immediately begin my argument with refutations

mama mia is the word I use to DESCRIBE gay people

a)You have not said that, just cited a biblical phrase in 3 words

b) You have not defined what mama mia means. As such, the appropriate dictionary definition will be used as I have described.

c) Mama mia is an interjection. It is not a verb. It cannot “describe” something other than saying something is shocking or surprising to one’s self.

Additionally, my opponent says the following:

I'm saying that GAY PEOPLE are bad

The opponent claims to do so, yet he/she just cited a biblical phrase without any explanation at all. Additionally, this is moving the goalpost as he redefines the debate topic when it is clearly “mama mia”: the title does not say anything about gay people, only the description. Therefore, the topic would be “mama mia”. Also, the description says “mama mia means gay”, so the debate isn’t even about gay people themselves.

Therefore, you have not proven that “he’s wrong”.

Conclusions:

I extend all arguments as CON has not refuted any. CON is moving the goalpost with the topic, while the debate is clearly discussing mama mia and whether it means “gay”.

Extend all arguments.

Round 3

ihadsexok

05.24.2023 11:36PM

Con

post nose, bitch

Average_Person

05.24.2023 11:39PM

Pro

Extending all arguments due to CON not refuting any.

Round 4

ihadsexok

05.24.2023 11:54PM

Con

You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance.

Average_Person

05.24.2023 11:59PM

Pro

Extend again.

Also I am already home.

Round 5

ihadsexok

05.25.2023 01:15AM

Con

white america

Average_Person

05.25.2023 01:15AM

Pro

#10

Extend all args once again. Thank you for the debate, CON

Average_Person

05.28.2023 02:15PM

-->

@Devon

@ihadsexok

Thanks for pointing that out, Devon.

r3: post nose, bitch

r4: white america

Dear Con, please note args + sources + conduct = 6/7 of your score. Not cool!

Devon

05.28.2023 01:57PM

-->

@ihadsexok

Nah I'm good. The real debate you had is a big lie. How about every debate you make is a real debate and not a troll debate. Troll debates aren't allowed.

ihadsexok

05.28.2023 03:56AM

hey assholes. vote on the real debate i had

Average_Person

05.25.2023 01:16AM

This debate... happened... I guess.

hello voters!!!

Average_Person

05.25.2023 12:00AM

"You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance."

um... is this allowed in a debate?

Devon

05.27.2023 07:51PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

R1:
First Con provided a false definition of mama mia in the description then Con proceeds to use a bible verse which is unrelated to the topic.
Pro provided an excellent and solid argument and provided the correct definition of mama mia.

R2:
Con did not rebuttal any of Pro's arguments and points in R1. Con loses conduct points for saying "you dork"
Pro yet again provides another solid argument.

Rounds 3-5:
Con provides no arguments/rebuttals for the rest of the debate. Also loses more conduct points by calling Pro a "bitch" in R3.
Pro asks Con to extend arguments but that never happened.

Arguments go to Pro | Pro provided arguments for R1 and R2 and Con didn't rebuttal and/or give any arguments in return to defend their side.
Sources go to Pro | Pro provided sources for R1 and R2 of their arguments and Con never provided any.
Legibility go to Pro | This also goes to Pro. I feel they had more legibility with their grammar and their arguments were clear.
Conduct goes to Pro | Pro had a great attitude the whole time and had better conduct than Con whereas Con called Pro out of their name.

Intelligence_06

05.27.2023 04:26PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro did not prove "Mama mia" correct, and Con did virtually nothing. Args tied.

As for the other points, Con cited 0 sources, made several grammatical mistakes giving me the impression that Con did not care at all. Also, Con did not care at all, as seen in his lack of efforts with all his "arguments" being one-liners, that is, if they had practical meaning in the first place.

Pro, on the other hand, at least tried, even if he attempted to prove the negative of a negative instead of a positive. Then as how unclear the title is, I give it a pass. The contender wins.