I don't mean the reality show either, I mean loser as in most worthless...
2007-01-12 12:47:18 · 3 answers · asked by jay_fox_rok_god 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Of course, if you disqualified the winner of the loser contest, that would make the loser the winner and you'd immediatly have to disquilify her or him, too.
Then second runner up would win, which automatically would make them lose. This would continue until the absolute last ranked person in the biggest loser contest was ranked winner and immediatly disqualified.
Unless, of course, the original winner had tried to quit the contest, tried to get disqualified and really honestly didn't want to win. If winning the contest were a thousand times worse to the contestant than being disqualified, I would say he or she should be proclaimed the biggest loser, especially since they reached the final two.
2007-01-12 14:19:12 · answer #1 · answered by Joey Michaels 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way i see it, is to be the biggest loser the person must lose that competition as well.
There should be no end to his losing.
The person that gets last place is the Grand Loser
2007-01-12 20:56:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if they were disqualified, would that not constitute them to still be a loser?
2007-01-12 20:51:51 · answer #3 · answered by Skahler 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋