Instigator / Pro
2
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1282
Debating
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
TheRealNihilist
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
Regularly styled
Round 1
waive
I guess I start and make the argument for something I don't know what is about apart from it is about "debating".
I will take the Con position to debating is not about who is right.
This is clearly laid out under the voting section. It isn't voted on under what is right. It is voted on the "more convincing arguments". Convincing is different from right so people can vote on what isn't right but still find convincing.
I will take it one step further that given biases and what has occurred before the debate. The winner in most people's eyes has already been determined. A Christian will take the side of the person who agrees with them. The atheist will take the side of the person who agrees with them. This context can be applied to other scenarios given that most people don't have a lot of ideas they are undecided on. They already have made their mind up and try their best to fit what they want into their ideology instead thinking about what if my foundation is wrong.
I also take the position our limits cannot really find out what is right if we don't decide to change things to mean what they want. I state this because when we argue with what is right we are using a standard to measure it. We can't measure the standard because that would also require another standard to measure it. That also requires a standards so on so on. It leads to absurdism but it is what it is. We can't actually know if a measurement is right independent of other measurements so people confirm their biases and carry on with their lives.
Round 2
I guess I start and make the argument for something I don't know what is about apart from it is about "debating".
It's about generalized debating, I will continue to clarify if needed.
I will take the Con position to debating is not about who is right.
We established that fact, and there's a grammar issue here, if you voters can spot it.
This is clearly laid out under the voting section. It isn't voted on under what is right. It is voted on the "more convincing arguments". Convincing is different from right so people can vote on what isn't right but still find convincing.
Debating is ideally about convincing, that is correct, but is convincing people about something that isn't right, really so bad? No. Your con is just an example of good voting, voting without bias.
I will take it one step further that given biases and what has occurred before the debate. The winner in most people's eyes has already been determined. A Christian will take the side of the person who agrees with them. The atheist will take the side of the person who agrees with them. This context can be applied to other scenarios given that most people don't have a lot of ideas they are undecided on. They already have made their mind up and try their best to fit what they want into their ideology instead thinking about what if my foundation is wrong.
What? This has been proven wrong by many voters on DART. And if one is debating IRL (in competition style debate), than it is completely irrelevant.
I also take the position our limits cannot really find out what is right if we don't decide to change things to mean what they want. I state this because when we argue with what is right we are using a standard to measure it. We can't measure the standard because that would also require another standard to measure it. That also requires a standards so on so on. It leads to absurdism but it is what it is. We can't actually know if a measurement is right independent of other measurements so people confirm their biases and carry on with their lives.
Your entire argument is based on debate voting not actual debating, so none of it is actually relevant material to this debate.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
1. Debating is good for your brain
In IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives.
Debating also educates you to be a critical thinker. This is created by the fact that one had to think of good arguments with literally zero loopholes, or abilities to counter it.
2. It helps you in class
This reason is for ONLINE DEBATE. After researching for your argument, you have sources and knowledge to apply it in the classroom.
3. It prepares you for adulthood.
This article can explain it better than I can
SOURCES
How about doing both?
You can rebut my arguments that I made about the topic you didn't clarify and I will rebut your arguments about the topic you made up in Round 2. Okay?
Debating is ideally about convincing, that is correct, but is convincing people about something that isn't right, really so bad? No. Your con is just an example of good voting, voting without bias.
Good is a standard you are applying. It is not required it is what you want to personally outside the requirements of voting.
Convincing doesn't always mean you are right. I can convince you that you want to die. This can be because you are gullible or prone to it given the circumstances in your life. I use your weakness to help my argument sound more convincing for whatever intent. In that scenario would you say I was right if you believed me? I would think so no.
What? This has been proven wrong by many voters on DART.
Evidence please. If you are talking about a theist who is voting against a person who fully forfeited that doesn't count. When both have met the requirements to not be an automatic win for the other then the voters can decide who to pick. Don't see how you can find a theist agreeing with an atheist on the topic of God.
Your entire argument is based on debate voting not actual debating, so none of it is actually relevant material to this debate.
What is the end goal of debating? Having people judge what you said. This can be done through voting. This isn't far fetched from debating because it is the very thing that is being used to measure whether or not someone won or not.
Where did you even mention what this topic was about? You are stating this is not relevant even though you didn't tell me what is or isn't relevant. If it was just about debating then voting counts given it is used to judge whether or not debate is won or not.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
1. Debating is good for your brainIn IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives.
If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest.
2. It helps you in classThis reason is for ONLINE DEBATE. After researching for your argument, you have sources and knowledge to apply it in the classroom.
If this is useful to the topic you are covering in class. If we simply use the most recent debates. Are you going to talk about Christianity in class? Well in Religious studies or theism centered classes. Are you going to argue the pros and cons of debating? I haven't in any class I have been in so don't see how this is relevant to helping school. Is a person that says "It is a fact that God put medicen in plants" useful in school? No because a Christian school would have accepted that as an assumption and more credible authorities wouldn't even to accept that debate given people who would bring that up would fail at the first question. Evidence?
3. It prepares you for adulthood.This article can explain it better than I can
Why are you even here if you are not going to actually "debate" the topic at hand? Why not just send a link to a forum post since you pretty much didn't even explain the source you used. Your explanation is the source.
Adulthood refers to an age group. In order to prepare someone younger for adulthood. The only advice you can give is how best to survive to reach that age. You didn't do that. You didn't define adulthood so I am open to interpretation adulthood as an age range instead of some kind of social responsibility. If you did mean it as a social responsibility term who are you to state what someone's social responsibility? As far as I am concerned the state can give rules like follow law. You can only show how best to do things. Would you consider a 25 year old who is not a good debater an adult? I don't think you will because poorer folk are too busy trying to work instead of attending debate classes. So either you have changed the word to in order to be an adult you must attend debate classes but if you go by age ranges well then you gave poor advice. If you said the debate class helps prepare for things that most adults do like be good with colleagues at etc then why not use that instead of an entire article which has one reason being "Debaters Are Good At Pretending Your Jokes About Debate Are Fresh AF"?
Reasons why debating is bad:
1. Can be doing something more useful.
If you require money you should spend time on finding a job. Preparing for an interview. Negotiate higher pay or more hours or a promotion.
If you require to improve social bonds. Read a book about being nice to people. Attend more gatherings with them. Try and help them. When they are down try to make them happy.
I'll stick to one.
Round 3
How about doing both?You can rebut my arguments that I made about the topic you didn't clarify and I will rebut your arguments about the topic you made up in Round 2. Okay?
Okay.
Good is a standard you are applying. It is not required it is what you want to personally outside the requirements of voting.Convincing doesn't always mean you are right. I can convince you that you want to die. This can be because you are gullible or prone to it given the circumstances in your life. I use your weakness to help my argument sound more convincing for whatever intent. In that scenario would you say I was right if you believed me? I would think so no.
Convincing is not the same thing as debating. If you write a speech and convince someone, is that debating? No! Let's say I argue back, it's a debate alright? That's literally one example. People can die from literally any activity. Example:
Someone reads memes, he faints because a meme was too funny. Is that his fault or the meme's?
Evidence please. If you are talking about a theist who is voting against a person who fully forfeited that doesn't count. When both have met the requirements to not be an automatic win for the other then the voters can decide who to pick. Don't see how you can find a theist agreeing with an atheist on the topic of God.
Okay...
Raltar is Christian, he voted for con
Castin is atheist, he voted for pro
Virtuoso is Jewish he vote con
b9_ntt is atheist, he vote con
There are many other examples, but it'd take to long to list them
What is the end goal of debating? Having people judge what you said. This can be done through voting. This isn't far fetched from debating because it is the very thing that is being used to measure whether or not someone won or not.Where did you even mention what this topic was about? You are stating this is not relevant even though you didn't tell me what is or isn't relevant. If it was just about debating then voting counts given it is used to judge whether or not debate is won or not.
Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest.
Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do. You admitted that it was a postitive.
If this is useful to the topic you are covering in class. If we simply use the most recent debates. Are you going to talk about Christianity in class? Well in Religious studies or theism centered classes. Are you going to argue the pros and cons of debating? I haven't in any class I have been in so don't see how this is relevant to helping school. Is a person that says "It is a fact that God put medicen in plants" useful in school? No because a Christian school would have accepted that as an assumption and more credible authorities wouldn't even to accept that debate given people who would bring that up would fail at the first question. Evidence?
This not just for one religious debate, there are so many other debates, that your refute is ineffective. This can go for IRL debating too, you can learn something from your debate, in fact this is a bigger postivie, because you can apply it in trivia, and many other things. You can win millions by applying it in Jeopardy!
Adulthood refers to an age group. In order to prepare someone younger for adulthood. The only advice you can give is how best to survive to reach that age. You didn't do that. You didn't define adulthood so I am open to interpretation adulthood as an age range instead of some kind of social responsibility. If you did mean it as a social responsibility term who are you to state what someone's social responsibility? As far as I am concerned the state can give rules like follow law. You can only show how best to do things. Would you consider a 25 year old who is not a good debater an adult? I don't think you will because poorer folk are too busy trying to work instead of attending debate classes. So either you have changed the word to in order to be an adult you must attend debate classes but if you go by age ranges well then you gave poor advice. If you said the debate class helps prepare for things that most adults do like be good with colleagues at etc then why not use that instead of an entire article which has one reason being "Debaters Are Good At Pretending Your Jokes About Debate Are Fresh AF"?
Adulthood is not a social responsibility but a age range. Being an adult means you have to survive on your own and your parent don't really have any legal resposibility to take care of you. I don't even understand your second point "Would you consider a 25 year old who is not a good debate an adult" Yes, I would with your meaning at hand. See, you don't even support your meaning now. Did you read anything besides that one joke?
1. Can be doing something more useful.If you require money you should spend time on finding a job. Preparing for an interview. Negotiate higher pay or more hours or a promotion.If you require to improve social bonds. Read a book about being nice to people. Attend more gatherings with them. Try and help them. When they are down try to make them happy.
This isn't a good reason, you first have to prove debating is bad and not useful, before you create this reason.
If you write a speech and convince someone, is that debating? No!
Yes it is. A debate requires two opposing make claims aimed to convince people who are not part of the debate.
Someone reads memes, he faints because a meme was too funny. Is that his fault or the meme's?
I was showing how debating is about convincing not about who is right. That was my aim and you haven't countered it. Death being involved was the context. It was about being convincing which was what the analogy was trying to state.
Raltar is Christian, he voted for con
Both of them are Christian. They just follow different sects.
Castin is atheist, he voted for pro
Castin and Magic are both atheists.
Both of the parties follow a Religion. RM paganism. Mopac Christianity. It wasn't against an atheist.
b9_ntt is atheist, he vote con
If you actually read his responses the only thing he mentions is that he agrees with the votes. Not actually critiquing the arguments just laying them out and saying I agree in the vote. If you actually look at his voting record he has consistently voted against atheists which leads me to assume he might well be a theist because he doesn't even bother to explain his votes he just says he agrees or disagrees.
Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.
Yes but voting is linked to debating. A debate finishes it ends up in a voting period. What is the end goal of debating? Win votes from the voters. You saying something obvious doesn't change why I spoke about voting as in the thing that is used to decide whether a debate is won or not. It is like you saying a basketball match is different to the final score. Yes but they are competing to win. That is the end goal and you didn't engage with that instead you state a truism as if I don't agree with it.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do. You admitted that it was a postitive.
You haven't stated how it is different nor did you even attempt. I don't have something to argue against apart from video game thinking is different too IRL debate thinking. That isn't true. Both require you to make judgments at a quick rate. You saying it is different without saying how makes it difficult for me to know what the difference is.
This not just for one religious debate, there are so many other debates, that your refute is ineffective. This can go for IRL debating too, you can learn something from your debate, in fact this is a bigger postivie, because you can apply it in trivia, and many other things. You can win millions by applying it in Jeopardy!
Memory is more important in trivia games than being able to be convincing. Since memory can be better learnt at reading a book and remembering what you just read. Debating is less effective and something you heralded it was good at.
Yes there are so many other debates but very rarely there would be any minds changed. Debating is not about changing your mind it is about competing for who made the most convincing argument. A better way of changing or attempting to change your mind is to read from different sources or the other side. That is more effective then hoping 1 person in a debate hopefully can capture the best of a movement. While reading the other side you can get a grasp of a company which is represented by the people who read them. A debater represents his own personal views. One has the aim to give their readers a worthwhile read while another has the aim to come across convincing. I choose the article over a debater because of the intention and the results of the ordeal. Clicks shows people read it. Votes show someone won.
Adulthood is not a social responsibility but a age range.
Can voters bear in mind his grammar as well? Thanks in advance.
Being an adult means you have to survive on your own and your parent don't really have any legal resposibility to take care of you.
Spelling check please.
You are basically saying adulthood is when a parent is not parenting you. That isn't the case. Adulthood is defined under an age range. If it was defined over that then 26 year olds who just simply live with their parents are not adults but by the state and under pretty much any other metric they are adults because the age of the adults starts at 18. Your measurement goes against social norms and you have yet to show why we ought to use it.
See, you don't even support your meaning now. Did you read anything besides that one joke?
I missed the r in debater. What I am trying to get at is that adults are still adults even if they haven't even attended debating classes. Debating is your arbitrary metric to class people that no-one I have heard of apart from you uses.
This isn't a good reason, you first have to prove debating is bad and not useful, before you create this reason.
No I don't. I can state something to be more effective without stating the opposing side to be bad. I just need to show a comparison between the two or something missing out of the argument that I stuck in. I chose the latter and showed making money, increasing social bonds is a more effective way of using your time than debating given that most people require those things more to survive which debating can't do for them.
Round 4
VOTERS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE IN ALL OMAR'S FAILURES TO USE COMMAS
I was showing how debating is about convincing not about who is right. That was my aim and you haven't countered it. Death being involved was the context. It was about being convincing which was what the analogy was trying to state.
And how is that bad? Debate is ABOUT CONVINCING PEOPLE.
Both of them are Christian. They just follow different sects. Both of the parties follow a Religion. RM paganism. Mopac Christianity. It wasn't against an atheist. Castin and Magic are both atheists.
Grammar error and, again, we are arguing about debating not debate voting.
Yes but voting is linked to debating. A debate finishes it ends up in a voting period. What is the end goal of debating? Win votes from the voters. You saying something obvious doesn't change why I spoke about voting as in the thing that is used to decide whether a debate is won or not. It is like you saying a basketball match is different to the final score. Yes but they are competing to win. That is the end goal and you didn't engage with that instead you state a truism as if I don't agree with it.
The end goal of debating is convincing someone, yes but is it always voting? No. Debating is different from debate voting.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
You haven't stated how it is different nor did you even attempt. I don't have something to argue against apart from video game thinking is different too IRL debate thinking. That isn't true. Both require you to make judgments at a quick rate. You saying it is different without saying how makes it difficult for me to know what the difference is.
Yeah but thinking on your feet is still a good thing. It's different because it's live, and you can literally just search up crossfire
You are basically saying adulthood is when a parent is not parenting you. That isn't the case. Adulthood is defined under an age range. If it was defined over that then 26 year olds who just simply live with their parents are not adults but by the state and under pretty much any other metric they are adults because the age of the adults starts at 18. Your measurement goes against social norms and you have yet to show why we ought to use it.
I'm saying adulthood is an age range over 18 and that your parent isn't a LEGAL guardian of you. They don't have to legally take care of you. But SOME CHOOSE TOO. Read correctly please.
I missed the r in debater. What I am trying to get at is that adults are still adults even if they haven't even attended debating classes. Debating is your arbitrary metric to class people that no-one I have heard of apart from you uses
Adults are still adults, debating helps them be more prepared for being adults.
No I don't. I can state something to be more effective without stating the opposing side to be bad. I just need to show a comparison between the two or something missing out of the argument that I stuck in. I chose the latter and showed making money, increasing social bonds is a more effective way of using your time than debating given that most people require those things more to survive which debating can't do for them.
Debating is still a good thing to do. Just because there are better things than it doesn't mean it's bad. Your job is to prove it's bad not to prove that making money is good.
And how is that bad? Debate is ABOUT CONVINCING PEOPLE.
Remember the first topic was supposed to be about debating is not about who is right. You haven't given a counter here instead you are completely confused with
what is going on. I hope voters take note of that.
Grammar error and, again, we are arguing about debating not debate voting.
Misrepresentation. Almost every single sentence Club copied was speaking about a source directly. I didn't have everything in the way he presented it.
The end goal of debating is convincing someone, yes but is it always voting? No. Debating is different from debate voting.
Yes it is always about voting. Whether it be by cheers in a crowd, a voting section on DA or judges. They all count as voting. Debating is different from voting is not the claim I am against. You didn't engage with the hypothetical or understand what it is this part of the debate is about. I don't think I need more for this section for people to understand what I did and what Club didn't.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!
Yeah but thinking on your feet is still a good thing. It's different because it's live, and you can literally just search up crossfire
I am not denying thinking on your feet is a good thing. I am just saying you haven't demonstrated how debating is the best way or if the alternatives I brought up were worse. Last part of his argument after the comma is him basically stating go look up the evidence for me. That is not my burden and it is unfair to ask me that when I don't do the same.
I'm saying adulthood is an age range over 18 and that your parent isn't a LEGAL guardian of you. They don't have to legally take care of you. But SOME CHOOSE TOO. Read correctly please.
Clearly false. You can have a driver's license while still living in your parents house. Adulthood is an age range. You have failed to show the social side of the word that holds up to scrutiny.
Adults are still adults, debating helps them be more prepared for being adults.
If they are already adults why do they need to be more prepared to be one? I am not going to get an answer so it is rhetorical. Club basically adults are adults but they still need preparing to help them be adults. If they need preparing they are not adults.
Debating is still a good thing to do. Just because there are better things than it doesn't mean it's bad. Your job is to prove it's bad not to prove that making money is good.
I only needed to demonstrate if there was a better thing to do with your time. I have stated 2 things you can do that are more important than debating. You are shifting the burden to me instead of stating how debating is more important than the two I mentioned.
I think I won but I am not a voter. Welp.
Nih:
You're welcome.
Club:
I'm willing to discuss any aspects of the vote to which you disagreed. I do truly dislike the voter shortage inflating the value of my voice.
Both:
You could always do a rematch, with a clearly refined resolution, and making use of my formatting guide.
Thanks for taking the time.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: see comments.
Reason for Mod Action>Arguments are sufficient; the voter surveys all the main arguments, weights them against each other, and reaches a conclusion.
Sources are also sufficient: the voter surveys sources, uses examples and shows how these source affected the individual arguments.
*******************************************************************
yeah
Let us see if Virtuoso or Ramshutu agree or not.
I already did lol
I believe it is unfair and await for the moderators to see if they agree.
Report Ragnar's if you think it is unfair.
Why are you reporting everyone of the votes against you?
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.
2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).
3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).
4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.
5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).
---RFD (2 of 2)---
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.
Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.
S&G:
“0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!”
Why was this in here?
Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).
Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.
Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”
Club states-"Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do."
Overall a good point, but Club fails to prove how the "style" of thinking on your feet from debating was unique from that of sports or video games.
BTW Club did use a very poor source to prove debating helped you as an adult, but TRN didn't backup anything he said with any sources. So I refuse to score it against Club.
Debate vs debate voting- TRN fails to show how the two are connected. Not all debates are voted on. It's a fairly irrelevant point overall though.
Con=TRN Pro=Club
Grammar-both sides had bad grammar, TRN was worse, but not enough to warrant a deduction.
Club states how debating helps you think quick and makes you a critical thinker. The critical thinker point was dropped by TRN. But, he states how thinking quickly isn't exclusive to debating. Also how you could probably play sports or video games as an alternative. TRN also states how there are better ways to use your time. Club states that, assuming being able to think on your feet is desirable, then even though it's not exclusive to debating it's still a good trait.
Frankly I'd say Club did prove that being good at debating was a useful trait to have, and how the benefits out way the drawbacks.
Lets observe this exchange Club states-" IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives."
TRN-"If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to or for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action> I have gone back and forth on this one over the last few days: but ultimately my view is that this vote falls short of what can be considered borderline.
While the voter cites some examples from pros argument, it is not fully clear from the RFD why he weighted pros point more strongly than cons. In fact, these extra quotes muddy the water for why the voter felt pros arguments were better.
Likewise, there is little detail on why the voter rejected cons arguments on the grounds of relevance - though this alone would have simply made the vote borderline.
I will normally consider a vote to be borderline if only semantic or formatting changes are required; but I feel the explanation in the first portion of the RfD is sufficiently lacking in clarity to pass the borderline test.
*******************************************************************
Do I have to beg?
:1
:1
So Trent0405's vote?
Arguments: I'm giving this one to pro because while debating and debate voting fall into the same category I don't think that debate voting is part of the general topic of debating as you don't have to vote to have a debate. Also, Con was nitpicking a lot saying things like, "What do you mean by good?" or, "What do you mean by adulthood?" even though I'm sure he knew what Pro was talking about. Don't get me wrong Pro kept adding on points at the end even when he shouldn't have and wasn't very good at defending his adulthood point even though it was easy to defend. This was almost a tie except for the fact Pro brought in irl debating into this which I thought was very smart and something Con did not take points from.
Sources: Con didn't use sources so it's an automatic win in this sub-category for pro
Grammar: Both made grammar mistakes, Pro didn't know how to use appositive phrases and was a bit hypocritical when he had grammar mistakes in his sentences where he was pointing out grammar mistakes. But Con didn't really use comma's so I guess it balances out.
Conduct: Pro was ruder with points and counterpoints than Con, such as when he said, "Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate." which he probably could've phrased nicer, or when he said, "Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is?" which also could've been phrased nicer.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>none of the points are sufficient. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate (one side having no sources is not grounds for point allocation); not did the voter explain how the conduct was sufficiently toxic or severe to warrant conduct mark down.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "More convincing debater”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
interesting debate, fun to vote on.
Well he has ascended/shed his layers/evolved into TheRealNihilist
What happened to omar2345
plz
bump
Both of you I thought made fair points, but I cannot vote because I do not see a clearly defined objective for the debate. It seems as though Pro went down the debate is good or bad route and Con debated that debate distracts from truth. I think you guys should have agreed on what exactly you were differing on.
To Truth!
-logicae
Please vote
I take it that this is inspired by my debate?
Good question by Con about what about debate this debate is about. (kind of a tongue twister :)
To Truth!
-logicae
bump
debating
What specifically?
not this shit again