This site is elitist bullsh&t

Pro spent the entire debate cursing and going on an incoherent ramble about how the " law is an ass," that's poor conduct!

Not only that but due to Cons argument being coherent enough to understand and having some sense of logic to it, I must award con the argument and grammar points.

Sources tied.

Con was able to prove that vote moderation wasn't rigged and that there were set standards that are enforced. Pro offered basically no arguments himself. Pro tries to shift the BOP on Con when, as he demonstrated it wasn't on him but his opponent. Pro never even tries to prove that the site is elitist BS, he doesn't even attempt to, therefore he doesn't meet his BOP.

Well played Con. I was expecting this debate to be a back and forth conversation, but you kinda turned it into a quite enjoyable debate to watch. THis line was my favourite...

"your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way?"

Yes

This happens all the time. People confuse debates with casual conversations and try to shift the BoP onto the person disputing the positive claim, rather than the one making it.

"your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way?"

Yes

According to billatard, I don't have to explain my vote.

PRO argues that he does not understand why his votes are illegitimate and does a fine job of illustrating that lack by insults, non-sequitur quotes of literary masters, threats, and finally pleading to be made to understood. Unfortunately for PRO, lack of understanding does not make a particularly compelling argument for site elitism. CON needed only to quote a few reasons for PRO's vote illegitimacy and stand back while PRO drowned himself in irrelevancy.

Pro must show that the site is elitist and “bullshit”, even taking a more generalized description of bullshit, pros primary argument appeared to be that he doesn’t like the voting rules. As pro is making the specific claim, he has the burden of proof and it appears that his entire argument seems largely redundant to the contention he’s trying to justify.

The debate quickly deteriorated into pro simply objecting to voting rules without a clear reason for why he feels they are unfair or unreasonable, not only is this countered with the basic claim that these are the site rules, and by the fact that even if I accept everything pro said - it still doesn’t justify the premise. As everything pro said was unrelated to the contention - arguments go to con.

As a note to Con, I think it would be beneficial for you to spend a bit more time on a positive case while focusing on rebuttals works at a basic level for burden of proof, it’s dangerous not to offer a positive case. I think it could have been good here to argue why the site isn’t elitist (newish members being allowed to vote, old voters being removed) - it would be more useful in cases where your opponent offers a larger case.

Pro literally has the argument the the law is an ass and that therefore the website is elitist bullshit. If you transcribe Pro's R3 and R4 logic into the angle he (profile identifies as male so I say 'he') took in R1 and R2, the case Pro makes is literally that the law is an ass and that there's no rationale behind it any more than there was behind racist slavery and that therefore they are equally abhorrent.

At first, Con slips up, for he makes the error of playing too defensive but not defending against the defence of the enemy. What I mean is that at first Con's reply was that Pro was totally entitled to attacked the law and rules and opened himself up to complete stampeding in R4 by Pro who could bring many new points thanks to Con asking him to, in order to justify why slavery is equally stupid, elitist and/or bullshit as voting regulations on this website. However, Pro never capitalises on that, Pro comes back just as passively defensive and asks for Con's rationale.

There also seems to be no way to tell if it is bullshit or not, because Pro didn't know you're allowed to swear on this website, unlike DDO, so was too afraid to directly use the word or definition in his debate round(s).

Pro never uses sources, other than using Oliver Twist, a fictional story, to justify that the Law is an ass because the main character says so... That is a terrible and unreliable use of sourcing in a debate that is meant to make the opponent admit that the site is elitist bullshit. If anything is elitist bullshit it's saying that as a Dickens fan you're entitled to just quote a character and win a debate down to your taste in books.

Con cites an actual event that Pro is referring to, compares others' votes that got removed and shows how Pro's own vote was actually worse than one that got removed, which was never ever countered by Pro. Pro's case is actually racist. What Pro is saying is shockingly that he considers that his vote is as inferior to the non-removed votes as the enslaved race was to the 'master race' in the times where slavery was legalised. This is actually the true extent of the analogy that Pro uses to counter Con's logic. It is neither justified nor properly brought into linking to the resolution throughout the debate.

Con demonstrated that the execution of the rules was not done in a bullshit manner (citing a debate which seems to have inspired this one). He did this via showing multiple votes, and explaining where the line in quality fell. The implication is that it would actually be bullshit to not insist people read the debates before they vote (and then to give minimal proof).

I was not convinced that rules are not elitism (that something is elitism, doesn't mean it's a bad thing), but pro complained about that rather than showing it, and never tried to meet BoP on either point (1. that it's elitist, and 2. that it's bullshit).