Instigator / Pro

Jboy3r

1490

rating

debates

41.67%

won

Topic

#301

The word sock should be two words

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 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

Alec

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 11.09.2018 02:24PM
Last updated date: 11.16.2018 10:33PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Alec

1596

rating

debates

63.1%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Jboy3r

11.09.2018 02:53PM

Pro

People don’t appreciate words like sock and water we can change this by changing sock to two words. Plus the chairs would not be happy about this. Don’t make the chairs sad

Alec

11.09.2018 03:11PM

Con

"People don’t appreciate words like sock and water" Most people respect the words as they can convey a message. I know people in the South West US like the word and concept of water because the South west receives very little annual rainfall and droughts are common there(https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/diaz/).

"we can change this by changing sock to two words" No you can't. The BoP rests on you to prove why we should make socks 2 words. This also raises some questions like:

-Where do we put the space to separate the words?

-Every word has at least 1 vowel. Sock only has 1 vowel. Should we add a vowel? If we do, it's no longer the word "Sock"

-Should we force everyone to change the spelling of sock?

-What benefit would it bring?

"Plus the chairs would not be happy about this. Don’t make the chairs sad" Chairs have no emotions. Even if they did, how would the spelling of a word effect their emotions?

Round 2

Jboy3r

11.09.2018 04:46PM

Pro

Con said “South West US like the word and concept of water because the South west receives very little annual rainfall and droughts are common there.” That is true but in places like Minnesota water flows like water
The word sock could be turned into so cak or so cka or sa ock or so ock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or soćk oc
Con said “what benefit would it bring” it would make the chairs happy
I am not trying to say that everyone should spell sock as two words I just want it to be an appropriate spelling of sock. Please make the chairs happy

Alec

11.09.2018 10:33PM

Con

1) The people in Minnesota are different to the term water and more or less indifferent to the term sock.

2) "The word sock could be turned into so cak or so cka or sa ock or so ock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or sock sock or soćk oc " None of these words have s,o,c,or k in that order and only those letters exactly once.

3) "it would make the chairs happy". Chairs don't have emotions.

4) " I just want it to be an appropriate spelling of sock. " You have yet to state a non refuted reason why we should change the established spelling of sock.

Vote Con Voters.

bsh1

11.12.2018 05:58AM

-->

@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: I don't think the source Con used was relevant to the debate. I don't care about water (wtf did water have to do with this?) I care about the debate at hand and how both sides approach is.
Pro is stating that chairs are concerned with the concern lacking towards words themselves, such as 'water' and 'sock'. Pro then says that because of this Sock would be better as 2 words and frankly was hinting at 'suck cock' if you follow how he was splitting the word up. It's a troll and a joke and the reason it lost is because Con points out that chairs seem to lack emotion and because people do care about words... Although the way he proved this was to only focus on water instead of socks, it still was sufficient to Kritik the angle that Pro took.

>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************

bsh1

11.12.2018 05:56AM

-->

@Mharman

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mharman // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Argument to Con. Pro stated that sock should be two words. Con stated that it should not be. Unlike Pro, however, Con actually stated why sock should remain one word.

Raltar

11.10.2018 12:53AM

-->

@Alec

@nmvarco

Oh. My bad.

nmvarco

11.10.2018 12:32AM

-->

@Alec

@Raltar

That was me

Alec

11.10.2018 12:00AM

-->

@Raltar

I am not the guy who debated Pro on ducks. I did vote on his debate though.

Alec

11.09.2018 10:52PM

Vote Con

Alec

11.09.2018 10:34PM

Probably close to if not, the quickest debate on the site.

Jboy3r

11.09.2018 08:08PM

...

Alec

11.09.2018 02:39PM

Good luck to my opponent.

Ramshutu

11.12.2018 01:13PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This is a troll debate. Con offered an actual argument, and justification as to why the words should remain. He gets the clean sweep, as this is a troll debate, pro could have won by out trolling - as Con has a better argument, supported his position, and took control of the debate by painting con into a corner he couldn’t troll out of: he gets the full win.

Mharman

11.12.2018 02:02AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument to Con. Pro stated that sock should be two words. Con stated that it should not be. Unlike Pro, however, Con actually stated why sock should remain one word.

RationalMadman

11.10.2018 12:46AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I don't think the source Con used was relevant to the debate. I don't care about water (wtf did water have to do with this?) I care about the debate at hand and how both sides approach is.

Pro is stating that chairs are concerned with the concern lacking towards words themselves, such as 'water' and 'sock'. Pro then says that because of this Sock would be better as 2 words and frankly was hinting at 'suck cock' if you follow how he was splitting the word up. It's a troll and a joke and the reason it lost is because Con points out that chairs seem to lack emotion and because people do care about words... Although the way he proved this was to only focus on water instead of socks, it still was sufficient to Kritik the angle that Pro took.

Raltar

11.09.2018 11:39PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I didn't see a terribly strong argument on either side for this, however, Con wins it by a small margin. Pro's arguments were confusing and unlikely, such as implying that chairs are somehow displeased with the current spelling of the word sock. Con rebutted this by pointing out that chairs have no emotions, and thus no rational opinion on how words are spelled. Pro also points out that the burden of proof is on Pro, since he is the one making the claim which needs to be proven.

Spelling and grammar to Con also, due to Pro kind of trailing off into unintelligible ranting during the final round.

But... aren't these the same two guys who debated the danger of ducks? They seem to have just reversed roles...