Instigator / Pro
6
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#33

A Resource Based Economy is the system adopted by all civilisations

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Type1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1479
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Humans, as I see it, are not fully civilised. We are a type zero civilisation, this implies that we have not learned to use or manage the resources of our planet fully or even wisely and thus all of our currently active socioeconomic systems are primitive and inherently flawed.

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:

Conduct to Con because Pro calls him a superstitious retard, a crackpot, a troll and says the following too:

"Cut the ass hat shinanegans buddy."
"No he didn't you cantankerous wanker biscuit."
"LOL. Fucking idiot."

Spelling and grammar is tied.

While Con used a lot more sources, neither side used a remotely reliable one. You cannot ask people to watch videos that are over an hour long at times and not even that, you can't use a video or even entire google search result page as your source. You need to quote, from the source, the part relevant to the debate and the source is how you avoid plagiarism concerns and how you increase reliability to what you are claiming... Nothing more, nothing less. Also the Venus Project is extremely biased in favour of Pro so I don't consider that a reliable source for this debate.

Both sides went into the arguments totally wrong. Pro wins because what Con did was try to prove that RBE is corrupt since it's founder is corrupt but the issue is that even if the founder is a racist shill, it doesn't mean that RBE isn't the system that all alien civilisations in the theory of 'type 1-4 civilisations' use. Pro explains that RBE is what these imaginary alien civilisations all use and Con decides to simply say it's a corrupt theory and that the founder is a shill. This is not what Con was supposed to do in this debate. Con's angle had to be either that the RBE is impossible to be a system and that civilisations are possible only without it (which would render the fact that the proponents for RBE preach it must be used in civilisations as liars OR that RBE is not the system that any one of the civilisation types use above type 0 which was negated in the debate as it's the uncivilised type. Con never does this, not one in my eyes. All Con does is say that RBE is not provably sustainable and that the founder is corrupt which doesn't mean that in the theory of type 1-4 civilisations the RBE isn't the system they rely on.