Instigator / Pro

Mall

1420

rating

396

debates

43.94%

won

Topic

#3551

Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 07.15.2022 11:55AM
Last updated date: 07.27.2022 11:55PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Novice_II

1890

rating

debates

93.37%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

I had created a biblical debate here stipulating that Bible , chapter and verse must be presented verbatim to prove the subject matter.

The person that does not fulfill that loses the debate outright. The persons that vote , award points to the person that did not meet the debate conditions is with just as dishonest or slow to comprehend.

A biblical debate between Smallwood Muhammad and Bishop E.W. Tookes can be found on YouTube.
The debate was before a mass of folks that understood that each speaker had to bring scripture to prove their point.

The scripture brought said expressly what was needed to refute all other arguments. The masses served as witnesses of this and acknowledged what was not brought.

Now this is a straightforward on the nose type of topic. It's suspected to be highly non-disputable but that means it's true and nobody coming on to debate.

Round 1

Mall

07.20.2022 12:09AM

Pro

Do you agree that a person that does not meet debate stipulations is disqualified to engage and from that point on have any further valid participation in it?

Novice_II

07.20.2022 12:36AM

Con

Resolved: Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.

Burden of proof

Given the seemingly incoherent description, we simply place the entire burden on pro and default the resolution to the contender. Thus mall bears the burden of proof for however we shall reasonably interpret the resolution of this debate.

a. Interpretation of the resolution

It is resolved as "very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform."
I posit that we interpret the debate to showcase evidence of dishonesty within the debate art platform in one of the instigator's previous debates.

Round 2

Mall

07.20.2022 05:26PM

Pro

Hello, once more.......

Do you agree that a person that does not meet debate stipulations is disqualified to engage and from that point on have any further valid participation in it?

Novice_II

07.20.2022 05:42PM

Con

Overview

Mall seems to have failed to make an affirmative argument that proves some form of systemic dishonestly with respect to his experiences on the platform. Dishonestly that is, of course, "very dishonest."

a. Interpretation of the resolution

Dropped. Extend.
As typical the instigator bears the entire burden of the debate. Mall can of course challenge my perfectly reasonable interpretation of a seemingly incomprehensible topic (the description touches on some biblical points that seem purposeless) but this is the current basis of our debate.

Sources

No real sources, but entertainment for readers to make up for the bore of this engagement. It relates to our current circumstances as they are previous debates between me and the instigator.
In addition, a supplementary image that describes his performance in both debates.

Round 3

Mall

07.20.2022 09:41PM

Pro

This is my point exactly.

A person won't even answer a question that's being asked . May be to avoid being dishonest in an answer. May be afraid to answer truthfully with that answer to prove my point.

This is another example when someone like this is hung up that will not answer a question.

Just no communication, no compliance. None given to debate conditions like the other debate challenge. Then none given to respond directly to an inquiry about failing to meet debate conditions.

Case closed.

Novice_II

07.20.2022 10:38PM

Con

x. Default to con

Mall has failed to make an affirmative argument, and thus, uphold his burden of proof. The resolution defaults to con who has effectively won the debate.

a. Interpretation of the resolution

Dropped. Extend.

Mall

07.27.2022 11:55PM

#13

Yes indeed.

whiteflame

07.26.2022 09:02PM

#12

-->

@Novice_II

I’ll bite: what rule do you believe this vote violates?

Novice_II

07.26.2022 07:47PM

#11

-->

@whiteflame

I didn't really expect you to actually remove troll votes (despite this seemingly being against the rules?), give and take, my expectations have been fulfilled sufficiently by your current actions.

whiteflame

07.26.2022 07:32PM

#10

-->

@RationalMadman

@Mall

@Novice_II

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter covers arguments given by both debaters and how the debaters engaged with one another, factoring those elements into his vote. That is sufficient to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************

Novice_II

07.22.2022 01:17AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

@Ehyeh

I just need one vote here if you would mind. It is a short debate and will not waste your time in ideal.

Novice_II

07.22.2022 01:01AM

Hmm, frankly I thought rational madman was being dramatic as usual. There is no way I am encountering this level of incompetence, surely? This would be my typical line of thought, but having experienced the specific people on this site, I don't know anything that escapes their realm of possibility. This form of conduct is, of course, is nothing but typical from the moderator in the comments section, and I suspect the new voter is simply upset about something and is espousing his frustrations upon myself and I will ask around for someone who has a a greater degree of intelligence quotient.

Barney

07.21.2022 11:54PM

Removed vote: Barney
Voter request (yes mine, I reconsidered).

Reason:
Utter BoP failure, which con rightly identifies and extends throughout the debate.

Pro on the other hand has a complaint, but he jumps to assuming everyone else would understand the implications and impacts, without bothering to share the actual evidence (a link to whatever debate is being complained about for example).

Barney

07.21.2022 11:52PM

-->

@RationalMadman

IMO it's fine.

Mall

07.21.2022 11:33PM

Does anyone else want to answer the question?

No, too scared.

3RU7AL

07.21.2022 08:41PM

-->

@Mall

try again, with a defensible resolution

perhaps something slightly more narrow in scope

like, "THBT: PEOPLE CAN DISREGARD ANY AND ALL VOTING RULES INCLUDED IN THE DEBATE DESCRIPTION WITHOUT THEIR VOTES BEING REMOVED BY THE MODERATION TEAM"

Novice_II

07.21.2022 05:47PM

I have no idea what is going on...but quite the interesting vote, interesting in a way that does not give credence towards it's analysis of course.

Novice_II

07.21.2022 05:46PM

-->

@RationalMadman

💀💀💀💀
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4KECfnmTXCFaTSi68X/giphy.gif)

RationalMadman

07.21.2022 05:38PM

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

I ask to you is my RFD okay, yes or no

Intelligence_06

07.22.2022 03:38AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I don't even know what the topic is trying to present, but I am pretty clear that Pro entirely failed to properly embrace it because all he did was asking one single question, then claim the question went unanswered as an actual point when Pro made no connection between that point and what the topic is. There is nothing arguing of "dishonesty" in that statement.

IDK but I am pretty sure that "proof of dishonesty on a platform" is in the topic and unmentioned in Pro's arguments. Con successfully acknowledges that such an argument was not made as a result the topic is never proven. Con wins.

RationalMadman

07.21.2022 05:39PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I am not sure how else to explain this vote than to tell you that in Round 2, Con linked to the direct evidence (Baptism debate) required to prove the resolution true, in fact he linked to 2 separate occasions where the reader has full flexibility to interpret it that way and proved himself dishonest and poorly conducted within the debate, adding to the allegations that Pro is claiming to experience, incapable to answer the single question Pro asked all first 2 Rounds which Pro points out is highlighting dishonesty.

I am not certain that Con actually made a single argument other than to mock Pro and link to evidence that literally categorically saved Pro's case under the very intepretation that Con had provided. Both debaters agreed to a debate description that stated that seeking truth was paramount here, not winning, which then extended to establish that the Baptism debate was the focus and that Mall felt his opponent hadn't properly studied/explored the Bible within it.

This vote, to me, cannot go to Con unless I want to be a coward about things.

TheMorningsStar

07.21.2022 01:50AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro failed to make an argument and only made any comment of substance in the final round, but even then it was just declaring that Con's arguments somehow proved Pro right. It is hard to argue that Pro made any effort at making a real argument to support the resolution, which just leaves Con's untouched case as the only real effort. As such, points have to go to Con.