Instigator / Con
13
1501
rating
11
debates
27.27%
won
Topic
#3621
THBT: We ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 36 points ahead, the winner is...
Kritikal
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
49
1553
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description
This challenge should not be acceptable. Please leave a comment if you wish to participate. I am looking only for high level competitors. As I am on the Negative side of the contest, I will waive the first round to allow for the Affirmative to create a positive case.
RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.
Round 1
Waive.
My sole contention is theory
Interpretation
Pro created a debate with the limit of acceptance at a rating of 3000 (which no one has attained). The purpose of this was so that Pro could select those debaters which they assumed to be fit to accept the challenge. In their own words: "This challenge should not be acceptable. Please leave a comment if you wish to participate. I am looking only for high level competitors. As I am on the Negative side of the contest, I will waive the first round to allow for the Affirmative to create a positive case." [1]
The phrase "this challenge" indicates that accepting the challenge leads to debating a carbon copy of the debate. The instigator should not change any aspect of the original debate if it has any functional effect of changing the dynamics within the round.
Violation
I accepted that debate in the comments as Pro had requested, and was soon challenged to a debate with the same resolution. Of course, assuming that this debate was indeed a carbon copy of what I had agreed to debate, I immediately accepted.
However, I later discovered that there were two essential differences between the debate that I had accepted and this debate.
1. The first debate had 3 rounds, however this one has only 2.
And even worse than this
2. The first debate had an argument period of an entire week... this debate only gives me 3 days.
Voters
1. Structural fairness
I assume that I will have 3 rounds and 2 rebuttals from Pro to prove my case, however here I only get 2 speeches and Pro only needs to create one speech. If we are not allowed to make new arguments in the last speech this means that I have functionally lost half of my time to make constructive arguments.
2. Argument time
As the contender, I do not have a prepped case on this resolution, and by accepting I assume I will get an entire week to form one. Instead, I only got three days which is simply not enough time to form a case on a complex topic such as this. Pro has had infinite time to prep a case, so this will put me at an extreme disadvantage and creates an unfair debate.
3. Social contract and argumentative irresponsibility
Rules of debate should never be violated simply because they are rules. Rules enable constructive debates, but without these rules or with a lax enforcement of these rules debate would devolve into chaos eventually destroying the entire debate space. It is essential that debaters debate what they have agreed to debate for this reason.
4. Argumentative impossibility
I assumed I had a week to make an argument, and it is simply not possible for me to make an argument now. I am going camping and will not have internet. I was planning to write my argument after I returned, but now I can not do that because there is not time. By changing the terms of debate Pro has made it impossible for me to create an effective argument under the resolution.
Round 2
Forfeited
My opponent has FFed and dropped my argument. Please vote pro, thanks.
Role of the ballot would only be important if your opponent was reading a K, which practically no one reads and it might even be against the Code of Conduct to vote for them. So you didn't need to include it here.
Maybe shells are structured differently in policy... in LD standards would be things like Ground, Clash, Strat Skew, etc. and Voters would be Fairness and Education.
I agree that this is probably not the best shell of all time. I am not sure if I need to include a role of the ballot, but this is usually more important on Ks than on theory, but maybe that is just my experience because I am use to debating in policy where theory is globally accepted. For standards and voters I learned to mix them, i.e. my standard is Structural Fairness and the voter is that the second speaker looses half of their rebuttal speeches.
Also shells need voters. The things that you have labelled as voters are actually standards.
Shells need paradigm issues.
"we ought to live"
No. We eventually die.
2 rounds? lol and you waive the first.