Instigator / Pro
0
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#3749
I pick the topic, you debate what is asked.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Description
I pick the topic, I even pick the sides.
Mall/Con obeys and tries to argue the side of the topic that is assigned.
Round 1
Topic: Novice_II accepted all of Mall's debates with Mall's clear consent.
My side: Con
Mall's Side: Pro
Apparently the debates had participation by myself and this...........other individual.
How did I not allow this?
Your side is positioned with me not permitting it.
Round 2
Do you deny the following:
- Novice has begun to accept multiple debates of yours even before the 'pick your topic' to the point where you made debates and comments expressing exasperation at the antics.
- Despite this, Novice continued and has essentially harassed you by accepting many debates and then picking the same topic in all of them, leading you to make a new rule in them that the opponent can't pick duplicate topics.
I deny the first point that it's exasperation. More like observation of a behavior.
The second point I will not deny in terms of "harassing". I used the term "obsessed" but this term is synonymous with the word hound which is synonymous with harass which means to pursue relentlessly.
But how does this tie into no permission or consent to debating the individual?
I can agree to interact but it doesn't negate the incessant behavior clearly and constantly revealing a preoccupation of the attention incessantly.
Round 3
Was it clear consent?
Yes I allowed the debate or else I wouldn't of had the conversation.
Round 4
That's not the case, you allowed a debate to occur where no consent was given for the participant in name nor the topics he/she picked.
I will show you expressing distress prior to the creation of them:
This was inline with comments at the time such as:
This includes all the debate sessions with the same topic with the same individual. The person knows my points.The person simply will not answer the question. It appears there are other individuals that will debate reincarnation.I'm asking for a refutation attempt at biological reincarnation. The person is aware of what that is because I explained it .I'm not going to repeat myself to the same person.
This was before the individual accepted 2 following debates after that.
Then on the third iteration:
Hello is this a spammer?
I guess reincarnation is real, for your debates.
What then happened is as follows:
You made debate after debate and Novice_II accepted many without asking you:
You got mad at Novice for doing this and picking easy repetitive topics so you added this to the description of the future ones that Novice accepted anyway and frustrated you in:
***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THE SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***
Why did you ask me of my consent?
Why ask when you're going to dictate it anyway?
You , no person is in position to dictate that unless an adult and or guardian over a minor.
You have to go this low to disregard me in attempt to triumph a so called debate such as this.
It's not worth all that . This is really no debate.
It's just an inquisition regarding my interaction with another individual.
If I tell you someone borrowed my car, you turnaround and say it was stolen. No it don't work like that.
Not the first I've seen of this behavior on this site but I'm not here to assassinate characters.
Round 5
The resolution says clear consent not ambiguous consent that is actually present.
The so called debate is over.
how does it feel that the person who voted for you is chronically unable to vote?
Removed due to missing argument analysis.
RFD:
RationalMadman cited previous debates and comments. Mall did not cite any sources.
Points:
Sources to pro.
Details:
Arguments have to be weighed unless one side repeatedly forfeited.
bumped as 1 day left to vote
2 weeks for this but please vote when you can.