Instigator / Pro
0
1511
rating
22
debates
38.64%
won
Topic
#5311

Best.Korea should be banned from this website.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Best.Korea
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1233
rating
408
debates
39.09%
won
Description

Vote PRO if you think that Best.Korea should leave DebateArt.com.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Description says "Vote PRO if you think that Best.Korea should leave DebateArt.com."

I think that Best.Korea can stay on this website for as long as Best.Korea wants. My thought, I claim, should be against the description thereby I state that my thought is against the description.
He's just fun to have around and can be very reasonable at times.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Thankfully the debate ended with what it should have been instead of a debate, a simple request for BK to not participate in debates from the instigator.

Mostly this debate was non sequitur, which is to say the conclusion does not follow.

"Some users put hours of work into their arguments.
Best.Korea usually responds with only a sentence.
This is ridiculous and it needs to stop."

Right here is a good example, since the conclusion of outright banning someone rather than getting them to change, is quite the leap into faith.
Of course BK builds off of his point about "effortless arguing" with a two word reply "I disagree." I don't have to like this to see that it is arguments, and further the argument the instigator requested.

Gish Golloped lists of forum posts, don't highlight problems to me (voters need not open every link, in fact reading into links too much can be problematic).

Of course, yes, BK is pretty vile. It may be useful to compare banning to the death penalty (extreme I know), if someone should be punished as such, it should be about more than just moral outrage that we dislike them. Laws they've broken, harm they inflict, benefit if they were not taking out oxygen, etc.

A surefire path to victory would have been reviewing the rules for banning someone, and finding say three good and recent offenses worthy of a short term ban (the resolution did not specify how long).