Instigator / Pro
2
1587
rating
185
debates
55.95%
won
Topic
#6070
Best.Korea AKA TheGreatSunGod should reform his public image.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
My Main Argument/Resolution: TheGreatSunGod must reform his public image because he will get banned, if he doesn't.
Contention 1: Potentiality
TheGreatSunGod has a rare super-power, a talent that he's been abusing and using for evil rather than good.
What is that superpower?: Dedication & Empathy.
- To trolling by being offensive and posting shock-value content.
- To this website.
- Empathy, to people who have been hurt by my words or anyone else's.
To successfully reform his public image, I am arguing that Best.Korea must give up #1.
It has been 2 years already and Best.Korea has already become an established presence and personality within the community. But many of his other less than negative qualities have been overlooked in favor of one other trait. And it is this one trait that he has been come to known by.
Now for the potentiality argument, I intend to make a bold claim. Which is, Best.Korea will accomplish and contribute significantly more to his brand if he focuses on #2 and #3.
When I say empathy, it is not a compliment or praise intended to make Best.Korea feel better about themselves, but a neutral observation.
Best.Korea has spoken up on behalf of other people that I targeted, either through my words or aggression.
Those are not the actions of a sociopath or a sadist, Best.Korea didn't have to do either of those things.
Contention 2: The End is near
Best.Korea's old reputation, his old personality is not sustainable.
The site will grow tired of this gimmick one way or another, as Polytheist, BrotherD.Thomas, and IWRA are already gone.
This will not continue much longer, as the mods have already become fed up.
Given Best.Korea's dedication to this site, I would wager that a permanent ban is not an outcome he desires.
Contention 3: Best.Korea and everyone else already supports his self-reform
Following Wylted's presidential election win, Best.Korea already agreed to stop trolling but then he relapsed and fell back into it.
He should do it again this time, and remain committed. Everyone supports that.
Con
#2
My Main Argument/Resolution: TheGreatSunGod must reform his public image because he will get banned, if he doesn't.
This isnt the debate topic, so it is rejected as irrelevant.
My opponent didnt define "reform" or "should" in his description, not even in whole round 1, and since it is not possible to make an argument without a clear definition we both agree to, it follows that his entire round 1 is just wasted on rambling which is completely irrelevant to the topic, and without definitions, it is not possible for Pro to meet burden of proof.
Further, any definition he uses later falls either under circular logic fallacy (Where topic is "A is B" while definition of A is B) either under "definition excludes it" argument (Where topic is "A is B" but definition of B doesnt include A), making this an unwinnable debate for him.
No definition of "public image" given either.
And to seal the deal, my opponent is trying to create an "is-should" situation, but it is not possible to derive "should" from "is".
With no definition of "should" given either, there is nothing for me to respond to, as all my opponent's claims are incorrect.
Given Best.Korea's dedication to this site, I would wager that a permanent ban is not an outcome he desires.
If this is a debate about what I desire, then my opponent just conceded because he cannot possibly know what I desire, thus cannot meet burden of proof.
Following Wylted's presidential election win, Best.Korea already agreed to stop trolling
Agreed to do =/= should do. Also, stopping trolling =/= reform
Everyone supports that
Unproved. Also, everyone supports =/= should be done.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Dropped Argument: Dedication & Empathy.
Best.Korea concedes this argument, thus indirectly agreeing he has dedication and empathy.
Therefore, he should continue behaving in a way that demonstrates these two qualities.
My Main Argument/Resolution: TheGreatSunGod must reform his public image because he will get banned, if he doesn't.This isnt the debate topic, so it is rejected as irrelevant.
It is the resolution. And the single sentence alone is sufficient enough to win the entire debate.
Since Con doesn't refute this statement.
Extend.
Agreed to do =/= should do. Also, stopping trolling =/= reform
Since Con agreed to cease trolling, then I argue he has the moral obligation to honor his agreement.
And in the context of this debate, I am defining reform as stopping trolling.
And in the context of this debate, I am defining reform as stopping trolling.
Con
#4
Dropped Argument: Dedication & Empathy.Best.Korea concedes this argument
I said that it was incorrect. Nothing was conceded to.
It is the resolution.
It is different text from the resolution, so no.
And the single sentence alone is sufficient enough to win the entire debate.
Since no definitions were given in the first place, no debate is even possible, thus no amount of claims is ever sufficient.
Since Con doesn't refute this statement.
It was already refuted.
he has the moral obligation to honor his agreement.
Unproved claim.
And in the context of this debate, I am defining reform as stopping trolling.
Sadly, thats not the definition from English dictionary, so rejected. Heh
Round 3
Pro
#5
I wrap up this debate with this closing statement.:
I have successfully met my burden of proof by demonstrating that Best.Korea's reform is necessary, and it's possible if he decides he's open to it.
I have successfully met my burden of proof by demonstrating that Best.Korea's reform is necessary, and it's possible if he decides he's open to it.
For this round, I will tell him what he needs to do.
- The first step is creating a post in the forums titled, "Apology Letter." The body of the post should then be dedicated to apologizing to Vader for spamming him the other day and trying to frame him as banning you. Then announce that you are ceasing any aggressive, edgy, or shock-value humor and behavior preceding you self-requesting your ban.
- The second step is to begin posting forum threads and topics weekly about subjects that are allowed, and are not taboo in anyway.
- The third step is to always make it your intention to avoid posting anything that people might consider offensive.
This is a second chance. And for Best.Korea, this is the perfect opportunity ever.
As Best.Korea has demonstrated dedication to the site, and empathy for other people. It stands to reason he should continue acting in both these ways and sacrifice his dedication to being a troll.
Extend all arguments.
Con
#6
My opponent wasted his round 3 providing no new arguments and not responding to any of mine. So we must conclude he conceded to all my arguments.
I have successfully met my burden of proof by demonstrating that Best.Korea's reform is necessary.............???
My opponent didnt finish his sentence. Necessary for what? There is no any goal in debate topic or description which reform is necessary to achieve, thus reform is not necessary by tautology.
As Best.Korea has demonstrated dedication to the site, and empathy for other people. It stands to reason he should continue acting in both these ways and sacrifice his dedication to being a troll.
Unproved claim. Empathy and dedication to site, even if true, arent really reasons to change someone's public image. Person doesnt base whole thinking on these two, and these two dont even include improving public image in their definitions. But with empathy and dedication to site being unproved claims, argument further falls apart. There was no proof presented that I have any empathy. Anyone can pretend he has empathy, while not actually having it. Further, there are different types of empathy and different levels of empathy which dont include improving public image. There are also different types of dedication, and not all dedication includes improving public image. Some dedication is more about trying to subjugate rather than just to be present there.
My opponent didnt define what reform is in description, thus we must use definition from dictionary of English language.
Reform in English dictionary is defined as "change something to improve it".
My opponent is faced with a very simple burden. He must prove the part of topic which is "should change public image to improve it"
So those are 3 burdens:
1. Should
2. Change
3. Improve
"Improvement" wasnt defined in this debate for 3 whole rounds and wasnt defined in description either, so the only thing thats left is dictionary definition. What is "improvement"? Since dictionary definition of "improvement" in official dictionary is circular and also doesnt include anything my opponent said here in debate, and doesnt include what topic says, it follows that burden of proof cannot be met by using official dictionary.
Further, since many people have many different definitions of improvement, many completely opposite definitions, my own being opposite to theirs as well, it follows that I cannot possibly act to satisfy all these different definitions as they are all opposite and different, making this resolution impossible to achieve for me, and everything my opponent said is incorrect as a result. There is no way for us to determine here which definition of improvement is to be used, as definitions must be agreed upon first in order to have a debate, thus should have been in description.
Further, since my definition of "improvement" isnt to "change" my public image, then the resolution is negated, as resolution requires change as well as improvement.
I dont think my public image needs any improvement, as it is already at its best it will ever be.
My opponent didnt include in the topic or description what exactly needs to be changed, and to what, so nothing to debate there either.
Also, since is-ought problem wasnt solved, and "should" wasnt defined even after I asked for a definition multiple times, it is not possible to conclude that I should do anything here, because "should" was left out to be unproved and undefined by my opponent.
So with failing to define and prove "should", "improve" and "change", there is nothing to debate here, and resolution just fails due to no agreed definitions.
My opponent gave no any sources, so all his claims are unsupported.
My opponent could have placed definitions in description or at least in round 1, but without any definitions in place, debate is not possible and topic fails.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro gave a clear reason: reform is needed to avoid a ban, which Con never fully denied.
Pro showed Best.Korea has empathy and dedication, proving change is possible and worthwhile.
Con nitpicked definitions but failed to refute the core argument about sustainability and community impact.
Pro offered a practical, step-by-step reform plan—Con didn’t give any alternative.
Overall, Pro addressed the real issue with solid reasoning, while Con stayed in semantics.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con never really argues against he resolution, they just say that Pro's arguments are wrong. Pro makes three separate contentions that provide support for the resolution (regardless of how strong or weak that support is). The is-ought gap had some potential as an argument, but not enough to support Con's case when no alternate interpretation of the resolution was provided. The issue here is that Pro is supporting the resolution, while Con is arguing that the debate topic is hard to define. That's not the same as negating it, and Pro's points about Potentiality, "The End is near," and Best.Korea's promise weren't meaningfully addressed by Con.
no prob dear.
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
Thanks for the vote!
Yeah, I did focus too much on definitions lol
I kinda like it. Might even use it in my other debates.
Thank you for supporting Best.Korea's decision to reform.
Thanks for the vote!
Vote? Just one? 😅
You can do it. I believe in you.