Instigator / Con
7
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#898
There is no such thing as ghosts
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sparrow
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
There are such things as ghosts.
There is such a thing as a ghost.
there is no such thing as ghosts.
There Is vs. There Are
When choosing between there is and there are, you have to look at what comes after it.There is a cat on the porch.
In the sentence above, cat is singular, so it requires there is.There are many opportunities to learn at this company.
In the sentence above, opportunities is plural, so it requires there are. (Don’t let the word many throw you off—concentrate on the noun.)
- Use is with singular subjects and are with plural subjects.
- Collective nouns usually take is, but you can use are if you need to emphasize the individuals who belong to the group.
- Phrases like a number of… usually take a plural verb.
Round 2
Are you conceding that there is such a thing as ghosts, even if ghosts themselves do not exist?
I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things but that ghosts are not a thing.
Round 3
Splendid, so there is such a thing as a ghost even if ghosts do not exist. There are fictional ghosts, dark matter aliens that could be mistaken for spirits, but there are not real ghosts. There is such a thing as ghosts, there just aren't actual ghosts therefor you lose end of story good bye that's it any questions?
You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Honestly, this debate hurt my head overall and was too confusing for me to make a detailed decision. Honestly, neither sides convinced me, especially with RM weird conceding but also not conceding implications.
>Reason for Mod Action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
************************************************************************
Does this one intrigue you?
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for s/g and conduct
RFD: This debate was just a grammar lesson. The only arguments were about the grammar, and the instigator failed to understand or dispute.
Arguments tied. I won't outright reward the K with argument points, but there were no normal arguments to counter until the final round (at which point I discount them for not being a natural part of the debate).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Reason for mod action: The conduct is sufficient; however, the S/G is not. In order to award s/g, the voter must
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
None of this was done in the RFD.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for s/g and arguments; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Conduct point:
- Countering Ragnar's poor conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be reason enough to award conduct points.
FF the majority of the rounds, however, should be.
I must also award pro the point for spelling and grammar since he/she's arguments at least were readable unlike Con's whom I couldn't read clearly.
Reason for mod action: Counter votes are removed. Further, forfeiting 1 round is sufficient reason to award conduct; however it would not be sufficient to award only conduct.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for spelling and sources
RFD: Cannot vote for arguments, because they were both very hard to understand. I personally could argue this debate on either side, and I would like to.
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. They should check their DMs for more information.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
I would like to argue this on either side because it seems pretty interesting.
Will you like to vote?
Please.
RationalMadman avatar
You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.
Con*** not Pro
Sparrow already lost the grammar vote lol.