Instigator / Con

Sparrow

1495

rating

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

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sparrow

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 05.10.2019 05:26PM
Last updated date: 05.22.2019 04:40PM
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

RationalMadman

1702

rating

574

debates

67.86%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Sparrow

05.13.2019 05:54PM

Con

Forfeited

RationalMadman

05.14.2019 01:38PM

Pro

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.

- https://www.grammarly.com/blog/is-vs-are/

Round 2

Sparrow

05.14.2019 11:52PM

Con

Are you conceding that there is such a thing as ghosts, even if ghosts themselves do not exist?

RationalMadman

05.15.2019 11:01AM

Pro

I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things but that ghosts are not a thing.

Round 3

Sparrow

05.15.2019 04:19PM

Con

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?

RationalMadman

05.15.2019 04:40PM

Pro

You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.

bsh1

05.18.2019 06:28AM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************

RationalMadman

05.17.2019 11:40PM

-->

@bsh1

@Barney

Does this one intrigue you?

David

05.16.2019 05:37PM

-->

@Barney

*******************************************************************
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

*******************************************************************

David

05.16.2019 05:35PM

-->

@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
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

*******************************************************************

David

05.16.2019 05:15PM

-->

@Debaticus

*******************************************************************
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

*******************************************************************

Debaticus

05.15.2019 06:42PM

-->

@Sparrow

I would like to argue this on either side because it seems pretty interesting.

RationalMadman

05.15.2019 04:59PM

-->

@oromagi

Will you like to vote?
Please.

RationalMadman

05.15.2019 04:48PM

-->

@Ramshutu

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

K_Michael

05.10.2019 06:07PM

Sparrow already lost the grammar vote lol.

Ramshutu

05.15.2019 04:56PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

“I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things“ while pro goes onto say that ghosts aren’t things - my interpretation of the resolution : which is always to assume the most reasonable interpretation means that by conceding a ghost and ghosts are things Pro conceded that there are such thing as ghosts. This negates the resolution and so arguments must go to con.

The resolution appears fairly clear - and this appears to be a non troll topic, if only poorly worded. Instead of actually arguing in good faith about the existence (or not) of ghosts - pro seemed to be launching into an attack about cons technically incorrect grammar. While the grammar isn’t correct, it’s understandable, and doesn’t affect readability - in this case the pinickity and overly semantic attack on grammar was particularly obtuse and argued in bad faith for little reason, and for this reason I chose not to award conduct even though con forfeits the opening round.