Hello everyone, and welcome back to 9sk news. Here we have a special edition, with Undefeatable believing his debate potentially worthy of Hall of Fame, since his opponent admitted the same in the comment section.
Half a year ago, what is probably DART's most controversial debate popped into view: Undefeatable vs Intelligence_06. The topic was fresh: U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum, with only 3,000 characters per round over three rounds. Though the debate was short, opinion varied severely. Had it not been the seven point system, Undefeatable would've contradicted his name yet again. Let's see what people said and why they said so.
Supporting Intelligence
- Benjamin had thought that Con's necessity argument won the debate, noting it is one of the most interesting he had ever read, giving sources to Pro.
- Fruit Inspector went deep into the sources, penalizing Pro for them, and feeling they worked against and undermined his case.
- Fauxlaw focused on the Law implementation part of the debate. The Requirement of legality made him believe the sources were thus poor in his view.
- Danielle argues that the burden of proof to argue for incorporation is failed, since Pro did not show the unique values of video games. She also gives sources as Con seems to lack on those.
- Mr. Chris judged as a cost-benefit debate like Whiteflame, however, he seems to see that Pro drops the necessity argument, and that Con essentially implied that the same benefit can be achieved through cheaper means.
- Nyxified, though in a rush, put together a document longer than the entire debate. She points out that con stacks up far more arguments especially in rebuttal, overcoming Pro's constructive and defensive case.
_____________________________________________________________
Supporting Undefeatable
- Whiteflame agreed with Pro's net-balance framework, feeling that Con didn't have any unique heft to his case.
- TheWeakerEdge gave all points but spelling and grammar, sayin that Pro has a lot of solid foundation, compared to con's assertions and seemingly irrelevant arguments.
- RationalMadMan talked about pragmatism vs principles, and says the ending saw an overturn, with Con failing to complete the project-based learning counterplan. With no concrete data or research, plus the last round new arguments, Con loses in his view.
- BringerofRain, also known as Wylted, found that Pro's showing of academic performance very clear. He viewed Con's argument as trying to show cost of putting video games (nigh to none), causing him to lose the debate.
- FourTrouble doesn't give a full RFD, but quickly dismisses Con's argument by stating the necessity idea is one of the worst he's seen. He thinks the net benefit concession basically implicates an automatic loss.
- Coal says that there is clear evidence from pro, without mentioning what Con's rebuttals mean to him. It seems that he considers Con's case quite weak as well.
- Roy Latham, though not on DART, agrees that unnecessary is a poor argument. The references were also said to be superior, and that Con depended on the presumption on how games already were.
My personal view point is also siding with pro, as I feel like most of Con's substance was majorly in round 3, where Pro couldn't respond. He requires a presumed bias that the lawmaking automatically means the games must be needed or required. But Pro's case seemed to be an optional idea and thus focused on the net benefit (unique or not).
Some valuable people who have stayed silent are Ragnar, Oromagi, Blamonkey. We await to see if any other analysis breaks through this debate. What's everyone's thoughts on this debate?
