The Instigator
RyuuKyuzo
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

All of emospongebob527's CVBs have Reasonable Grounds

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,121 times Debate No: 27971
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

RyuuKyuzo

Con

I will be arguing that one or more of emo's CVBs are questionable (if not functionally vote bombs themselves). Emo will do his best to justify these votes.

First round is for acceptance. Standard DDO debating rules apply.
emospongebob527

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Let's get this started. Since my opponent has chosen the resolution to be ALL his CVB's are reasonable, all I have to do is find one that has questionable reasoning behind it to win. It should be noted I'm not arguing that all of Emo's counters are unreasonable, but there are far too many to leave unchecked.

Just so this doesn't become an issue down the line, we'll use the Webster dictionary definition of reasonable which goes as follows:

Reasonable [7]:


1. The Last 10

Out of the last 10 debates Pro has voted in, 9 of them have been "counter-vote bombs". It raises suspicion that one would just so happen to come across 9 debates in a row that required a CVB. What this suggests is that Pro is actually pro-actively looking for votes to counter, which calls into question his motives. This behaviour suggests that Pro is looking for a loop-hole to allow himself to VB on debates. Instead of actually reading the debate, he picks a vote he feels doesn't have an adequately RFD and over-counters it to support the side he wants to win.

2. Vote Bombs

It's worth mentioning that the 1 vote above that is not a counter-vote bomb is, itself, a vote-bomb [2]. Emo voted conduct and spelling/grammar to the pro of that debate with the RDF "joiyhhkbb". While this alone is not a sufficient argument, it serves to further call into question the voting ethic of my opponent.

3. Case by Case

a) College Football is better than NFL football [3]

This debate was held between ConnorMc (pro) and Wallstreetatheist (con). Pro forfeited all of his rounds. In response,emj32 awarded con all 7 points. This is not an uncommon practice. Emo "countered" this vote by awarding all 7 points to ConnorMc, which would have robbed WSA of his win had emo's vote not been re-countered by user Ron-Paul.

Even if my opponent's counter was justified, he was only justified in, at MOST, countering the spelling/grammar vote since con obviously forfeited all of his rounds (which would auto lose him arguments, sources and conduct). To counter so many points that you tie a debate where one debater didn't even argue at all suggests that Emo didn't even read the debate and just wanted to counter something. In this case, Emo's vote is at best unreasonable and at worst a blatant vote-bomb itself.

b) Should we drill for oil in the United States? [4]

This debate was between Azul145 (pro) and wrichcirw (con). Pro conceded in this debate by saying "Good game. You win". As such, The_Master_Riddler gave con 6 points, all but conduct. Emo took it upon himself to counter TMR's vote by voting pro grammar and sources. Given that Pro conceded in that debate, it is not uncommon for people to vote all but conduct in favour of the winner, but even so, in this debate con was the only one who used sources, so the reason why TMR gave con the "sources" points was completely obvious to anyone who actually read the debate. The only points Emo could justifiably counter would be spelling/grammar. So, once again, Emo's vote is at best unreasonable and at worst a blatant vote-bomb.

c) Anarchy is the true means of liberty [5]

This debate was between Yarely (pro) and StrkeScale (con). Con forfeited every single round (except the acceptance round obviously). Because of this, everyone voted for pro with the RDF "FF", except for chicken who used "KFC" (obviously just trying to be different by using a DDO inside joke). Emo took it upon himself to counter this.

It's obvious why Chicken was giving Pro the argument points to anyone who, once again, actually read the debate (or at east read the other RFD's). There was no need to counter this and therefore doing so is completely unreasonable. This is undeniably a vote-bomb. The really bizarre part is that Citrakayah voted ALL 7 points to pro before emo voted, yet emo didn't feel the need to counter this vote. In this case, the only explanation I can come up with is that Emo voted specifically to spite Chicken. I have no idea why, but it makes no sense to counter a 3 point vote when there is a 7 point vote in the same direction right below you with equally valid RFD.

d) Viruses are non living [6]

This debate was between jaredbrennan (pro) and myself (con). Pro forfeited the last round, effectively conceding the debate. Several people came in and voted me more points than they gave justification for (since its a painfully obvious vote to anyone who actually read the debate), but Emo took it upon himself to counter one person in particular, utahjoker. Granted, utahjoker has made questionable votes in other debates, but this is not one of them. Once again, it's not unheard of for people to give all 7 points when someone drops all their opponents arguments and forfeits. but even if it was, Emo was not justified in countering all 7 points.

Furthermore, this debate had been dead for 2 weeks when Emo voted on it -- which means he's actually digging to find debates he can post "counter vote-bombs" on. This calls into question his motives. Why is Emo looking for debates nobody has complained about for people to counter? I honestly don't know, but my guess is that he's voting for personal reasons and every once in a while he "counters" a an out-of-the-way vote in the hopes that it will stave off any suspicion later.

Conclusion

There's more, but this is enough for now. It's clear that several of Emo's "CVB's" are actually vote-bombs under the guise of being counters. in this debate I've established that Emo has questionable voting ethic, that he inexplicably searches for votes to counter, and that he over-counters, effectively making them vote-bombs all the same.

The resolution is negated.

1.
http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Seeing as my opponent couldn't be bothered to come to his own defence on a debate he challenged me to in the forums, he has dropped all my R2 arguments. I will now proceed with my R3 arguments. Pro is welcome to pick up these arguments in a later round, but that will be virtually impossible given the character limit.

1. Another VB [1]

Since the last round, my opponent decided to counter Stephen_Hawkins in a debate called "Star Trek technology is achievable". This debate was between Heineken (pro) and philochristos (con). The first vote was from rationalmadman who voted 1 point (conduct) in favour of con with the RDF "Boring". Stephen_Hawkins countered this vote with the RDF "counter idiotmadman", to which Emo re-countered (making it a vote-bomb) with the RDF "Counter Stephen_Hawkins for countering a person that didn't even vote." -- apparently completely oblivious to the fact that Stephen was merely insulting rationalmadman, who did in fact vote.
This suggests that either emo was unimaginably careless in his voting (which would mean it did not have reasonable grounds) or it was an intentional attempt to re-establish rationmadman's vote-bomb. In either case, we have a debate where emo's "counter" undeniably had unreasonable grounds.


2. Pro Admits I'm Right [2] [3]

Shortly after I posted my R2 arguments, my opponent went on a voting spree where, instead of doing full counters like I was criticising him for last round, he only did partial counters. This immediate change in behaviour proves that he not only read my arguments from last round, but that he agrees with them as he has been acting on my criticisms.

3. Suspicious Coincidences [4]

As I said, shortly after posting my R2 arguments, pro went on a voting spree. Every vote was a counter, and every one was against the same user, The_Master_Riddler. This is suspicious for several reasons;

1. TMR always votes the full 7 points with an absurdly lacking RFD, which makes him the perfect user to counter
2. He also went on a voting spree right after I posted my arguments
3. Emo was always the first on the scene. Always. Several times within the hour

It's pretty convenient that another user just happened to give emo several reasons to post a bunch of vote-bombs just as emo needed something to push all the votes I linked to last round back a few pages on his "voted on" list. It also conveniently gave Pro the chance to post CVB's in-line with the criticism I posted last round, making it look like he really does post reasonable counters.

My suspicion is that either TMR is a multi of Emo's, who he uses to give him an excuse to counter, or just an ally of Emo's whom emo uses for the same reason. Obviously I can't prove this, but either I'm right or this is simply an enormous coincidence. I'll let the voters decide which is more likely.

Conclusion

Emo has already proven that he has no interest in taking part in this debate, which is especially dishonourable as this debate both calls into question his character and was a debate emo instigated in the forums. Since my last round's argument have gone unchallenged, I've already established that not all of pro's counters have reasonable grounds, so pro has already lost this debate. In this round I've further bolstered my original argument, but also I've established that pro acknowledges and admits he was mistaken by his own actions. I've also called into question the suspiciously convenient voting patterns of the one person emo counters the most.

When all the evidence is considered, this isn't even a debatable issue. It is plain and simply me informing the reader that emo is in the wrong, something that pro has not even attempted to counter, let alone successfully refute.

The resolution is negated.

1. http://debate.org...
2. http://debate.org...
3. http://debate.org...
4. http://debate.org...
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Well, I guess this is it. Emo still has one more round, but he can't make new arguments in that round so he might as well ff that one too =___=

Thanks for wasting my time.
emospongebob527

Pro

Well I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place............... I either fight back like a wild pussycat or I run full speed and launch myself at the rock and die, lol.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
If someone plans on forfeiting and they are online, they should just post anything and not wait out the clock. What's the point of that?
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Don't get your hopes too high Mike, Emo's taken on 7 other debates since accepting this one. This means he has 16 open debates right now... so we probably won't be seeing him again. At least not anytime soon. =/
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I love debates about users.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I think it has to do with the css. The link hover is activated but clicking on the link takes you nowhere since you haven't linked any of them.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
lol wtf why is all my text blue?
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
I'm glad to see you brought out Hitler-pikachu for this lol
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 4 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: vote bomb -- JUST KIDDING!
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro forfeited, S/G - Pro's was slightly worse than Con's, Arguments - Pro never responded to any of Con's arguments Sources - Con used several sources and Pro used none.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
RyuuKyuzoemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly Emo ...