The Instigator
Bob_Gneu
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

America should switch to the metric system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 21,792 times Debate No: 15831
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (8)

 

Bob_Gneu

Pro

In spite of the fact that it has been historically used, the standard/Imperial system of measurement (Inches, Feet, Yards, Miles) is complicated and primarily used in the U.S. I will argue the merits of moving to the metric system, while con argues that the standard/imperial system is best.

We both have a burden of proof here.
phantom

Con

Thanks for an interesting debate topic.

I will be arguing on why America should stick with the imperial system.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Bob_Gneu

Pro

The merits of the metric system:
  • Base 10 arithmetic is intuitive
  • Used throughout the world, in all fields – Science, Commerce, Travel [1,2]
  • World economy already uses and assumes Metric system [1,2]
  • U.S. Companies are already taking to the metric system [1,2]
From the position of pragmatism this debate is straight forward – Conversion within the imperial system is complicated and leads to issues.

When you pay for something with a dollar, you can quickly divide it into sub parts (quarters, nickles or dimes), or add them together to create larger parts (Hundred, twenty or fifty dollar bills). This is made possible because there was thought put into the format for our currency. If we were to use a different monetary system, like say Gneubles – which can be divided into 1016 Grumbles and 12 Stubles, you would have to do some considerable arithmetic to figure out the price of an item.

Our mathematics is based on a system of 10. It takes 10 pennies to make a dime, 10 dimes to make a dollar, etc. The reason a 10 base system works well for our money is because we have ten fingers, toes and so forth, that we were taught to count on. This provides a simple means to understand mathematics. A 10 base system can be converted to other bases. Examples include computer science and its base 2, or graph theory which changes its base to fit the system. In spite of the conversion, these realms stick to a single base because it simplifies the math needed to be calculated.

Having to convert from feet to miles is simple: divide the quantity by a conversion factor of 5280. From miles to inches: multiply by a conversion factor of 63360. From inches to feet: divide by 12 [3]. All of these examples suffer from one common problem: they live in the base 12 world which makes calculation relatively more complex.

There are numerous Examples of when conversion factors prove to be an issue but I will point to a few for conversation and evidence of the problem:

Science - Mars Orbiter thruster miscalculations lead to a collision with the Martian surface.[4]

Medical – A child is written a prescription for medication at the wrong dosage. [5]

Transportation – “Gimli Glider,” where unit conversions lead to an airplane being under fueled and running out. “[Fuel] loading was miscalculated through misunderstanding of the recently adopted metric system, which replaced the imperial system.” [6]

Commerce – A quantity of rice is purchased in kilograms without the understanding that the price quote is given in pounds [7]

America is one of a select few countries that continue to hold to the imperial measurement system

Along with the United States, only Liberia and Burma use the standard system exclusively. [8]

Using Both
Using the standard system alone is difficult, but to have to keep both in mind involves many mental acrobatic acts. It is also part of the problem evidenced above (See Science, Medical, Transportation, Commerce). It can be argued that the conversion to the metric system is causing the problem here, because of a lack of clarity or unified opinion on the matter, but just as with other world problems (slavery, democracy, time shares) when they arise, problems need to be addressed by creating an efficient means of dealing with a global environment.

1)http://www.eric.ed.gov...
2)http://web.ita.doc.gov...
3)http://www.onlineconversion.com...
4)ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov...
5)http://www.wftv.com...
6)http://en.wikipedia.org...
7)http://www.bizjournals.com...
8)https://www.cia.gov...
phantom

Con

First off I’d like to say I do agree that the metric system is a better system than the imperial system. However this debate is not on which system is better but on changing systems.

Pro is arguing that America should change from the imperial system to the metric system. I wish it was that simple, but unfortunately it’s not; the reasons for which I will show.

Since I don’t think the our current system is a better system I cannot find too much to refute of my opponents arguments as most of his argument has been on which system is better.

I will argue, though against my opponents claims of miscalculations and such, as that would pose an argument to my arguments.

The main problems with changing systems are complications, inconveniences, time, and it probably would not work anyway.

Hundreds of millions of people would have to suddenly change their thinking. Problem with this is the majority of these people are out of school and would not be able to learn it very easily. Then theirs the older people who don’t like to change their way of thinking, and don’t learn knew things easily. And when I say the older people I don't mean old people. People as young as their 30s would have difficulty in learning new ideas, or changing their ideas.

The outcome of this would be that the majority of the people would just stick to the imperial system. Which is one reason why it would not work. American’s are lazy (I’m American just to let you know) their not going to be committed to carrying this out. Of course I am not saying all Americans are lazy, but many Americans are a bit spoilt as they are generally well off and never have had to suffer.

If America tried it change it, they would fail. It just wouldn’t stick no one would want to use the metric system after being used to using another system for so long.

For America to change systems students would have to be taught different. It would be hard for teachers who are often old to suddenly learn a whole new system. Many would have spent a large degree of their lives learning the material they teach. But now they would have to change a large portion of it over a short period of time. Also many school books would have to be discarded and replaced.

*Note* when I say teachers in the above I'm mostly talking about teachers of young students, as more advanced teachers probably know both systems.

While I agree that the metric system is a more logical system; using the imperial system isn’t terribly difficult. You don’t have to go through great pains in doing conversion. Mainly it’s just learning how to do conversion that is the problem.

It would take a considerable amount of time before the transaction was fully completed. And during this time you have young people who know the metric system and then older people who don’t learn as easily and wouldn’t want to learn anyway. And so the result would be much confusion.

So basically America would have to use both systems for a long time before the transaction was fully completed. It would likely be only after a whole generation had died off before America could fully adopt the metric system.

http://hubpages.com...

Science - Mars Orbiter thruster miscalculations lead to a collision with the Martian surface.

That was a while ago as I guessed it would be before reading the link. Science is always improving and mistakes like that haven’t happened in a while.

“Medical – A child is written a prescription for medication at the wrong dosage. [5]

What does that even have to do with this debate The pharmacist put down 3 quarters of a teaspoon instead of 3 quarters of a milliliter. The article doesn’t even mention anything about her making the mistake because of conversion mistakes. She simply made a stupid mistake.

Transportation – “Gimli Glider,” where unit conversions lead to an airplane being under fueled and running out. “[Fuel] loading was miscalculated through misunderstanding of the recently adopted metric system, which replaced the imperial system.” [6]

First thing wikapedia is an unreliable source. And like the other example that was a long time ago (the 80s).

Commerce – A quantity of rice is purchased in kilograms without the understanding that the price quote is given in pounds [7]

That is not big enough a problem for the solution to be to change to the metric system. The solution to that problem is to better train their workers so that mistakes like that don’t happen.

Debate Round No. 2
Bob_Gneu

Pro

“The main problems with changing systems are complications, inconveniences, time, and it probably would not work anyway.”

A simple one line assertion has been put forth and it comes with no citation and no reference of any kind. My opponent drew attention to my use of Wikipedia as a source in my previous post and I would like to note his use of a source for clarity on the matter. No matter how you spin it, Wikipedia is a not a credible source, and I have to accept that. However, the story behind the Gimli Glider incident is complicated and has numerous articles that can be cited. It so happens that the article I linked to has a number of direct links to many of the articles, and itself has 17 citations of note. In the future I will link to them directly.

On the other hand, my opponent has cited a blog entry. This blog entry is clearly of a humorous nature and as such I cannot see the relevance to this debate. Questioning a citation is good, as that leads you to actually look into them. There is much about Wikipedia that is in flux, but that does not mean the contents of every page are simply unreliable garbage to be dismissed simply because the word “Wikipedia” is in the url.

On the topic of dismissing, my opponent has chosen to wipe the board of my examples because they occurred “a long time ago” or was a “stupid mistake.” This is not necessarily so, and quite irrelevant. The examples I chose illustrate the issues that can happen in a situation where people, and machines, are given something that is assumed to be of a type they are used to. Making these two assertions without the logic, reason or some form of citation comes down to opinion and as such I would like to ask my opponent to explain in clearer language why the age of an event, or why his assertion that the medical situation is a stupid mistake stands to reason.

My opponent seems to hold the belief that “older” people will not take to the metric system, simply asserting that “People as young as their 30s would have difficulty in learning new ideas.” This opinion based statement is not well founded. There are foundations that exist with the express purpose of teaching elderly people, and while it is well accepted that ability to learn is impacted with age, there are a number of sources for improving an elderly persons ability to learn. Memory can be improved with mental exercises as well as well established guidelines on the matter. [1][2] And while my searching was focused on elderly learning, the techniques are also applicable to those in their 30s, as well as the ages that are below that. [3]

My opponent also alludes to the metric system being difficult to learn. That is not the case. [4][5][6] There are even lesson plans that show how to intertwine the metric system into practically all veins of school. [7] Adults may find it a daunting experience until they step into learning it, at which time they will quickly pick up on the simplicity behind it.

My opponent would have us believe that because it is not an overnight switch, and thereby simple, converting to metric should not be attempted because it “would not work anyway.” Up until the 1970s Canada used the Imperial system, as we do currently, but they have succeeded in adopting the metric system, and I’m fairly sure that Canada had people over the age of 30 within its country during the process and after. [8]

With all of that said, it is important to keep the scope of this problem in mind. America may be larger and have a larger population than our brothers and sisters to the north, but by no means does that mean that they are necessarily smarter, or that Americans are necessarily dumber than the other. The reasons for employing the metric system loom over our heads and need to be either refuted or accepted.

1)http://news.bbc.co.uk...
2)http://medicalcenter.osu.edu...
3)http://www.fi.edu...
4)http://www.ehow.com...
5)http://themetricsystem.info...
6)http://lamar.colostate.edu...
7)http://homeroomteacher.com...
8)http://lamar.colostate.edu...
phantom

Con

First of all; about sources.

My source was not cited to give evidence. I only got ideas from that source. So why would it matter if it was a humorous blog or not?

\\\\the examples I chose illustrate the issues that can happen in a situation where people, and machines, are given something that is assumed to be of a type they are used to. Making these two assertions without the logic, reason or some form of citation comes down to opinion and as such I would like to ask my opponent to explain in clearer language why the age of an event, or why his assertion that the medical situation is a stupid mistake stands to reason.////

1. The article about the medical pharmacist incident has nothing to do with this debate as I stated in the last round.

2. Because mistakes like that get corrected. That kind of field of work is very advanced they will make sure a mistake like that will never happens again. America doesn't need to change to a whole new system just because of that.

My statement that Americans are lazy and spoiled has been entirely overlooked by my opponent and so we can assume that Americans are lazy and spoiled.

As a result Americans won’t take to changing their ways. Especially in this day and age where people live very comfortable lives. And when it would be hard for any country to do so.

Your source [http://lamar.colostate.edu...] also states that the metric system was used partially prior before adopting it. Which would make it easier for Canada to adopt the metric system.

Pro’s only good argument, really is that the metric system is better.

Maybe thirties is a bit too young to say that it will be difficult to learn. But what about the 40’s through 90’s?

\\\ability to learn is impacted with age, there are a number of sources for improving an elderly persons ability to learn. Memory can be improved with mental exercises as well as well established guidelines on the matter. [1][2] And while my searching was focused on elderly learning, the techniques are also applicable to those in their 30s, as well as the ages that are below that. [3]///

So now my opponent is saying the process should be even more complicated and harder, by making elderly people go through mental exercises and training.

My opponent also alludes to the metric system being difficult to learn. That is not the case. [4][5][6]

The sources my opponent posted show how to learn the metric system or part of it. In no way does it show that it is easy to learn.

Pro has not refuted these following claims.

======

///For America to change systems students would have to be taught different. It would be hard for teachers who are often old to suddenly learn a whole new system. Many would have spent a large degree of their lives learning the material they teach. But now they would have to change a large portion of it over a short period of time. Also many school books would have to be discarded and replaced.

*Note* when I say teachers in the above I'm mostly talking about teachers of young students, as more advanced teachers probably know both systems.

While I agree that the metric system is a more logical system; using the imperial system isn’t terribly difficult. You don’t have to go through great pains in doing conversion. Mainly it’s just learning how to do conversion that is the problem.

The outcome of this would be that the majority of the people would just stick to the imperial system. Which is one reason why it would not work. American’s are lazy (I’m American just to let you know) their not going to be committed to carrying this out. Of course I am not saying all Americans are lazy, but many Americans are a bit spoilt as they are generally well off and never have had to suffer.////
========




Debate Round No. 3
Bob_Gneu

Pro

As this debate is comes to a close, I will address my opponent's key points before asserting my final argument.

Use of Sources
Sources are used in persuasive writing to validate claims. By citing sources that are not credible, a blog entry for example, my opponent’s credibility is vicariously challenged because he failed in finding trustworthy authority to validate his claims. When one cites something, he implies that the citation is a credible source of information. If one cites something that is not credible, it negatively impacts his or her credibility as well. Without reliable sources, my opponent’s claims are mere opinions and are not founded upon credible research to support his assertions.

Use of examples prove why having two methods causes problems
I provided several examples of confusion that could have been avoided if the US were to switch to the metric system exclusively: science, medical industry, transportation, and commerce. As the world becomes reliant on a global economy, switching to the metric system would make trading and selling more efficient and reduce some of the problems that the US has faced in the past due to dual systems. In round two, I stated that using both systems is difficult because it requires extensive mental acrobatics to keep both conversion ratios in one’s mind. As such, it is best for the U.S. to switch to the metric system exclusively.

Americans are lazy and stupid
I will concede with my opponent that “Americans are lazy”, however, I disagree that this is an effective argument against my claim. There is no dispute that a sudden change will cause adults to retrain their thinking, teachers to change their teaching style, but my opponent is arguing short term consequences whereas my initial assertion was based on long term benefit. Simply stating that Americans are too lazy to learn new skills is inconsistent with technological advancements that Americans have adapted or environmental changes that Americans have made in their daily lives. The internet is a recent phenomenon and users young and old have learned to use it with great success. Similarly, Americans were too lazy to recycle a decade ago but more and more citizens have adapted to recycling programs. Changes are always difficult, but that is not an argument against my proposal. This debate is whether or not America should switch, not whether or not it is easy.

My opponent also argued that switching to the metric system will fail because it will not "stick". This debate is not about HOW to switch to the metric system but rather, that the U.S. should. I will reserve the how for future debates. I cannot comment whether or not the new system will “stick” because research is needed on my part to propose a plan that will “stick”. This debate is whether or not America should switch, not whether or not it will be successful.

Metric system is better
My opponent is correct that that my arguments have been focused on why the metric system is better. After reading the title of this debate “America should switch to the metric system”, I assumed that my duty as the Pro is to explain WHY we should switch. Clearly, my opponent has picked up on the answer: because the metric system is better. Why this is an inadequate explanation, I will never know. I have provided examples of global economy efficiency, mistakes that could be avoided, and the superiority of conversion that allow for easier mental conversions. For these reasons, America should switch to the metric system, because the metric system is “better”.

Difficult to learn
Learning new skills is difficult at any age, but arguing that a change should not be instigated because of its difficulty is analogous to my opponent claiming that smart phones should not be sold because of its steep learning curve, computers should be kept from the elderly because they won’t know how to use it. There are bound to be individuals who fight the change but in the end, adopting new systems occurs to benefit the future rather than forcing immediate changes. For example, clean air laws are passed for to be in full effect after 10 years after its passage so companies can adapt to changing requirements, typing classes are taught in school even if some children become automotive mechanics. Changing to the metric system would take some time and effort, but the short term inconveniences and learning curve would be of great future benefit. The point is to mitigate any further mishaps due to the imperial system and make the world economy more efficient for future generations by teaching the units of measurement that are used by the rest of the world.

My opponent argues that the imperial system is not terribly difficult but that is also true of the metric system. In fact, a conversion ratio of 10 allows for mental calculations whereas a conversation ratio of 12 for the imperial system is a bit more complex. If the imperial system is not complex, why should the complexity of the metric system be a matter of contention for my opponent? If he concedes that one is not difficult, the same holds true for the other and leaves him with little argument that the metric system is to difficult for Americans to adapt to.

For the reasons stated above, I strongly support that America should switch to the metric system. A change would benefit future generations and mitigate the problems of a dual system.

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and thank the judges who read it.


phantom

Con


As my opponent has brought up the subject of sources again I will have to reply one last time.
Lets make this simple. Everything that I used from my source are logical ideas that do not require evidence to support. They do not have to be based on opinions of intelligent individuals. They are simple and easy to understand. Therefore my source is credible.



//I provided several examples of confusion that could have been avoided if the US were to switch to the metric system exclusively: science, medical industry, transportation, and commerce.//

Could have been avoided yes. But I have dealt with the fact that these problems will likely not happen again.
Unless those problems are happening now and often it is not a good reason that we need to switch just because of them.


//My opponent also argued that switching to the metric system will fail because it will not "stick". This debate is not about HOW to switch to the metric system but rather, that the U.S. should. I will reserve the how for future debates. I cannot comment whether or not the new system will “stick” because research is needed on my part to propose a plan that will “stick”. This debate is whether or not America should switch, not whether or not it will be successful.
//

So now we are assuming that it would work. My opponent should have made that more clear earlier on but very well I have no objections.
But since we are assuming it would work that brings about another point. Let me make 4 statements.

1. It has been accepted that Americans are lazy.

2. My argument that it would take a long time still holds.

3. If we assume this would work the amount if time and the problems that occur because of it do not matter just as long as in the end it works.

4. Premise one confirms premise two.

This proves that it would take a long time for the conversion to the new system to come into effect. I stated earlier that during this time their would be much confusion. Since Americans are lazy we know that their would be both people using the metric system and people using the imperial system. Therefore chaos and confusion would rein. Even more confusion than their is now. The majority of Americans being lazy would not want to change but then the other part would gradually change.
Thus for a long time the country would be using two systems. This is even worse than other countries using different systems than ours.

My oppoent showed that Canada made the switch but I pointed out that Canda were already partially using the system. Therefore their is no evidence that it would be an easy switch.



The metric system may be better, but it is not greatly better than the imperial system currently used. Thus it is not worth it to go through the process of changing systems as in the end it would not be a huge improvement. And I have shown that their would be flaws in the process.

//My opponent argues that the imperial system is not terribly difficult but that is also true of the metric system.//

Exactly; both systems are not difficult. So like I said it would not be a huge improvement but their would be problems if we were to switch. so therefore the metric system being superior to the imperial system is not substantial evidence that we need to switch. My opponent has not proved that it would be a big improvement and I have shown the flaws of it.
The flaws I have shown outweigh the flaws that lie in the imperial system.
Thus my opponent has not given substantial proof.

Vote con.

Thanks to my opponent for the fun debate. And thank you to the voters for taking your time to read through each opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
I've agreed with you since round two but I thought I still might carve out a win
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
I assure you I do not take it at all personally. I just would prefer that you not point out my grammatical mistakes as they are irrelevant.

It looks as if I have lost this debate so I might as well say you deserved the win. lol
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
-- So it is worse for America to be using two different systems for a long period of time than it is for America to be using a different system than most of the other countries, as they currently do.

Shame this wasn't shared in the beginning of the debate, but this is actually the problem. The metric system has been used throughout the United States, beginning in 1866 and expanding its applications through to today. You can read here for more, but note that the key elements are cited

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Following your logic, clearly it is worse for the U.S. to stay where it is and so a choice has to be made… for the better of the two which you conceded in the second round! =)

You used only a single citation the entire debate and it was a non-credible source no matter how you spin it. If the source doesn't matter and you can arrive at your position with logic and reason, don't include the source. If your position cannot be arrived at with simply logic and reason it needs to be cited for relevance. Your citation and position are dubious at best and that sheds doubt on your whole argument.

One key element of classical/deductive logic is that the premises are assumed to be true. Your premises throughout all of your points are value judgments and as such up to interpretation. I don't accept any of them and neglecting this aspect your arguments are quite shallow in doing the job of refutation here. =\
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
Re: Grammatical mistakes
A person's ability to share their ideas clearly is important in debate, which is directly related to one's ability to write/speak about the topic persuasively. This is also why there is a spot for grammar and spelling in the voting fields. It would be better to just accept my criticism and work to correct your grammatical issues for future debates, than to simply take it personal.

"It would be discarded because it would be realized that THERE was too much confusion and that [...] *quickly goes through post and checks for there/their grammar mistakes*"

"That does not have to be APPLIED to family only though. As two portions of the population would be using two different systems THERE would be misunderstandings between various people."

Clearly your grammatical mistakes continue to be missed.

Re: Stupid/Lazy Americans not accepting the Metric system quickly
In my last response i meant that i accepted it in jest. My sarcasm may not be coming across clearly but to simply assert that Americans are lazy without citation is unnecessary and it's a quick way to fall into a straw man argument.

-- My statement that Americans are lazy and spoiled has been entirely overlooked by my opponent and so we can assume that Americans are lazy and spoiled.

I am not entirely sure why this is a bone of contention for you. Even if it slows conversion to the metric system down... how is that an argument against the position that we should move to it? The intellectual community, academia, commerce, transportation, military, pharmaceutical, chemistry and a number of other fields are already dealing with both systems and have been since the metric system became main stream. it is already infused into our world, so what does it matter how long "lazy" people take to pick it up?

I find your argument to be flaccid. They are not cited by anything other than a parody blog post and come across as your opinion, which you are entitled to.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Just say you went to England to live with a family after living here in America. You would not know the metric system and therefore would not be able to properly converse with the people there when that subject was in use.
In the same way the children of a family in America (if your idea is used) might have a good understanding of the metric system but the parents would not. Therefore the parents would not even be able to properly communicate with their children in that matter.

That does not have to be implied to family only though. As two portions of the population would be using two different systems their would be misunderstandings between various people.

It's like speaking two different languages. I lived in South Africa for part of my life and I found it very annoying when I had no idea what people were saying (although English was the most popular language).

So I say again it is worse for America to be using two different systems for a long period of time than it is for America to be using a different system than most of the other countries.

I hope this has made it more clear to you now.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Thank you for pointing out that my argument was not clear enough for you, and thank you for asking me to make it more clear here.

But lol why are you pointing out my grammar mistakes? Its obvious you just want the vote as it is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Okay then. I thought I made it clear but I'm not quite sure what you're confused about. Let me try to sum things up better.

1. The majority of Americans would find it hard to adapt to the new system or would not adapt to it at all.

2. Because of this it would take a long time for America to adapt. One reason being that a portion of the population would have to die off.

3. But why is that a problem?
America would be using two systems at the same time, causing confusion. (I will provide examples of confusion latter)

4. Because of premise 2 this confusion would last a long time.

5. I think I have proven that realistically this would be discarded (I know you don't have to prove it would work). It would be discarded because it would be realized that their was too much confusion and that it was taking too long for people to get used to it. Note. Again I am not saying you have to prove that realistically it would work.

6. But since we are assuming that it would work that means we are assuming that for it to work America would have to go through any problems until the transaction had been fully completed.

So it is worse for America to be using two different systems for a long period of time than it is for America to be using a different system than most of the other countries, as they currently do.

I will give an example of a problem that would occur, in the next post.

*quickly goes through post and checks for there/their grammar mistakes*
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
@Phantom
First things first

There - A location, not here
Their - Possessive version of they
They're - contraction of "They are", as in they're going to the ball game.

I am actually quite confused by your response at the end. It seems that the argument you were trying to make was lost to some time warp. Maybe you can expand here and explain your position better. No assumptions about whether something will work or not are needed and I don't know why you think that pointing to a length of time it will take to convert is important in this debate.

Good luck on future debates, get a nicer spell/grammar checker soon as well. I think there are academic versions of MS Word around MSDN you can get cheap.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
I don't care if it's a joke or not. I still got one or two ideas from it.
I know it's a joke but I don't agree that it's making fun of the position I'm arguing for. How is it doing that?
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
I read your source, and it is clearly a parody/joke. It just seems odd to me that you would be griping over my use of Wikipedia and be willing to cite a blog article with no citations that is clearly just making fun of the position you are arguing in favor of.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Whats wrong with my source? I used that source mainly just to get ideas any way. Not provide evidence or anything like that.

I've been on this site for one month and I have heard many times Wikipedia being called an unreliable source for debates. The only time I've ever used it was for a definition and I was still advised not to use it. You've been on for a year so it surprises me that you don't know that.

Because mistakes like that get corrected. That kind of field of work is very advanced they will make sure a mistake like that will never happens again. America doesn't need to change to a whole new system just because of that
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counterbombing jar
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter ionheart
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Negating Duckiejenn's votebomb. She knows him in real life and is a biased voter
Vote Placed by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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: Pro makes valid points and has earned my vote.
Vote Placed by IamZero 6 years ago
IamZero
Bob_GneuphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough one...good job both of you!
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Cliff.Stamp's assessment.
Vote Placed by duckiejen23 6 years ago
duckiejen23
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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: Con's main argument against Pro was that change is hard. Unfortunately, life is always hard but everyone must make changes for the betterment of our future. Rather than accepting constructive criticism regarding his sources, con defended his use of unreliable sources and took Pro's recommendations as a personal attack. Con needs to reread his arguments prior to submission. Incorrect usage of their, there, and they're greatly discredit his credibility.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Bob_GneuphantomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cold not refute Pro, however arguments from Pro were in general weak. 1/3 to Pro.