Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..
Debate Rounds (3)
There is no reason to, as a default, consider one to be a coherent debater over some other position.
I noticed on your profile that you and I are very different but I did notice you are an atheist. perhaps you may know who Chad Elliot is, if not see the link. 
I myself am of the view that a default judgments of "capable" or "incapable" should be withheld till relevant data can be aggregated. In cases like Chad Elliot relevant data was available before he was a noob at DDO (he has since deleted his profile) but in general the default position should be undecided.
Pro asks "The question is, am I capable of making a good argument, and speaking for all the people out there who are or were once noobs,[sic]"
Yes, any noob could be capable of making a good argument, but it is also true that any noob could also be capable of a bad argument. It is clear that this question has no bearing on the proposition because its inverse is also true. this means that while Pro is theoretically capable of a good argument, one has yet to be presented. to show the default should be capable rather than undecided as I am proposing.
If you are familiar with the US court system (or basically any modern court system for that matter), we are all innocent until proven guilty. Not that I am being tried in a court case, but I want to stress that the system nowadays does not consider us neutral to start with, but innocent. Given that just like in a court case, we are debating (even though it is not over whether the defendant committed a crime), this should be more or less treated as if we were in court. I am a good debater until proven otherwise.
It does not matter too much that you don't know who Chad is, as long as you understand that those who had known him before he joined DDO and was a noob here had no reason to think him capable at the point that he did join/become a noob. Assigning a default of capable would go contrary to previous knowledge. Chad is an example of why a noobs need not be automatically thought of as capable.
Pro notes how the US court system is based on the default of innocent until proven guilty. This idea of pro's does not apply to capable or incapable. Presumed innocence is important in a legal system because it is the default position and the inherent difficulty of proving the negative claim of not guilty increases the wrongful convictions in a system the presumes guilt.
When it comes to capable and incapable there is no default towards capable, and no sizable harm to being thought of as incapable. Furthermore unlike guilt and innocence capable and incapable is a continuum. An argument could be made that the default should be incapable because as infants we are incapable and some, not all progress from there. Add to this the fact that capable and incapable are both as easily proven and it is clear that the suggestion of a default of capable is not well reasoned.
Pro claims "I am a good debater until proven otherwise."
Such a claim has yet to be proven
So in summery, we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default
QUOTE: "So in summery [sic], we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default"
Hold it right there, you have only partially disproved my argument, which for the nature of this argument counts for nothing. You justified that those that hold an identity such that we can identify them with "noobish" behavior should not be considered a neutral arguer (between being having superior debating skills and "noobish" skills). The remaining part is the hardest, which is the part that you've neglected.
You will now need to prove why somebody with a blank profile, name kept private, and 0 posts (and debates and comments), should be considered to be a neutral arguer until proven otherwise. Just like we supposedly have no right to consider them to be a good arguer or a bad arguer by default, what makes the logic sway in the direction of being a neutral arguer. We can assume considering somebody to be neutral means considering them average, and we can assume for the purpose of this debate that there is an equal distrubution below and above that threshhold. What argument can support this "labeling" of somebody as neutral rather than good to initialize, or even bad for this matter. For this round, I have chosen a strategy of proving not necessarily why this "labeling" of someone as average is worse than "labeling" them as pro, provided there is no evidence on either side, but rather putting a burden of proof on my opponent to reason why there is an advantage over another method over the proposed one, and therefore I am not shifting the focus of the debate, which may be claimed. If there is a superior method, that will make the assumption of being "good until proven bad" inferior.
I leave you a chance to justify this missing point in the last iteration of this debate, and so I will have no say after this, but I have chosen to take the risk and leave you the opporitunity to bring your point of view to a strong finish, provided that it is even possible to have a strong finish in this debate.
This is common thoughts found in incapable noobs. We see Pro acknowledge that his argument was refuted in part and then dictates what counts or not, a question that is for the voters to decide. It also shows that perhaps Pro lacks understanding on what BoP is in a debate like this.
So voters I ask please reread Pro's arguments and is his view justified as a rule of thumb when it comes to this debate "Capable until proven incabable[sic]"
Now I don't mean to pick on Pro. Most noobs lose their first debate, as I lost my first. perhaps in the future RockvillSoftworks will be more articulate on his points. I am sure if I had a chance to repeat my first debate that I would win it this time around.
Thank you for this debate. I wish you luck in the future.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.