The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Cate vs Doge

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Proving_a_Negative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,296 times Debate No: 76375
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statement

Resolution for Pro: Cate is better than Doge.
Resolution for Con: Doge is better than Cate.
Burden of Proof: Split
Rules:
1. Con's profile picture must be that of Doge.
2. We must adhere to the debate structure.
Lexus

Con

I accept. My opponent has not defined any key terms for this debate, so I will do so here. This is allowed since I am not making any arguments; I am following rule 2.

Doge: the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa [1]
Cate: a delicacy [1]
Better: comparative of good and well [1]

I have the profile picture of Lodovico Manin, a Doge of Venice, and thus I follow rule one. [2]

[1]. google "definition of <term>"
[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I ask my opponent to have the profile picture of Cate because it is unfair for me to have to have a profile picture yet my opponent does not. This restricts my freedom on DDO and I ask that they remove this rule or comply with it as well.

Good luck!
the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Arguments Regarding the Definition of Doge (and Cate)

Note: My opponent does not have a picture of doge as her profile picture currently. To see proof of this, go to my album and look at "Evidence."

Since I did not specify the definition of doge in the acceptance round, the definition is certainly up for debate. What I propose as the definition of doge for this debate is "A meme of the dog known as 'Doge" that has become very popular on the Internet" according to Urban Dictionary's 5th definition. Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com... Now there are a few reasons to choose this definition over the Merriam Webster's Dictionary. The debate's category is funny which can be looking near the top of this page at the debate settings in "Category." This implies that the debate is supposed to be humorous. Memes are "a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users." which can be found by Google searching "meme definition" and it will appear at the top of the page. Since memes are humorous, assuming doge as being a meme would be much more safe than the other common definition of Doge which is "the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa" according to a Google search of "doge definition" and it will appear at the top of the page.

Also in a debate, you can typically expect that the 2 sides of the argument will relate in some way. If we do a Google search of "cate definition" we find that it is "a choice food; a delicacy" near the top of the page. When we compare the two Merriam Webster definitions of Doge and Cate, we find almost no similarities between the two. The debate wouldn't make sense. If we use the Urban Dictionary for the definition, the debate becomes much more understandable. At the time I made this debate, my profile picture was that of Cate according to the Urban Dictionary. Evidence for this can be seen by checking the last time I changed my profile picture, which was before this debate was even created. By using this picture, it implies that the intended definition of Cate and Doge was that of the urban dictionary.

Cate and Doge were capitalized in Round 1 also. This is not a grammatical mistake. There are no other grammatical mistakes in Round 1. They were names thus making them capitalized. If Cate was just a delicacy, then it shouldn't have been capitalized in this sentence from Round 1: "Doge is better than Cate." All of this put together, the evidence is clear the definition of Doge is what the Urban Dictionary says. This is:

Doge- A meme of the dog known as 'Doge" that has become very popular on the internet

We can derive the definition of Cate from Doge's definition. It would be:

Cate- A meme of the cat known as "Cate" that has become very popular on the Internet

Your profile picture is not Doge. You have broken Rule #1.

Argument as to why Cate is better than Doge

This is not needed since my opponent has already broken the rules, however I will continue on with my brief argument as to why Cate is better.


This picture shows that Cate is capable of using high tech laser guided missile launching systems making Cate incredibly advanced and intelligent.
s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" width="236" height="328" />
Here we see the results of a fight between Cate and several Doges. Cate was able to overpower and twist them into donut shapes. Cate is far more powerful.

Here we see Cate ride a fire breathing unicorn holding a golden gun with a rainbow and Mario's castle in the background. This reaches new levels of epicness that Doge has never achieved. I rest my case.

Response to my Opponent's Request (This is NOT a rebuttal)

"I ask my opponent to have the profile picture of Cate because it is unfair for me to have to have a profile picture yet my opponent does not. This restricts my freedom on DDO and I ask that they remove this rule or comply with it as well."

No. My response does not imply that I accept any presumption made in this request. This was a loaded question or "request."
Lexus

Con

This round is for constructive arguments, or arguments that uphold my side of the BoP. This is not a round for rebuttals or anything of the sort.

Definitions
Before I begin, I feel as though I need to further define the key terms of this debate. I will use many authoritative dictionary references and some nice passages from encyclopedias to corroborate the definition, and meet in a sort of "middle ground", if you will. Note that we are debating which is better, cate or doge, and that the definitions themselves are not up for debate.
Doge - The chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. (I feel as though these 9 different webpages are enough to define doge)
Cate - a choice food; delicacy [1,10,11,12,13,14]. (These sources are more than enough to prove that cate is a choice food or a delicacy)
Better - of higher quality [15,16] (We can just use today's english usage for this word, I do not need to source spam this)

Contention I. Ability for greater good
It is thought that humans have the ability to have free will, and all humans (whether they like it or not) are performing tasks in the name of free will [17]. This means that people are freely able to help each other altrustically (non selfishly), and are able to make the small community they are in, and society as a whole, grow in terms of quality. They are able to selflessly help another person, and this means that they have intrinsic quality.
If a doge has higher quality than a delicacy, then I win this argument.
Let's look at what greater good a delicacy can achieve. They can satisfy hunger for one person, maybe, for a few hours, however they do cost a lot of money (this is common knowledge). This would mean that a delicacy does satisfy hunger, and that is a net benefit, however they it does not benefit the people that need it the most. In the United States, the main reason for going hungry is a lack of money [18] (of list, only poverty is applicable). This means that a cate is not able to have a large enough quality that actually benefits the society as a whole.
A doge can benefit society as a whole, whereas a cate cannot. Vote con.



[1]. Google definitions
[2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]. http://www.britannica.com...
[10]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[11]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
[12]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[13]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[14]. http://www.collinsdictionary.com...
[15]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
[16]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[17]. http://www.slate.com...
[18]. https://www.wfp.org...


--I am still following rule one, where it says "Con must have a picture of [a] Doge", because according to [7], my picture is a doge. I am still following rule two, which says to keep to debate structure, because I am only making constructive arguments in this round--
Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Pro



Rule Breaking

I have uploaded yet another picture showing that my opponent has not changed their profile picture to that of Doge. It is in the same album as last time in my profile. This is a clear violation of Rule #1 as stated in Round 1.

Rebuttal

"Note that we are debating which is better, cate or doge, and that the definitions themselves are not up for debate."

I will begin by completely rejecting this statement. First, I will give a past experience in which a similar situation arose. It was in a debate between me and Envisage. Here is the link to the debate: http://www.debate.org... Since I did not put in the rules what the definition of a "diamond" was, Envisage was able to use a suitable definition to back up his case. We argued over which definition was appropriate. Just as that word was not defined, neither was Doge or Cate. We must therefore use the context of the situation to determine the correct definition for the way in which it was used.

"If a doge has higher quality than a delicacy, then I win this argument."

Incorrect. Your resolution is: Doge is better than Cate.

"I feel as though these 9 different webpages are enough to define doge"

None of the definitions provided match the context in which the term "Doge" was used in Round 1. They are not as good as the definition I provided in Round 2. The reasons for this are in my argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate).

"These sources are more than enough to prove that cate is a choice food or a delicacy"

None of the definitions provided match the context in which the term "Cate" was used in Round 1. They are not as good as the definition I provided in Round 2. The reasons for this are in my argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate).

Contention I argued about a completely irrelevant topic in the debate. Con failed to provide any evidence to support the resolution which is "Doge is better than Cate" according to Round 1. Vote Pro.

"I am still following rule one, where it says "Con must have a picture of [a] Doge", because according to [7], my picture is a doge."

Incorrect. Your picture is not Doge. The definition of Doge is found using the context of the situation. The best definition that was given is mine. Arguments to support this are in Round 2 in the argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate).


Also, carefully notice how Con sneaks in one small word in brackets to completely change the context of the word Doge. Since in rule one it originally says, "Con must have a picture of Doge" it implies that it is a name, not just "the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa."

Previous Argument (Round 2) Failed Picture

There was a picture that failed to load properly. Please refer to the comments section to see the appropriate picture.
Lexus

Con

My opponent defines a term that is not known widely in the English language after I have already given a great definition from Google itself. I ask the voter, is a website such as "the urban dictionary" more reliable than the mass company Google?

If we look onto the site of the Urban Dictionary, we find that Obama is defined as "[t]he Messiah for brain-dead Democrats". This is obviously not the definition of Obama, and we cannot seriously think that this source is valid, and by extension any of the definitions are valid.

When we look at Google, we do not find a definition for Obama, because he is a person that cannot be perfectly described. Obviously this is much more reasonable than calling him a Messiah for brain-dead Democrats. Looking into the last round, I provided nine total authoritative sources that define Doge as the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa, and six to prove that a cate is a choice food or a delicacy. This is 15 more authoritative sources than my opponent employs to define these words, and we must use these definitions since the debate has already gone this far.

Regardless of what category this debate is in, we must debate the resolution based on the resolution alone; not outside factors. We cannot put a gay marriage debate in the "technology" area and expect only technological arguments, that is absurd. It was my thinking that you simply put this in the wrong category. It is not my burden to correct what category you put your debates in.

My opponent further uses Google's dictionary, which he previously shrugged off. This is hypocrisy at its finest - he has declared that the Google definition does not satisfy his needs and that we should not use it... only to use it later to define meme. This is criminally absurd, and I ask the voter to seriously think about what he is doing here. He is throwing out all of his objections, and effectively conceding them!

In this debate, we are going to be arguing that one physical object is better than a physical object. My opponent's concerns that Cate and Doge are not alike enough to debate about are unfounded - they are both in the same category (physical object) and thus can be debated. Similarly to a "waffles v. pancakes" debate, those are both in the food category (a category within the physical object one), and they can be debated. This claim of my opponent is not founded in logic.

Regardless if my opponent capitalised Cate and Doge or not it does not matter. I have interpreted this as a grammatical mistake when I first looked at the debate, and I accepted thinking this. It is not up to me for you to properly capitalise the correct words. That would be an insanely huge burden for me, and is not conceivable in a debate, for this is not your English class.

I reject ALL definitions brought forward by my opponent because they are unfounded. If he wished to use them, then he should have defined them in the first round, not THIS FAR in the debate.

Note: with the correct definition of doge (corroborated by 9 sources), I have the profile picture of a doge, thus not breaking rule 1. Even if I did not, there was no penalty laid out in the rules for breaking the rules, and you cannot impose any penalties this late in the debate.

With this out of the way, let us get into some good ol' rebuttals.

Cate missiles
My opponent makes a bare assertion that because some cat (that is not a cate, but rather a cat, per definition) can guide missiles the cate is supreme to a doge. Without any sort of evidence to back this claim up, or any reasoning why this upholds the resolution at hand (that a CATE is better than a DOGE, not that a cat is better than a dog). He just says that "Cate [sic] is capable of using high tech laser [sic] guided missile launching systems making Cate [sic] incredibly advanced and intelligent", yet he does not offer any reasoning on how this makes cate (not this cat, rather cate. Let me remind you, a cate is a delicacy) is superior in quality to doge.

This entire point is effectively void because of a lack of reasoning, proof, impact, or ties to the resolution.

Cate v. Doges
My opponent is referring to a picture that *never loaded* as his source for saying that there was a "fight between [a] Cate and several Doges." He does not explain how this relates to the resolution, why this is true, why the evidence (not) presented is credible, or why this actually proves how a cate is of higher quality than a doge.

If he did have this picture loaded and it was true that cate is able to do these things (again, no proof to say they do!) then why does this matter? It certainly does not hold up his side of the burden which is to prove that cate is of a superior quality than doge. This entire point is unrelated to the debate and thus is void.

Cat atop unicorn
My opponent says that because some cat (not cate) is atop a unicorn that they have new levels of epicness, and that because of this one fact my opponent may "rest [his] case". However, he is only proving that some cat has achieved new levels of epicness, and while this may be cool (and false) this is unrelated. How does this uphold your side of the burden? This argument is not related to this debate in the slightest sense, so it must be voided logically.

If I was not able to void this argument, then I could have an "Obama is black" argument in a gay marriage debate. Yes, this is true, he is black, but how does this uphold your side of the burden? You are just saying facts in an attempt that someone will misread the resolution and vote your way, and that is utterly fallacious (an error in reasoning).

Request
I remind the reader that I asked my opponent if he could have the "you must have a picture of [the side that you are debating for]" rule imposed upon him, because it severely limits my freedoms as a person on DDO. He replied no, which is very unsportsmanlike, and I am utterly astonished that he is not taking the picture of a cate. I ask the voter to take this unsportsmanlike behavior into account while voting.

End note
I cannot believe I just spent 6000 characters writing that. I need a drink.
Debate Round No. 3
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Rule Breaking

As usual, my opponent still has not changed their profile picture to that of Doge. I have uploaded the third and final evidence to show at no point during this debate was she ever using the correct Doge picture. This violates Rule #1.

Closing Statement

My opponent still fails to recognize the context of the words. Words have multiple meanings. Take god for example. Merriam's Webster Dictionary provides these definitions of god: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of GOD



1: capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


3: a person or thing of supreme value


4: a powerful ruler

Not even with these four definitions of the word "god" does Merriam's Webster Dictionary cover all the uses of said word.
Here is a link to a few debates on this website where they use the word "god" and it is defined as something not in the Webster's Dictionary:

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org... (Refer to round 2 by Envisage to see a direct statement about the definition of god)
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. http://www.debate.org...

This is a proof of concept. A word can have multiple definitions, even ones outside the Webster's Dictionary. The context is a great determinant to see the proper definition of a *debatable* word. Cate and Doge as used in Round 1 are examples of the Cate and Doge memes in the way in which they were used. Also note how each definition given in these debates is different from eachother. A word can take on multiple meanings depending on the context of the situation.

My opponent fights a straw man in debating about why we shouldn't use Cate and Doge's definition from the Urban Dictionary. She mistakenly presumes that using Urban Dictionary is credible in all situations. I have never said this. It all depends on context. Using the Google dictionary definition for the word "meme" was justified in the context it was used in.

The "two sides of the debate must be similar" argument still holds true. If the topics were per say, Waffles vs Pancakes, they hold multiple similarities. Both are common breakfast foods. Both commonly are used with syrup and butter. Both are eaten on a plate with a fork and a knife. Cate and Doge (the memes, as they have always been since Round 1) are both memes. They both are used for similar purposes as memes. Both are still pictures plastered with words such as "wow" "much" and "amaze." Both are animals. There is more, however the point is achieved. For the definitions that Con has provided, the similarities would be incredibly generic in that the description fits a large host of objects. A delicacy and the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa would have some of these similar characteristics. They are both made of matter. They both adhere to the 4 fundamental laws of physics. Both are concrete objects. Both take up space. Now, come up with as many similarities as you possibly can and write them down about those two. Go to some random person and ask if they can define at least one of the words that you are describing. If they are unable to, the words probably don't have much in common. Finally I may bring closure to that argument, which still holds true.

The capitalization of the words "Cate" and "Doge" in Round 1 give a large amount of evidence showing that my proposed definitions are correct. There is no evidence indicating that these were grammatical mistakes, given that they were committed with consistency. There are also no other grammatical mistakes in Round 1. My opponent can't simply assume it is a grammatical mistake and brush it off. This argument still holds true.

All three of my arguments in deciding why my definition of Cate and Doge hold true. Con has not refuted them.

Con has not made any argument as to why Doge is better than Cate. At the very least, we are tied, setting aside the rule breaking. However, since Con has clearly broken Rule #1 multiple times, this gives me a for sure victory, even if all my arguments were completely void as to why Cate is better than Doge.

And with that, I bring closure to all of my arguments.

Vote Pro.

Request (Note: This is NOT a rebuttal)

"I remind the reader that I asked my opponent if he could have the "you must have a picture of [the side that you are debating for]" rule imposed upon him, because it severely limits my freedoms as a person on DDO. He replied no, which is very unsportsmanlike, and I am utterly astonished that he is not taking the picture of a cate. I ask the voter to take this unsportsmanlike behavior into account while voting."

I can't believe my opponent has the audacity to claim that I have unsportsmanlike behavior. My opponent accepted this debate to do nothing more than troll. First of all, when you accepted the debate, you accepted the rules. By no means am I obligated to change the rules just because you think it is unfair. That is something you work out in the comments section before accepting the debate. Second of all, you and I know very well what definitions were intended in this debate. Instead, you are using a loophole and arguing only from that. You were only trying to stir trouble when you initially accepted this challenge. I completely regret ever making this debate thanks to you. Third, you are asking for points since I refused to do your request? Where is the logic in this? Voters, please ignore this unjustified request.
Lexus

Con

Rule Breaking
My opponent has no proof that I have broken any rules. He is not allowed to say "go look at my albums!", which is most definitely not allowed in any sort of debate setting. The voters are only allowed to vote on content that is within the debate or has been linked out of the debate (validity of sources, looking at pictures, etc). My opponent has not done this, thus the voters are not able to vote based on his accusations of me breaking any rules whatsoever.

With that aside, I am not currently breaking any rules at the time of writing this response. I have a picture of the Venetian Doge Lodovico Manin, who has been proved to be a Doge in all respects (all respects that matter to authoritative sources, that is).

Closing Statement
My opponent has offered no reasons why cate is of superior quality to doge. Even if we accepted his unreasonable definitions (which is absurd, so many authoritative sources say otherwise to his definitions), he has not fulfilled his part of the burden at all. He was meant to prove why cate (a delicacy, may I remind you) is of superior quality to that of a doge, and all that he has said is that a cat is cooler or has better abilities.

However, I have proven that because doges are humans, they possess free will, and are able to make a large impact on society that is beneficial for the people. This is intrinsic quality to humanity. I have also proven that cates, while I do concede they solve some peoples' hunger, they do not do it for the people that need their hunger solved or do they do it enough to make a difference in the world. This means that they have a very small amount of quality, and the amount that a doge has severely outweighs this.

If my opponent set dead to his definitions, that he may be able to do, he still has not proven why a cate is better than a doge within his own definitions. We may argue from different definitions, but arguments must be made that uphold the burden regardless of disagreements of semantics.

I have successfully proved with many many authoritative sources that a doge is a magistrate from Genoa or Venice, and that a cate is a delicacy or a choice food. My opponent, on the other hand uses very questionable sources in an attempt to find at least someone that agrees that a doge is some abstract thought, and I have already disproven the validity of his sources (see: Obama definition). Now, my definitions are clearly more well sourced, and thus are more believable and should be used in this debate... however, my opponent has been fighting these definitions this entire time without any real reason.

My opponent claims that because he set this debate in the funny category, doge is defined as a meme... this is fallacious, because this is a serious error in reasoning. It is not up to me to make sure you placed this in the right category. As I said, if someone makes a gay marriage debate and puts it in the "technology" category, one cannot assume that they must only use technological arguments. That would be absurd, so my opponent's claims are unjustified.

I have proven that a doge is superior (as stated earlier), and all of my arguments are dropped over a battle of semantics. My opponent has made no actual constructive arguments, nor has he actually refuted them adequately, thus I should win the 'arguments' points.

My opponent has made unfair rules and has even gone so far as to say "I completely regret ever making this debate thanks to you", which is completely rude to say to a debater. This cannot be tolerated in an objective environment such as DDO, thus I believe I should be able to receive the 'conduct' point.

I have used many authoritative sources in my arguments, and all of these are completely valid - either by truth (they are truly valid), or by them being dropped by my opponent. He has used very questionable sources (Urban Dictionary, really? Exceptionally questionable and proven to be false), thus I believe I should win the 'sources' points.

Thank you and vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
3 people agree with me. 1 person thinks this entire debate was nonsense (which I agree with also). 1 person agrees with you. I think we know who won this debate.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
I don't really care about vote bombs anymore, this takes too much effort
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: FaustianJustice // Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Arguments, Conduct), 2 points to Con (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Since the previous RFD was removed, allow me to be more blunt: Lexus was a troll, and decided not to argue the spirit of the debate topic. As such, any arguments Pro presented made for a more convincing argument: it was the intent of the debate. Conduct was awarded to Pro for trying to assist Con get back to the spirit/intent of the debate. Con declined. Con, for their merit, came up with some GREAT sources as to why their trolling was valid. There, now we have established why points were awarded to the person trying to be funny in a "humor" debate, as opposed to the troll whom wanted to suck the humor out, and argue something contrary to the intent.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of specifics. No mention of what the spirit of the debate topic was or why the voter chose to adopt such a standard in determining the spirit of the debate. (2) Lack of specifics on sources. No explanation for why there was a significant difference between the two sets of sources or how this had a substantial effect on the round or the voters ability to assess the round.
===========================================================================
Posted by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
RFD PART 2

Con provided many sources to show the definition of cate and doge in the merriam webster dictionary. This was unrelated to the topic at hand, and therefor the sources are dismissed, just like Pro's argument explains why. Pro provided photographic evidence of con's rule breaking and also photographic evidence of Cate being better than Doge. He also provided evidence to show the Urban Dictionary definition of the words "Cate" and "Doge" were. For this reason, I give my better sources point to Pro.

Thank you for doing this debate. I learned a lot about how DDO works. I know now to always define my words in round 1 lest I want somebody to play a game of semantics the whole time. If you need me to expand upon this RFD anymore please ask. This is the LONGEST RFD ever :) Have a good day.
Posted by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
Seeing how long the RFD's are for this debate, I guess I will need a long one explaining my reasoning. I believe I'm allowed to put RFDs in the comments if they are too long? Anyways, here I go.

-RFD-

Who had the most convincing argument? This comes down to the context of the words "Cate" and "Doge" as pointed out by pro. Pro successfully showed that the word's definitions are up for debate, since they weren't defined in round 1. Pro's most convincing argument that the intended definitions of Cate and Doge are the ones in the urban dictionary is the capitalization of the words in round 1. Con argued that it was probably a spelling mistake. Pro then refuted this by saying that there were no other spelling mistakes in round 1, thus making it unlikely two independent spelling mistakes would occur in round 1. The only plausible explanation therefore is that Cate and Doge are supposed to be defined by the urban dictionary for this debate. Since pro is the only one who argued from that aspect (using the pictures) he wins my points for most convincing arguments.

I also give my conduct points to Pro. Con gave a very questionable reason for deserving conduct points. She asked pro to revise the rules since they were unfair. Pro refused, which he is allowed to do since she accepted the debate as it was. Con then argued that she should get conduct points since pro was being unsportsmanlike due to him being unwilling to change the rules that she had already accepted. This is an incredibly ridiculous reason to get points for conduct in a debate. This was pointed out by pro in the following round. I thus give my conduct points to pro.

Who had better sources? Pro had better sources. Since the actual debate was about Cate vs Doge in the urban dictionary sense (which I explained why pro won this aspect of the debate in the arguments section), only pro's sources were legitimate. CONTINUED IN RFD PART 2
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
that last few words I intended on my vote was was...
"Due to Pro's lack of consistency with appropriate conduct when debating Cate V Doge, I also give most convincing argument to Con for a unique ploy that had a twist, that is not illegal by definition, as Pro never excluded this in the rules."

I hope this makes it clear why I am voting for Con, if it's not then please tell me, I don't want to get into trouble for an open opinion :)
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
okay, then I will make it more robust
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Reported vote: Kryptic // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Con (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: Lexus did a very fun outlook on an otherwise static style of debate, while the Pro had a humorous way to approach something, Con did a good job of avoiding and conquering.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain sources entirely. (2) Too generic on arguments. No specific reasons given for why Con's argument was better.
=================================================================
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
To those who were disappointed with the outcome of this debate, I'm sorry. I am in the middle of debating a new opponent who has stuck to the intended path of this debate. Here it is: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
============================================================
>Reported vote: FaustianJustice // Moderator action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (conduct, arguments), 2 points to Con (sources). Reasons for voting decision: I am awarding conduct to pro. It is clear as to what the spirit of this particular debate was, and what mental gymnastics (umpteen sources worth) had to be taken to avoid the challenge. Credit where due, though, mighty fine sources when it comes to backing up that gymnastics. Oh, and of course Points for arguing what the intended resolution was, as the intended resolution was not argued at all by Con.

[*Reasons for removal*] (1) Conduct. Incoherent. Not clear from this RFD what the actual basis for awarding conduct was. Being "clear" is not a valid basis for awarding conduct. (2) Arguments. Too generic. No explanation for why Pro made better arguments or why Con's definitions were unconvincing. (3) Sources. Mere statement *that" Con had "mighty fine sources." No explanation for why these were better than Pro's.
===============================================================
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
Proving_a_NegativeLexusTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Proving_a_NegativeLexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It's impossible to cast an objective vote awarding points in this debate; thus, I am seriously disappointed at all the other votes. Neither side was able to come close to arguing properly, using ad hominems and deconstructional semantics. Very poor debate, and entirely subjective RFDs are the sole ones that can award points. I would recommend that all point-awarding votes be reported.
Vote Placed by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
Proving_a_NegativeLexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro's argument is literally about an illiterate cat and dog, the spelling and grammar by default goes to Con. Refer to the picture where a cat is upon a 'unicorn' saying random and illiterate comments. Pro never specifically mentioned that it was out of the question to pick another figure with a similar name, thus creating a possibility for what took place to happen, this is not an obstruction of the rules. By default. Pro completely changed arguments, from a Cate V Doge debate, it is now a persecution where claims from outside of this argument are being used against Con. However this is not what the debate is about, Pro's only sources are that of previous debates and this proves Con has a more reliable source. Con is shown here, in round 2, to list several sites to define Cons argument respectively. Due to Pro's lack of consistency with appropriate conduct when debating Cate V Doge, I also give most convincing argument to Con for a unique ploy that had a twist, that is not illeg
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 1 year ago
Benshapiro
Proving_a_NegativeLexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was poor on both sides so I'm leaving that as a tie. I'm buying Pro's argument that the definitions of "Cate" and "Doge" were intended to be the urbandictionary definitions based on the synchronous context of the words.