The Instigator
slayer54321
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
masterzanzibar
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Certain People at Debate.org are Bringing this Site Down (as a figure of speech).

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,479 times Debate No: 4638
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (9)

 

slayer54321

Pro

By "Bringing this Site Down", I mean it as a figure of speech, not literally.

My first reason supporting this is that some debaters are getting very frustrated with these people ("Certain People"). Let me give you an example.

Take this debate--- http://www.debate.org...
If you look at the second, third, and fifth, comments (going down), you will see that those three people are clearly frustrated with the two debaters. The second person is frustrated because he clearly wants these two debaters to talk nonsense somewhere else. The fifth feels the same, and the third feels that these debaters are "killing debate.org".

Take this debate too---http://www.debate.org...
Notice comments two-six and the last one (going down). These 6 people (who are all different than the first example) are also frustrated with these debaters. From how I explained the comments above, I don't fell I have to explain these (unless my opponent wants me to).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My second reason would be that these two debaters (Certain People) have confusing topics that are left unexplained.

In that first debate, the voter/reader isn't even told who "christian" is, and since he is cited in the topic, should probably be explained. If he wasn't explained (which is the case in this debate), then the debate gets pretty confusing to the people who don't know the two debaters as friends. You can tell people are left confused by comment four (going down) in that debate. As far as the readers/voters are concerned, these kind of debates are a waste of space.

In the second debate, it's pretty obvious that people reading this who aren't acquainted with these two debaters can get pretty confused. It isn't even a debate, it's just random babbling that should be left to their friends in chatrooms. These kind of debates are an even bigger waste of space.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E
X
P
L
A
N
A
T
I
O
N

I'll explain why all of these examples are "Bringing this Site Down".

For the one about debaters getting frustrated with "Certain People", these debaters will report or already have reported these two debaters to an admin of debate.org. Or, they might choose the alternative, to be fed up with "Certain People" and quit debate.org. This will bring about less debaters, meaning less debates, therefore making the site worse or "Bringing this Site Down". The same will result for the debates that are wastes of space.

I hope someone actually accepts this debate.......

Vote Pro
masterzanzibar

Con

RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS
-------------------------------------------
starting off, lets break down the resolution. when my opponent uses the term "certain people" within the resolution, evidently (given the implications made by his case) he is clearly discussing debaters tylerp and jojoluvsyew. since no other implications throughout his case were made we must limit the debate to these debaters and these debaters only as the "certain people".

next lets take a look at the phrase "bringing the site down" within my opponents case he has clearly labeled the intentions of this phrase to mean "making the site worse" to understand this phrase we must look to the definition of the word worse. according to dictionary.com the word worse comes "in as bad or ill in a greater or higher degree; inferior in excellence, quality, or character."

since there is no labeled basis of comparison we must imply that my opponent is using the status quo of debate.org as that basis.

in other words, in order for the pro to win this debate, they must prove to the debate.org community that debaters tylerp and jojoluvsyew at the moment are hacking into the debate.org server and altering the site making it " inferior in excellence, quality, or character." or worse, as he puts it. if he cannot prove this within this debate it is your obligation to vote for the con,

-------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTION 1- Intelligence level of the "certain people"
-------------------------------------------------------
given by the statements made throughout much of tylerp and jojoluvsyew's debates it is quite easy to conclude that neither of them are in anyway capable to perform a task such as hacking into the debate.org website, let alone speaking in words longer than three syllables. i am in no way insinuating that these debaters are still in the babbling stage of speech, however given the statements:
"tianey is my mom"
"i like random NE ONE LIKE RED BULL I DOO!!"
"wah!"
and "IM A VERY SMART INDIVIDUIAIL"

no one can be absolutely sure what stage of speech development these two actually are in.
this alone is tangible evidence that these two are in no way capable of performing such a task as hacking into the server at this very moment. my opponent and i see eye to eye in this fact whereas he endorses the people commenting on their page. comments like:
"You two are idiots."-slayer54321
"CANCER CANCER CANCER CANCER"-s0m31john
and even the debater jojoluvsyew's own comment-
"Well i cant think of anything thing"

these comments ensure the fact that neither of these debaters would have the amount of brain cells feasible to perform such an act as hacking into the debate.org website within the allotted time frame of this debate. it is because of these facts ladies and gentlemen that it is your obligation to vote for the con in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
slayer54321

Pro

slayer54321 forfeited this round.
masterzanzibar

Con

my opponent has not contended any of my arguments nor extended theirs. i feel no need to reiterate or protect my arguments because there has been nothing said to contend them. so extend all my arguments and framework for it has not been contended in any way. VOTE ME.
Debate Round No. 2
slayer54321

Pro

slayer54321 forfeited this round.
masterzanzibar

Con

i have extended all of my arguments, and refuted his, clearly you should vote for the con as the last two rounds have been forfeited by my opponent, and none of his args stand. VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
slayer54321

Pro

slayer54321 forfeited this round.
masterzanzibar

Con

i win this debate. my opponents rounds were forfeited, and he did not contend my points. My points stand. vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Since I'm a man of my word, allow me to elaborate.

CON argues that hacking is the only way one can bring this site down, but as many of us long time users have seen, this isn't even remotely true. Indeed, as people can make this site worse without physically altering it. And that my friend, is done through directly opposing the intent of this website, which is to get people who are debaters to frequent it. If people come here and see trolls and spammers all about discouraging debates through doing as PRO pointed out in R1, they aren't going to want to be a part of this website which is called DEBATE.ORG Rather, they will go someplace else where they can get their debate needs.

It's like walking into a local book club, only to see someone hosting a amateur rock and roll concert or hosting a high school football game in the midst of the book club. Although they aren't necessarily physically altering said book club, they are socially altering it, thus making any experience where "people who like books can fellowship together" rather unpleasant.

Basically, CON's case is highly abusive, not to mention that he disregarded what was clearly the intent of this debate. However, because there were no objections from PRO, it is unwise to vote in favor of him.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Well, this is ironic...lol
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Slayer apparently started a debate right before he left for camp. >.< You won't have a hard time winning.
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
THEY CAN DELETE MY ACCOUNT BUT WILL NEVER TAKE THE VOICE FROM WITHIN ME!
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
What is it with everyone calling each other "cocky" and whatnot...on the internet?
Posted by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
haha it doesnt look like there will be a R2. You dont really talk big game i guess. just

"Also note that he clearly marked "figure of speech" in the resolution. Yep, this debate is over."

sounded a little cocky. I enjoyed the video though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
For this hacking business, I'm going to give PRO until R2 to point out the problems with it properly. If he does not, I'll expound on my claim (actually, chances are, I'll do it regardless, but not when there's a chance of being accused of cheating ;) ).

In the mean time, I'll play with the other toys that have been thrown my way:

"and for someone who wins less than 50% of his debates you talk pretty big logical-master."

This vid sums up my honest reaction to that comment:

Aside from the irony though, I am curious as to what makes it seem like I'm talking a big game.

"Why the freedom of speech of course!"

Oh, that one. Freedom of speech doesn't exist on a privately owned forum, hence why any of your comments (or debates for that matter) are subject to deletion.
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
p.s. i was using his own interpretation of " bringing down the site" if you actually read through the debate. i know... quotation marks are pretty difficult to conceive.
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
Why the freedom of speech of course! the big daddy! why are people so upset about an interpretation that was intended to be comical? why can't we all sit, laugh, and have a bruski or two with our pals like we did in the seventies. its all, judical branch this, or governmental legitimacy that. well i say, instead of political parties, lets have political PARTAYS! you bring the pizza mrs. clinton!
Posted by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
and for someone who wins less than 50% of his debates you talk pretty big logical-master.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
slayer54321masterzanzibarTied
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:03