The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
untitled_entity
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Chrysippus is not a noob.

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 12 votes the winner is...
untitled_entity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,248 times Debate No: 9357
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (12)

 

studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent and the readers in advance for an interesting debate.

I negate the resolution, "Chryisppus is not a noob."

=====================

Definitions:

Chrysippus- http://www.debate.org...

noob- newbie.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

===================

Chrysippus is a noob. He has joined this site several hours ago, and has created this debate: http://www.debate.org...

A noob would start out his DDO career by instigating a debate about probably losing his first debate on DDO.

Conclusion: Chrysippus is a noob. He has joined only several hours ago, has created a debate regarding the possibility of losing his first debate on DDO, and even stated that he is new to this sort of thing. Resolution negated.
untitled_entity

Pro

Resolved: Chrysippus is not a noob.

BoP: Seeing as my opponent negated a negative topic it is essentially the same as affirming. SAC8 must prove that Chrysippus is a noob by all definitions. I, must prove that Chrysippus is indeed, not a noob. I will accept SAC8's definition.

Definition: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Noob links to newbie. Anyways, "a newcomer or novice, esp. an inexperienced user of the Internet or of computers in general."

Based on definition, Chrysippus would essentially have to be technologically retarded. He just does not comprehend the way DDO works as of yet.

Therefore, as long as Chrysippus knows how to use the computer and the internet, he is not a noob. Seeing as he knows how to use both, he is not a noob. Therefore, Chrysippus is not a noob - resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for the opportunity.

BoP: My opponent is wrong. I must only prove that he is a noob by the definition that I presented, which is that a noob is a newbie.

I have already established the definition of "noob" as a newbie. That is the only definition I provided, because that is the only definition for the debate. As Instigator, I set up the debate and used my provided definition. My definition was presented before my opponent's, which means my opponent's definition holds no water.

Once again, my opponent has changed the definition, which she cannot because I already established one. It is unfair to change a prior definition.

The remainder of my opponent's argument is irrelevant because she has changed the definition and had no right to do so. She has improperly argued semantics, for I already established the definition of "noob."

My opponent changed the definition, and argued flawed semantics. Resolution negated. Thank you.
untitled_entity

Pro

The definition of Noob links to newbie for clarification. I did not change the definition, I merely cited what your link cited. I am not the one shifting BoP, that would be you.

These definitions are one in the same, my opponent is trying to argue that the definition of Noob and newbie are dissimilar which is completely fallacious.

Therefore, as long as Chrysippus can use a computer, which he can, he is not a Noob. Resolution is affirmed, Noob and newbie are the same.

Vote PRO.

I thank SAC8 for yet another oddly interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Con

However, the only word that I used to define "noob" was "newbie." I simply gave the source to show where I got "newbie" from. Clearly, my opponent is arguing semantics. I specifically gave the word "newbie" as the definition because that is the only one I wanted to use in the debate. My source just shows where I got the definition from. If I wanted to use more defining terms, I would have listed them, but since I did not, my opponent's arguments do not hold water.

I did define "noob" as a "newbie." That is the only thing I gave to define. My opponent is arguing semantics and has not stuck to the original definition in the debate.

In round I, my opponent extended the definition to simply being an inexperienced user of computers. However, the fact that we are on a debating website and the word "noob" is used frequently, it is only logical that "noob" would apply to being a "newbie" at debating on this site. My opponent argued fallacious semantics and did not stay on topic.
untitled_entity

Pro

Well, I can put it to you this way. "Noob" was provided, I clicked the link and the link provided "newbie", say I did not know what either of these things meant. In the event that I did not, I would click on "newbie" to see the entire definition as I'm sure some of the readers of this debate will as well. Not because they don't know what "newbie" is but because they are checking to make sure the link works etc., they will see that indeed the formal definition of "Noob" is "newbie" and the definition of newbie is inexperienced at using computers of the internet [[paraphrased]]. My opponent never explicitly stated that Chrysippus was a "Noob" at using DDO or a "Noob" at debating - simply stating that "Chrysippus is not a noob".

Due to the fact that Chrysippus can obviously use the internet and his computer, Chrysippus is not a "Noob". Had my opponent only wanted this debate to be about Chrysippus' "Noob" - like traits on DDO he should have specified in the resolution.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Does "noob" mean "new to debate.org" or "new to computers." Why would anyone care? Well, putting that aside, Con crafted the resolution and didn't make it clear, so I give a small edge to Pro.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
In a Con-instigator debate, Con sets the limits of the resolution and Pro proves up the resolution with an argument within the limits provided by Con. Con argued that the resolution was "Chrysippus is not a noob." Noob was defined to mean 'newbie.' Newbie is defined to mean a novice, especially (but not only) a computer novice. Therefore, logically, Pro needed to prove that Chrysippus is not a novice, especially not a computer novice. Con argued that Chrysippus was a novice at debating on DDO. Pro argued that Chrysippus was clearly not a computer novice. While it is true that Pro, in bringing the argument, could have argued that Chrysippus was not a noob *under at least one definition*, she did not ... instead she warranted her argument essentially by claiming that Con was under a duty to prove that Chrysippus was a computer noob because that was the only typeof noob there was. This does not follow, because especially speaks to particularity, but not exclusion. Had Pro argued that Chrysippus was not a noob in some particular way, then Con would have had to argue against that definition. However, in this very odd case, Pro argued that Con couldn't prove that Chrysippus was computer illiterate and that only computer illiterates are noobs ... which is not the case. Therefore, I vote as follows:

Before& After: Tie (Chrysippus who?)/Con (Yeah, by definition)
Conduct: Tie
S&G: Tie
Convincing Arguments: Tie. Both Con and Pro failed to properly explain the definition of newbie, which was key to either side succeeding.
Sources: Tie. Both strictly used definitional sources and nothing more, so this is tied.

I think that this is a fair analysis. ^.^
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
...okay then.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
If the guy's not a noob for joining a site 4 hours ago then the word noob shouldn't exist, thats what the word was made for.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Sorry for double post
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Conduct: Con: The argument over the definition of Newbie was a little silly, the background of newbie, and the definition first and foremost is someone that is new and inexperienced at something, which the user in the resolution clearly is.

Spelling and grammar: Tie, I didn't notice any difference.

Arguments: Con: Pretty much what i said on conduct.

Sources: TIe
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Conduct: Con: The argument over the definition of Newbie was a little silly, the background of newbie, and the definition first and foremost is someone that is new and inexperienced at something, which the user in the resolution clearly is.

Spelling and grammar: Tie, I didn't notice any difference.

Arguments: Con: Pretty much what i said on conduct.

Sources: TIe
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
{chuckles quietly}

Thank you for clearing my mind on that front; apparently the jury is still out as to the extent and quality of my noobiness...

I hesitate to vote on this debate, as I'm afraid I would let personal prejudice affect my vote; but I enjoyed reading it immensely!
:D
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
er.... RFD's?
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Simply for the heck of it. I liked to mix it up once in a while.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by methodicalmadness00 7 years ago
methodicalmadness00
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by thepianist 7 years ago
thepianist
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by TheSexicanMexican 7 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 LipstickandLightplay 7 years ago
LipstickandLightplay
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
studentathletechristian8untitled_entityTied
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