The Instigator
draxxt
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

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: 4/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,282 times Debate No: 3721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

draxxt

Pro

Since I highly respect this particular opponent and would enjoy hearing his argument in the first, I move to allow Korezaan the first debate.

Also, I'd like to define a few things, as to clear anything up.

(As always, I'll be using Merriam-Webster)
relieve as: " to free from a burden : give aid or help to"

argumentative as: "given to argument : disputatious "

and nature as: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition, temperament"

To my opponent, I hope you accept this debate and good luck!
Korezaan

Con

I negate, that "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature."

I accept all his definitions. I would like to add one:

, also defined by Merriam Webster, means "Superior".
(link: http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
, defined by general usage, means "Best at (whatever it describes.)"

observations

1) It does not matter that the resolution says "Debate.org is [AN] excellent way"; since excellent is defined as "best", grammar rules do not apply. Therefore the resolution asks whether or not Debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature.

2) My opponent therefore has the burden of proof to show that Debate.org is the best possible way to relieve an argumentative nature in order to win this debate. This is true because my opponent has put forth a statement and has taken the "supportive side", which means he has to show why we should believe in him before we actually do: If he, for example, put forth a resolution that said "You should climb Mount Everest", he needs to go and give reasons as to why that is true. If he doesn't give any, then we essentially have no reason to climb Mount Everest and therefore we default CON, which basically says we don't have to do anything.

case

Debate.org is not the best way to relieve an argumentative nature.

Formal debate (e.g. LD, Policy, Public Forum, Parlimentary Debate, etc.) is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature. When I first came onto this site, I was expecting a site full of circuit-level people and I'd get totally pwnt. Not trying to insult the intelligence of the people that use this site, but many users of debate.org simply do not know the claim/warrant/impact structure of a solid argument, along with several other basic things that debaters of the NFL league know about. The best way to relieve an argumentative nature then, is to join the NFL and do one of the debates listed previously. Most people doing debate in NFL are there to win debates and to find holes in their opponents arguments, rather than a more lax nature, as is here in debate.org. For example, in formal debate, there's a much shorter prep time limit; in the debate I do, LD, the total prep time available is 4 minutes, whereas on debate.org, you have THREE DAYS to do the same amount of work. In CX, or Policy debate, many speak at 400 words per minute and think even faster than that in order to strategically crack down on their opponent's position. If there is one thing that can best relieve an argumentative nature, it is NFL formal debate, which forces you to think faster and more creatively.

And even if it's not the best, it's at least better than debate.org.

Which is all I need to win the round.

I await reasons as to why Debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature.
Debate Round No. 1
draxxt

Pro

Thank you, Korezaan, for accepting this debate. I want everyone to vote strictly by logic, if you will, and please, read the entire case. No hate speeches/flames and I would ask that sexycracker and dbaldwin1215 not vote as they have a character bias against myself. Korezan, if you would like to exemplify anyone who should not vote on this debate, please say so.

Now that the formalities are out of the way, let the refutation begin!

My opponent's entire case rests on one contention based on a deduction, not a fact. Deductions would be fine (Rather, this contention was based on the inductive sense) The inductive nature my opponent procures would be fine if not for one thing: You used Merriam-Webster (A personal favorite of mine and I thank you for being consistant with the present source) to define better but did not use it to define Superior. This is flawed as my opponent had to make an assumption.

My opponent assumed superior meant best.

This is flawed in two different spectrums:

1) A superior in correlation to a subordinate does not always mean the highest on the ladder.

IE.
Jane is a field worker
Josh is a manager
Jimmy is a supervisor
Kalie owns the company.

Josh is superior to Jane in that aspect, Jimmy is superior to Jimmy in that aspect, and Kalie is superior to Jimmy in that aspect.

Conversely, Josh is inferior to Jimmy and Jimmy is inferior to Kalie. Jane is inferior to all of the above. The superiors in this situation are not equal and all axcept Kalie have a superior. Therefore, superior deals with rank.

2) Merriam-Webster has many definitions of the word "Superior"

Superior as: "1: situated higher up : upper
2: of higher rank, quality, or importance
3: courageously or serenely indifferent (as to something painful or disheartening)
4 a: greater in quantity or numbers b: excellent of its kind : better
5: being a superscript
6 aof an animal structure : situated above or anterior or dorsal to another and especially a corresponding part bof a plant structure : situated above or near the top of another part: as (1)of a calyx : attached to and apparently arising from the ovary (2)of an ovary : free from the calyx or other floral envelope
7: more comprehensive
8: affecting or assuming an air of superiority : supercilious"

As that was my opponent's only contention, I shall build my framework hence.

For the following two contentions, debate.org is an exemplary or "Excellent" way to relieve an argumentative nature

1) Many schools do not have debate teams, as my opponent has provided as an alternative.

A) Students may start their own team, but as seen in Mansfield High School, Boston, MA, students don't get the necessary funding for such trips to other schools.

B) The resulting action: Use debate.org. Though some sites have forums designed for user interaction/collaboration, they are usually limited and don't include very prosperous debators. My opponent, for example, is an excellent debator by example as well as HadenQuinlan, Geekis_Khan, and CalebFrye, to name a few. These debators would most likely not waste their time on anything BUT a site specifically designed for debating.

2) Many students, as seen in my own high school, tend to lean towards arguing with authority figures if they cannot express an argumentative nature.

A) I am a prime example and you may ask anyone that goes to my school. I could not argue with people without being lashed out at or being disciplined by higher authorities (As I am an IE kid and cannot find a PF partner, I cannot debate on the team without resorting to LD which I feel would be a harder transition.)

B) Several friends of mine find the need to argue even with debate team release and since joining debate.org, do not argue with authority figures quite so much.

C) Debating on a team would limit you to topic and "moral" acceptability. That is not enough for some people. The NC State level resolution for PF is "Presidential Primaries are contrary to a democracy."

This is very limited and doesn't give the aggressor (The debator) a chance to express themselves argumentatively, it limits them to the "acceptable" topics.

For the reasons and refutations presented to you, dear judges, you vote Pro. Thank you Korezaan I await your rebuttal eagerly.

-EG
Korezaan

Con

I don't like certain people on this site. They don't like me.
It's not like I'm about to have the ability to prevent them from voting.

__________________

Deduction leads to facts. Deduction is debate.

"Superior"
1) Straight turn or inapplicable. Draxxt never specified exactly what Debate.org is superior to, so I had to use my definition. My definition did not specify what Debate.org is superior too, just like the resolution - If draxxt had said, say, Debate.org is a superior way to relieve an argumentative nature as opposed to arguing with your parents, then his refutation would stand true. Alas, that simply isn't the case.
2) So which definition is he using, exactly?

Just a note; Draxxt has accepted that "excellent" and "superior" are interchangable. I said in my R1 that excellent = superior, and he did not refute that in his R2.

"For the following two contentions, debate.org is an exemplary or "Excellent" way to relieve an argumentative nature"

--- "exemplary" was not in any of his definitions of superior, nor is it in merriam-webster's definition of excellent (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) so you can already drop his contentions.

"Debate Teams"

A. Just because they don't have the cash doesn't mean that formal debate isn't superior to debate.org, just as I can't afford a Boeing Dreamliner, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior to my model airplanes. Just because something is not financially available to some people does not invalidate it for comparison.

B. Link previous response.

"Authority Figures"

A. Why do authority figures factor into whether or not something is superior?

B. And why is not arguing against authority a good thing?

C. I don't think that's the case. In formal debate (let's just say that instead of the 213908503748 different leagues out there) there's a topic, yes, but since there are limited topics and something they need to argue, people with argumentative natures would have to think harder and more creatively in order to put themselves into the topic. By having a site like debate.org where people can just word resolutions the way they want and debate as they will, they aren't harnessing as much creative and debating energy.

__________________

This is why I win.

1) He argues my definition of "excellent", but does not specify an alternative. This means that my definition of "excellent" is the one used for the debate, and it is "Best at (whatever it describes)."
2) This takes out both his contentions in R2.
3) Even if his contentions aren't dropped, they don't prove how debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature, which is his burden in the round in order to win. Even if they're not dropped, they aren't topical as they link to the wrong definition of "excellent".
4) He has not responded to any of the impacts I presented in R1, which say that, among other things, formal debate is superior to debate.org when looking at what's better to relieve an argumentative nature, as formal debate requires more speed, creativity, and strategy, which are otherwise not so intense on debate.org.

Since he has not proved his burden and I've shown something that's better at relieving an argumentative nature than debate.org, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
draxxt

Pro

This is an exciting debate, let's keep it going!

"So which definition is he using, exactly?

Just a note; Draxxt has accepted that "excellent" and "superior" are interchangable. I said in my R1 that excellent = superior, and he did not refute that in his R2. ... He argues my definition of "excellent", but does not specify an alternative. This means that my definition of "excellent" is the one used for the debate, and it is "Best at (whatever it describes).""

Does it matter? Aside from the dorsel fin and ovary deifinitions, I could use any. To your note, there is no way you can say that excellent equals best. Yes, excellent and superior are synonymous but that is not the issue. I never said it was best which voids a large quantity of your debate.

"3) Even if his contentions aren't dropped, they don't prove how debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature, which is his burden in the round in order to win. Even if they're not dropped, they aren't topical as they link to the wrong definition of "excellent"."

I just proved that excellent and best are not synonymous.
that superior and best are not synonymous can also be infered.

"4) He has not responded to any of the impacts I presented in R1, which say that, among other things, formal debate is superior to debate.org when looking at what's better to relieve an argumentative nature, as formal debate requires more speed, creativity, and strategy, which are otherwise not so intense on debate.org."

Refer to my entire R2, consisting of refutations that not only prove his logic wrong, disprove his synonimity, and theories on word definitions, which was the extent of his debate. also, being excellent has other definitions than superior. I argued the superior case for the sake of argument, but clearly, I must define excellent.

My opponent gave one definition and the other is
excellent as: "very good of its kind : eminently good"

No superiority is necessarily prominent in this debate unless for the sake of argument, therefore, I do not have to say what it is suerior to unless it comes up, which it had. In that case, I had given you examples of less satisfactory situations and how debate.org is superior to them.

"Since he has not proved his burden and I've shown something that's better at relieving an argumentative nature than debate.org, you vote CON."

I most certainly have fufilled the burden of proof, you have yet to tell me why the burden of proof may be wrong.

"Why do authority figures factor into whether or not something is superior?"

Debate.org does not get you detention when you argue with someone.

" I don't think that's the case. In formal debate (let's just say that instead of the 213908503748 different leagues out there) there's a topic, yes, but since there are limited topics and something they need to argue, people with argumentative natures would have to think harder and more creatively in order to put themselves into the topic. By having a site like debate.org where people can just word resolutions the way they want and debate as they will, they aren't harnessing as much creative and debating energy."

That is the beauty of debate.org, we aren't limited to previewed and pre-sanctioned debates, and if you don't like those fallacies, for that is what you are most likely referring to, then you can choose another debate. Some may choose to challenge themselves, some may not. But that's not the point, though I'm sure you'd try to say it was. The point is, this is an EXCELLENT way to relieve argumentative natures.

"Just because they don't have the cash doesn't mean that formal debate isn't superior to debate.org, just as I can't afford a Boeing Dreamliner, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior to my model airplanes. Just because something is not financially available to some people does not invalidate it for comparison."

Things would get very boring, not going on trips to other schools, debating the same people, and, in a very likely case, nearly memorising the opponent's strategies to an extent. Things would become boring and debators would yearn for alternate means of releasing their argumentative nature.

and, finally,
" I don't like certain people on this site. They don't like me.
It's not like I'm about to have the ability to prevent them from voting."

I thought it would be nice to give a small token of exceptance. I have no authority to prevent them but I wanted to express my wish to them and to see if you wanted to do the same.

My opponent's only contention rests on the word "Excellent" being synonymous with "best" which I have proven it is not.

There is no logical reasoning or real case behind my opponent, once refuted by my points, therefore, you vote pro.

Thanks again, and good luck,
-EG
Korezaan

Con

Line-by-line. Voters and Summarization comes again in R4.

"Does it matter? Aside from the dorsel fin and ovary deifinitions[...]"

What I can say is that excellent equals best when we're looking at the resolution. Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature". Draxxt never explicitly said that excellent/superior equals best, true, but since he gave nothing to compare to in the words of the topic, the default is to compare to any and all things in that area. Debate.org simply is not excellent at relieving an argumentative nature.

"I just proved that excellent and best are not synonymous."

He didn't prove how they're not synonymous. He just said "there are other possibilities". And my response to that was "all other possibilities other than the one I have presented do not apply in this situation because of certain reasons"; certain reasons being all the responses I've made for why best is the same as excellent/superior in this debate.

"Refer to my entire R2[...]"

Again, all Draxxt is saying is that "there are other possibilities". Well sure, every word has tons of possibilities, but what gives a word definition is what context it is used in. I could call you a cabbage, but that wouldn't mean anything. I could call your entire family cabbages, but that wouldn't mean anything. But if I said "You're a cabbage, your family is full of cabbages, I hate cabbages and I'm gonna kill you all", then that word becomes a catalyst for dehumanization. The other thing on why many definitions don't matter is because plenty of words have many different definitions. At the point where we say "X has other definitions", then we could basically define words like "The" and "Also" as "Texas Hold Em" and "All Lions Scare Orthodontists", or ridiculous stuff like the ovaries and dorsal fins as my opponent mentioned for his definition of ‘superior'. That being said, you can refer back to my argument about how he didn't provide any comparison in the resolution and therefore we must compare with all things, resulting in "best", not "better".

"I most certainly have fufilled the burden of proof, you have yet to tell me why the burden of proof may be wrong."

The burden of proof is not "wrong", we just disagree on what it is. I say that he needs to show how Debate.org is best, and he says he needs to show how Debate.org is better than X Y Z things instead of best. This is why the definition of superior is prominent. Whoever wins the definition pretty much wins the debate.

"Debate.org does not get you detention when you argue with someone."

Arguing with authority does not get me in detention.

"That is the beauty of debate.org, we aren't limited to previewed and pre-sanctioned debates[...]"

Let's look to back to his definitions for a moment – Argumentative means "disputatious". I do not see how debate.org, allowing its users to create their own topics and stuff, relieves an argumentative nature. At best, its advantages over formal debate is what draxxt just said here – it relieves creative nature. And creative nature is not the same as argumentative nature. Even if they were the same, extend my impacts from formal debate: 1) Makes people think faster, 2) More creatively, 3) More strategically, and 4) Gives people the environment where they are surrounding by people who really want to do debate. All in all, superior in comparison to debate.org in terms of relieving an argumentative nature, and probably superior in the same way when compared to anything else.

"Things would get very boring[...]"

On the flow, this argument of his was originally for attacking schools that don't have a debate team. My refutation to that was that certain circumstances do not suddenly void the whole concept. Draxxt here talks about a situation where people do not get to go on debate tournaments. This is unresponsive to my contention, as it does not describe formal debate, but rather, a lack of formal debate. You can then extend my arg, because it still outweighs even though some people can't go to real tournaments.

"I thought it would be nice to give a small token of exceptance. I have no authority to prevent them but I wanted to express my wish to them and to see if you wanted to do the same."

Okay. Well, I think it'd be ineffective and if somethings neither effective nor fun, I don't do it.
Debate Round No. 3
draxxt

Pro

Again, good luck in the votes.

"What I can say is that excellent equals best when we're looking at the resolution..."
No, there is no concievable way that you can take a word and logically change its definition.

The word "excellent" is there to prove that it has an higher being. Don't run semantics, it's annoying.

"Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature"."

Would you like some examples?

"Many students, as seen in my own high school, tend to lean towards arguing with authority figures if they cannot express an argumentative nature."

Obviously, insinuating that debating on this site is preferable to arguing with high school authority figures.

and "These debators would most likely not waste their time on anything BUT a site specifically designed for debating."

Giving that sites used in forum specifications are not as satisfactory for one who has an argumentative nature as a whole. This is another thing I have said debate.org is better than, though that is not the resolution, you called it and I negated.

My opponent also forgets my ladder example. I believe that, without a shadow of a doubt, excellent can never be used as best unless given a prerequisite or proper connotation as to why it is. Until my opponent can prove that "excellent = best" There is no way his defense can make sense.

"Okay. Well, I think it'd be ineffective and if somethings neither effective nor fun, I don't do it."

We all have our ideosyncracies and I think that is beside the point.

"On the flow, this argument of his was originally for attacking schools that don't have a debate team..."

Formal debate would still exist in this scenario it would just be a very boring and repetitive function.

Which is another thing debate.org is preferable to: Schools with no debate team/no debate team funds.

The resolution, "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature." in no way represents the connotation my opponent attempts to procure. Seeng as his entire logic depends on "excellent" meaning best, you cannot count the arguments valid.

For these reasons and the one's procured in each of my previous rounds in conjunction with my refutations, be it resolved that debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

Thank you to the noble judges, my opponent, and the spectators. May the one with the best case win,
-EG
Korezaan

Con

His line-by line, then Voters.

"No, there is no concievable way that you can take a word and logically change its definition. The word "excellent" is there to prove that it has an higher being. Don't run semantics, it's annoying."

- Yes, there is. Let's look to an example. The word "hysterical", as summarized from the definitions of dictionary.com, means "extremely emotional". However, if we look to the etymology and the original context of the word, it was "Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus." (http://www.etymonline.com...) Also, take the word "A-hole" (couldn't write out the whole thing, debate.org rules). It used to mean the anus, but now it's commonly used to describe very annoying people. And as for the semantics argument, semantics is how we define words. What words mean is pretty freakin' important when it comes to debate. If draxxt wished to debate me on something else he thought of, he probably should have defined what he meant in R1. Well, he chose not to. And as for the annoying part, that's nonunique. Tons of people are annoyed with draxxt, tons of people are annoyed with me, tons of people are annoyed with X, Y, Z - X, Y, Z being anyone and everyone. Nonunique.

"Would you like some examples?"

- I didn't require any, as in my side of the debate I proposed that Formal debate was the best in its field (relieving an argumentative nature).

"Obviously, insinuating that debating on this site is preferable to arguing with high school authority figures."

- What is obvious to one is not obvious to another.

"My opponent also forgets my ladder example. I believe that, without a shadow of a doubt, excellent can never be used as best unless given a prerequisite or proper connotation as to why it is. Until my opponent can prove that "excellent = best" There is no way his defense can make sense."

And I have already done this since R2. I tell you that "Draxxt never specified exactly what Debate.org is superior to, so I had to use my definition. My definition did not specify what Debate.org is superior too, just like the resolution - If draxxt had said, say, Debate.org is a superior way to relieve an argumentative nature as opposed to arguing with your parents, then his refutation would stand true. Alas, that simply isn't the case." What I'm saying is that in order for HIS case to stand true, there must have been some object for Debate.org to compare to. If there is no comparison, then the default assumption is that Debate.org is excellent compared to any and all other things. I said this again in R3; "Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature". Draxxt never explicitly said that excellent/superior equals best, true, but since he gave nothing to compare to in the words of the topic, the default is to compare to any and all things in that area. Debate.org simply is not excellent at relieving an argumentative nature."

He then finishes the line of refutations off in R4 with a "you can't logically change definitions" and a "your arguments are annoying". I've already attacked it once earlier this round but let's go at it again. The first one: Since when was his definition 'THE definition'? If we look at how this debate ran up, my definition of excellent came first so if anything HE'S the one thats changing definitions, so you can throw it out. The second one: He gives no impact as to why this should change anything.

"We all have our ideosyncracies and I think that is beside the point."

- *shrugs* I just thought you wanted to keep talking on this point.

"Formal debate would still exist in this scenario it would just be a very boring and repetitive function."

- Extend everything I've said on this point. "Boring" and "Repetitive" are cancelled out by "thinking harder, more creatively, more quickly, and more strategically".

"The resolution, "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature." in no way represents the connotation my opponent attempts to procure. Seeng as his entire logic depends on "excellent" meaning best, you cannot count the arguments valid."

- Both of us presented a denotative case.
- Excellent DOES mean best in this resolution.

SUMMARY:

I have never gone against the concept that Debate.org is a good way to relieve an argumentative nature. Hell, that's what I come here for! The reason why I don't agree with this resolution is because it claims that Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature, and since there's nothing in the resolution or the PRO's R1 that presents what the resolution is comparing Debate.org to, then it's assumed that Debate.org is excellent bar none! I have answered his arguments on the "annoying semantics" part of the debate multiple times, and each of those times I have proved that his 'ladder of superiority' only works if there is actually a rung in the resolution: of which there is none. I completely agree that Debate.org is preferable for schools that cannot afford a travelling debate squad, but that's not what the resolution says.

But even if you believe that my debate is actually based on semantics and "annoying stuff" to you as a judge and you don't buy it, let's look to the argument that draxxt and i agreed that would be the deciding factor if we took his side of the debate: Formal debate. In each of his rounds he says two things: "What about the poor schools?" and "It gets boring.". The first one I have shown since R2 to be a useless attack; "Just because they don't have the cash doesn't mean that formal debate isn't superior to debate.org, just as I can't afford a Boeing Dreamliner, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior to my model airplanes. Just because something is not financially available to some people does not invalidate it for comparison." ("Debate Teams" A, R2) The second argument has been taken out multiple times. Formal debate forces people to think harder, faster, more creatively and more strategically: everything that a person with an argumentative nature likes to do. draxxt has never in his 4 rounds disagreed with that argument. And since I win this argument, formal debate is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature compared to debate.org.

You have two levels to vote on, both of which point to the CON.

I urge a "negative" decision.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Logan, huh? Well, congrats to Malik on winning CA. You guys are dynamo on the CA circuit. But I haven't seen you guys that much.

I understand, I want to go national circuit, but my coach doesnt wanna.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Thanks for an exciting debate, Korezaan. I really enjoyed it. But, and I mean this with all due respect, I think you misunderstood one of my points.

The "boring" reference was to a debator who only faces people at his/her school, therefore becomes monotonous and boring. Not formal debating as a whole. Thanks again.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I am from Logan. But I don't do Forensics anymore. Coach and team do too many things I don't agree with.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Vote Con., the negative placed a critique that limited the debate, which was fine by me, however, the link was not true, for the 'best' is not inside the the Merriam-Webster's after further research. The Neg case therefore drops, as it limits the debate to a section. This would cause me to vote Pro, however, the opp. did not see this, and allowed himself to be snared within the critique. Therefore, I NEGATE.

By the way, i see you are from California, Korezaan. I LD for Cali, also. What's your school?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Sorry, i've been busy x_x
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Yeah, send me the link. I am curious.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Oh. I'm lucky, I got suspended (If you want more details, I'll forward you the link. It was a simple case of perception v. reality. Reality always loses...
Damn reality!!!
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Gonna do R4 tomorrow.

I am a big time procrastinator on homework.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
sorry, I meant to write except in my previous argument, Round 2 Pro
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 simplyme 9 years ago
simplyme
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 dave23456 9 years ago
dave23456
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 ChevySdyme99 9 years ago
ChevySdyme99
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 apathy77 9 years ago
apathy77
draxxtKorezaanTied
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 WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
draxxtKorezaanTied
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