The Instigator
ethopia619
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Debaters that have been online two or more years ago should be deleted.

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 9 votes the winner is...
ethopia619
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 19937
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

ethopia619

Pro

Quick debate because I have a lack of time:

Debaters that have not been online for two or more years should be deleted. The debaters will, most likely, never come back after the two years. To save space, the debaters should have their accounts deactivated. Nobody comes back to Debate.org after three years. Therefore, debaters should be deleted.
MasterKage

Con

The resolution is Debaters that have been online two or more years ago should be deleted.

Not Debaters that have not been online two or more years ago should be deleted.

So debaters who made an account two or three years ago are still active.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
Will do, but Selbe=Female
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Should WriterSelbe change his vote, would someone please PM me so I can correct my counter. Thank you.
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
I doubt it.
Posted by innomen 2 years ago
innomen
Did pro possibly mean debates and not debaters?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con attacked based on semantics, when based on the OP, the intent of the debate was clear. As such, that costs conduct, and since he never made any argument, nor refuted the argument made by Pro, he loses the arguments. I would actually vote 4 - 0 in favor of Pro, however, due to WriterSelbe votebombing (7 points) to tip the debate in how he see fit (there is no reason for anyone to get the source points), I will cast a 7 counter. Should his vote be made with integrity, I will change mine.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a bit confused why Pro even has points. True, neither side actually argued but Pro had the burden of proof to justify his resolution, which he misinterpreted by stating that debaters who have NOT been online. Honest mistake or not, Pro failed to demonstrate a single shred close to the resolution and fulfill his BOP, though I award him a point of conduct since Con decided to exploit Pro's little mistake in his one and only argument.
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 2 years ago
WriterSelbe
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Whoever voted for Pro is an imbecile. It doesn't matter if it was an 'honest mistake.' Once the resolution is stated, the resolution cannot be changed, so obviously the winner is Con because Pro conceded to Con in the first argument.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
ethopia619MasterKageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: lol I agree with con, but pro made more sense, also he made a good point, if people aren't on for 2 years then chances are they won't come back. So I believe pro overall did better. If you dislike my RFD message me.
Vote Placed by mongeese 2 years ago
mongeese
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was clearly taking advantage of an innocent mistake, as weirdman pointed out, and neither debater truly deserves a win, as 000ike pointed out.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Win to Con for an essentially semantic argument(my favorite kind). Pro's argument rested solely on members who had not been online in the last two years even though the resolution frames the debate as regarding members who have been online in the last two years, most of us.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because PRO failed to type the resolution correctly and made this a 1 round debate...
Vote Placed by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to weirdman's vote. I don't think either member deserves the win. Pro made no case in favor of his position, nor did Con. On top of that, pro made a 1 round debate and mistyped the resolution. If anyone should even have a shot at winning its Con. But again, this should be a tied debate.
Vote Placed by wierdman 2 years ago
wierdman
ethopia619MasterKageTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote pro because of the resolution. Con read Pro's argument first and notice the changes, If he did not like these changes, then he shouldn't have accepted. the fact that he accepted means that he agreed to Pro's change of rules and should debate accordingly.