The Instigator
Meganrihanne1992x
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

Debates over debates

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 7309
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Meganrihanne1992x

Con

Yes this is a debate aboout debates!
it sounds contridictary
but i dont see the need of people to say im wrong when i state a debate,
A debate is based on opinions and what YOU think is right therefore debates should be based on two people using there opinions aginst one an other.
What i find terribly stupid is people judging me over a debate , theres a fine line between 2 people having a matture and opinionated debate as opposed to two people judging one another and using pathetic excuses like
your spelling is terrible or what not ,
Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts.
Danielle

Pro

As Pro, I'm assuming my position is to advocate debating over debates.

A quick rebuttal:

Con opens her position stating , "i dont see the need of people to say im wrong when i state a debate." I disagree. When making one's case, I believe that maintaining that your opponent is wrong is actually the entire purpose of a debate in general (and proving that your position is correct, of course).

Con then explains, "A debate is based on opinions and what YOU think is right therefore debates should be based on two people using there opinions aginst one an other." Again, I disagree. I don't think that debating is based on one's opinions. It's actually supposed to be based on facts and/or logical conclusions. In a debate tournament, for instance, one does not get to choose the position they argue. Thus it's not about individual preferences or points of view; it's about making the more effective arguments and stating one's case in a more articulate, clever, original and convincing manner.

Next, Con writes, "What i find terribly stupid is people judging me over a debate , theres a fine line between 2 people having a matture and opinionated debate as opposed to two people judging one another and using pathetic excuses like your spelling is terrible or what not" -- Hmm, again we disagree. It's only natural that certain deductions/judgments be made when reading something that someone has written. By nature, one is evaluating the words, the concepts, the grammar, etc. while reading and using context clues to determine the writer's beliefs, education, experience, knowledge, and other factors relevant to the debate. I think judgments are hard to avoid; however, agree that mature discussion is more productive than "using pathetic excuses" for judgment. It must be noted, however, that I don't think poor grammar is a 'pathetic' excuse. I think it's a valid characteristic of judgment regarding online debate. It reflects the debater's ability to make an argument flow and present a comprehensible persuasive piece of writing.

Finally Con writes, "Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts." Actually, anybody can say anything (and even have it be valid) if one can prove it or back it up with facts and out-argue a nay-sayer. Moreover, this argument is hypocritical. This resolution is based on a belief and yet Con is attempting to argue her belief over mine. Hmm, interesting.

My argument:

If debate is about proving a case, I don't see why one couldn't debate over a debate. For instance, people can debate whether a debate was interesting or not, whether or not the resolution was favorable or compelling, if one debater had greater skill or points than another, etc. In that case, I have successfully affirmed the resolution (or rather supported it) - debating over debates. As Pro, I advocate that debating over debates can be fun, successful (as in discovering a conclusion or answer to a question) and helpful in guiding people to become better debaters and increasing the exchange of ideas.

... Con, back to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Meganrihanne1992x

Con

Thanks pro for accepting this challenge

Pro has made some good valid points THOUGH id like to elaborate

Firstly my opinion on this subject states that all debates should be openly
diverted and that each oponent should be able to understand each others views , yet can disagree
and use facts to state that case.

Pro explained that for one to make a good debate and win they should more articulate, clever, original and have a convincing manner.
Yes you can win a debate by using this but at the same time i dont think people always have to fuse personal qualities to convince someone else.

In addition to this the point im going to get across is that each oponent should be able to write whatever they want and it shouldnt be all based on getting things technically right.

I quote as pro writes
Hmm, again we disagree. It's only natural that certain deductions/judgments be made when reading something that someone has written. By nature, one is evaluating the words, the concepts, the grammar, etc. while reading and using context clues to determine the writer's beliefs, education, experience, knowledge, and other factors relevant to the debate

I dont think this is relevant as such to a debate, I Think a debate should be purely on the subject and nothing beyond that, I dont think the oponent should make a pure perception of one based on a debate
this also follows my statement on judging someone by this, i also dont think the oponent should acknowledge someones background by a debate.

Following this i dont think debates should always have to be comprehensible , i think each one should be able to clearly format their arguement based on the arguements position , and be clear on what the subject entails.

Each person
should be able to establish their opinions mixed in with facts they believe to be true whether its based on scientifical facts or theorys, yet the oponent should be able to understand clearly and not withheld what they believe.

Baiscally moreover , my basic arguement is this someone should be able to debate a subject online and let it be open to pros,cons anyone who wants to disagree but they shouldnt be able to ridicule or judge anyone by a statement for the pure facts its immaturity and it shows a lack of understandment of the other ones position regarding the debate

After all these arguemnts are based online we dont know the person fully to judge someone by spelling or writing techniques.

Pro stated:Actually, anybody can say anything (and even have it be valid) if one can prove it or back it up with facts and out-argue a nay-sayer. Moreover, this argument is hypocritical. This resolution is based on a belief and yet Con is attempting to argue her belief over mine. Hmm, interesting.

That is true their is no code on conduct regarding arguements but i think if someone is going to challenge the person to a debate it should be purely on the subject what they believe factual errors and so on.Nobody should be able to tell somebody they are wrong (based on opinions ) , it wouldnt be a debate otherwise using that term is quite on the sly ignorant in my opinion, Debates are people challenging each others persistance and manner
debaters should be able to relate to somebody else but correct where they think they have gone wrong.

As for the hypocritical part i dont see how im bieng hypocritical? could you elaborate that , i havent said you were wrong in anything you stated i respect what you said but this is what i think and believe should be blaringly obvious,
Danielle

Pro

* Firstly my opinion on this subject states that all debates should be openly diverted (???) and that each oponent should be able to understand each others views , yet can disagree and use facts to state that case. *

--> That sounds about right. And when discussing said debate, people should be able to DEBATE over that debate, i.e. discuss whether or not the debate was well thought out, too long or short, comment on the resolution, each debater's performance, etc. Moreover, it's unrealistic that one will always understand their opponent's claims. It's not only about disagreeing over arguments; sometimes opponents debate over the wording or intent of the resolution, the definitions of several words in the resolution, whether or not a specific fallacy or straw man argument has been made, etc. In other words, it is very possible to debate over debates.

* Yes you can win a debate by using this but at the same time i dont think people always have to fuse personal qualities to convince someone else. *

--> I agree, though this point is irrelevant to the resolution.

* In addition to this the point im going to get across is that each oponent should be able to write whatever they want and it shouldnt be all based on getting things technically right. *

--> Debaters should try to be as 'right' with their claims as possible. It's not about being able to write whatever you want; it's about making a thorough and convincing argument. Arguing over what facts/points are "right" are essential to debate.

* I Think a debate should be purely on the subject and nothing beyond that *

--> See my first point for all things that can be debated about regarding a debate.

* Following this i dont think debates should always have to be comprehensible...*

--> What? If they're incomprehensible, what's the point of debating on this site where people have to read and judge who "won" the debate? Huh?

* Each person should be able to establish their opinions mixed in with facts they believe to be true whether its based on scientifical facts or theorys, yet the oponent should be able to understand clearly and not withheld what they believe. *

--> For the most part, I think facts are more important than decisions while debating. But anyway. It's unrealistic to assume that one's opponent will always understand one's arguments. I'm not really understanding this point (which is why comprehensibility is important!) so I can't respond to it as accurately as I would like to. Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that it's unlikely to expect there to always be a mutual understanding between opponents during a debate. Thus some type of analysis, cross examination, discussion or even argument should/will be used to determine another's position or point of view.

* someone should be able to debate a subject online and let it be open to pros,cons anyone who wants to disagree but they shouldnt be able to ridicule or judge anyone by a statement for the pure facts its immaturity and it shows a lack of understandment of the other ones position regarding the debate *

--> Ridiculing is immature, but make no mistake about it - judgments will be made based on another's POV. That's life. A lack of understanding is what sometimes causes a rift between differing opinions; however, sometimes it's more than that. Sometimes it's truly opposite perspectives or priorities, stubbornness to avoid reality/facts, etc.

* After all these arguemnts are based online we dont know the person fully to judge someone by spelling or writing techniques. *

--> No, all we can judge based on those things is their PERFORMANCE in an online debate. You're using the fact that debates occur online as a reason to keep certain things in mind. I agree. So on that note, keep in mind that judging online debates comes with a different set of criteria than judging in-person debates. Like it or not, grammar, punctuation, spelling and overall cohesiveness is a very popular and valid method of judging or aspect of judging.

* Nobody should be able to tell somebody they are wrong (based on opinions ) *

--> Well, they can, though it wouldn't be a very good or effective debate. Facts are important!

* As for the hypocritical part i dont see how im bieng hypocritical? could you elaborate that , i havent said you were wrong in anything you stated i respect what you said but this is what i think and believe should be blaringly obvious, *

--> The hypocrisy is simple: You stated that, ""Nobody can say they are right about something which is completeley based on different beliefs and facts." In other words, you feel that your position in this debate is right based on your OPINION. What's hypocritical is that you said people shouldn't say they are right (or wrong) based on opinions, and yet that's your entire position in this debate... It's your opinion that your position of Con is better than mine as Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Meganrihanne1992x

Con

Meganrihanne1992x forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend all of my arguments; I look forward to Con's next rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did well trying to figure out what Con was talking about. I think Con is saying that all, or maybe most, attacks in a debate are really ad hom attacks, and hence invalid. That is because, if I understand Con, because attacking a person's heartfelt opinion is really a personal attack on their right to have opinions that are as good as anyone's. It's tough to parse, but Pro was coherent and logical.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Haha "I look forward to Con's next rebuttal..." -- I didn't know that was the last round! Oh wellz.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
"debator"

hehehehe
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
I agree with JBlake. Grammar and spelling isn't required to be a good debator, but if you don't have them it makes you look like an idiot and your debate is harder to understand.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Debate is not always just about opinion. Bringing factual evidence into the mix is very important.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
You have to be thick-skinned to be a debater - after all, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - in other words, you are bound to upset somebody. That's why politicians do not take public criticism personally.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 SaintNick 8 years ago
SaintNick
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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