The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Rousseau
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Derek Jeter is overrated

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: 12/28/2007 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,690 times Debate No: 1115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (27)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

Derek Jeter is one of the most, if not the most, overrated player in baseball.

1. HE HAS NO STATS. He never hits homeruns. His highest ever in his 13 seasons was 24, and constantly gets around 15 a year. The last two years he has gotten 14 and 12. He also never gets RBIs. Last year he got around 73, despite playing 156 games. RBIs really are the most important thing, because thats what makes a team score. He constantly gets around 114 Ks a year, with his highest being 125 in 1997. He is most overrated in the stolen bases department. He only had 15 in 156 games last year and averages 23, despite having his own commercial about stealing a base. The only thing he is decent at is average, with a .317. But, he only acheived .300 in 8 out of 13 years. Also, there are 56 people ahead of him on the all time list, with 6 people tied at .317. And, that doesn't even count walks. He is not even in the top 100 in on base percentage, despite everyone raving about how many times he can get on base.

2. A BETTER TEAM MAKES A BETTER PLAYER. Okay, okay. Say by the slimmest margin you give the con the stats argument. But, he's only that way because the Yankees buy their team. Think about it, if a team is so good that they win all their games, is a player going to be worse because he's so sad that they're winning? No. Also, in a game, Jeter can get more RBIs if someones on base, and since their so good, Jeter can eaisly get RBIs.
Rousseau

Con

I'd like to know which team you support in MLB, just to satisfy by curiosity. Just for reference, I'm a Boston Red Sox Fan, and while I do despise the Yankees, I will give credit where it is due.

Statistics:

Consider this, Jeter has more hits at this point in his career than Pete Rose had at the same point - that's not too shabby at all. Jeter is well on his way to some very rare career numbers in both hits and runs scored. His 123 career OPS+, even in this inflated era, is still very good historically for a SS, and he's one of just 8 shortstops since 1901 to have an OPS+ of over 160 in a season (1999). Jeter also has won 3 adjusted batting titles, meaning that if not for stadium effects that really favored other players in those years, Jeter would have won 3 batting titles. He also had a very strong argument for being the AL MVP in both 1999 and 2006 as he led the AL in Win Shares both of those years (no small feat for a shortstop, historically). He also has great instincts on the bases and seems to have a flair for the spectacular (as made apparent by his many visits to the highlight reel).

Granted, I will admit, defense is not a strong suit for Jeter. However, he has a good chance to join Pete Rose and Ty Cobb with 4,000 hits, someday. That is a telling statistic. It says that it puts him at the very FOREFRONT of shortstops for hitting. As for the homerun argument, shortstops are not, and have never really been, power hitters. Historically, they aren't in the lineup at positions that hits for power. Any trend that contradicts that is a trend stemming from the steroid era (which, need I remind you, Jeter has had no allegations of steroid usage), and therefore should be disregarded. A shortstop isn't built for power, but rather for grace and speed sprinkled with dexterity. The hitting of shortstops generally refelcts that. Shortstops always have hit little skippers that put them on base and then score. Also, the importance of the homerun (in historical context) is just to sell the game. Home runs aren't particularly neccesary, and they just epitomize excitement and draw fans. That being said, I think it is impossible to argue that Derek Jeter doesn't draw fans. He was voted 38th in top 100 celebrities (2005) and even has his own cologne. Please try to even suggest that Jeter does not bring home the proverbial bacon. I would love to hear your reasoning. The other important statistic you gave was RBI's. Granted, RBI's are important, and Jeter isn't drowning in them (although he doesn't have a slim number either), but he does have a high run's scored number (1379). If we take into account his regular batting position (don't know for sure, but it can't be lower than third) we must realize that he simply doesn't have as much of a chance to drive in runs. Rest assured, he has been making offense though. Also, he has a very nice batting average (.317) which, again, is very high for a shortstop.

A Better Team Makes a Better Player:

Granted, the Yankess aren't bad. However, they really aren't good either. By their record for the past couple of years, they are at best, an above average team. He doesn't get nearly as much help as you would like to think he does, and you have no concrete proof that this is a significant factor.

Things you Didn't Mention:

1. The untangibles such as: Leadership, revenue, and championship help (4 rings in his first 5 years).
2. The inability of the Pro side to provide what Jeter is overrated on, specifically. Just saying he is overrated doesn't mean a whole lot. Is he overrated defensively? Offensively? What? Say specific things.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

Thanks for taking my debate. And I'm a Minnesota Twins fan, I just hate the Yankees. And I looked at your profile. You're a policy debater? Me too. I'm debating PMI on this site now. We should have a good policy debate sometime.

To answer his observations-
1. There is no evidence that says Derek Jeter is the leader. It is hard to judge who can be a leader and how that affects a team.
Revenue- ah haha... that just shows how much hes overrated... thank you for that.
Championship- my second argument checks- he's only good because they buy their team.
2. I did give you what he's overrated on. Stats- both offense and defense. I don't know why he said this, read my stats argument.

and my Observation- All of my opponents arguments are based on projected this and adjusted that. That is not the question at hand. Perhaps if the question had been, will Derek Jeter be good enough to make it to the HOF or something, then this would be applicable. This only supports my idea that everyone says that he is so good and oh just look at what he's on track for and stuff like that.

Dropped arguments-
1. Conceded that he was overated on defense
2. Conceded stolen bases, Strike-outs and on base percentage.
3. Dropped RBIs and ADMITTED they were important

his arguments- 1. He's 'on pace' to break Pete Rose's record. This supports my observation.
2. OPS+: His OPS+ is only 122. Don't let him get away with exaggerating statistics. Also, thats not even significant. That's 277th on the all time record. That is a statistic that helps ME.
3.Again, he WOULD'VE won three ADJUSTED batting titles. Did he? No. Until he wins a batting title, do not bring this into a round. That supports my argument that everyone thinks he would do good if we only ADJUSTED something.
4. My opponent says he was a good runner for MVP. But, I have one question. Did he win even one? NO. In 1999, the MVP was Ivan Rodriguez. In 2006 it was Justin Morneau. (I would know, he's my favorite player)
5. Once again, his argument about 4,000 hits relies upon future stats. The question at hand is, Is he overated. I say yes, based on what is going on now. And, he only gets a lot of hits because he bats 2nd on a very good team and plays almost every game.
6. He says that SS aren't power hitters. That's laughable. Cal Ripken Jr.- 431 HR. Nomar Garciaparra- 218. Alex Rodriguez- 518. 518. 518. And he's younger than Jeter. He says that these are steroid users, but none of these were even convicted. (Mitchell Report)
7. Wow Runs! That puts him 87th on the all time list. You know what the record is? 2295. He's got a loooonnngggg way.
8. The Yankees aren't good? THE YANKEES AREN'T GOOD?! That... is... the... somethingist thing I've ever heard. 26 championships. 1st year Jeter- World Champions. 2nd- ALDS 3rd- World Champions 4th- World Champions 5th- World Champions 6th- Lost in 7 at WS 7th- Best AL record, ALDS 8th- Best AL record, Lost in WS 9th- ALCS in 7 10th- ALDS 11th- ALDS 12th- ALDS. There is no way you can say the Yankees aren't good. For this reason, the Better team argument is given to my side, since it is his only argument. Extend that because they are so good, they make him better.

So all in all, my opponent does not respond to stolen bases, OBS, or Ks so he admits he is overated in all of these departments. He also points out that he conceds Defense and RBIs and even admits RBIs are important.
Rousseau

Con

You seem to have a common misconception of what overrated really means.. Overrated is: To assess or think too highly of something or someone; to overestimate it or them. From http://www.allwords.com...

Anyway you say that statistics make him overrated. However just giving a statistic that he is bad at isn't proving he is overrated. He can be great in some areas and not good at some. Overall, he is a great player though. A specific example would be his defensive abilities. Sure, he isn't the best. But he is one of the best shortstops at offense. Anyway, by just giving statistics, you aren't proving that the majority of people assess him to highly. Name an area people think he does greatly in and then prove that he doesn't do great in it.

You say he isn't the leader - He is the captain of the Yankees. That is a hard achievement and they don't just give it out. After Don Mattingly, there was an 8-year period where there was no Yankee Captain. He has worked hard and all the teammates look up to him. Your one argument was there is no evidence for it. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. It is a purely defensive argument, and an incorrect one. Name one Yankee captain that was a bad player. He is among the elites of one of the historically great teams.
Revenue- You say him bringing in revenue makes him overrated? How?!? People truly believe he is very good, and want to go see him. Some people see him because of his celebrity. How does that reflect him possibly being over-rated?
Championship: "My second argument checks- he's only good because they buy their team." - No, your second argument doesn't check. He is good despite him being on a good team. I seem to remember a certain Carl Pavano doing brilliantly for the Florida Marlins and then being awful for the Yankees. Will you argue that the Marlins are better than the Yankees? I'd love to see those arguments! He was a valid and major contributor to the team when they won.

You seem to think you should win because I didn't attack everything. Debate is about, as I'm sure you know, education. Obviously if you occasionally get something right here and there, I can't just disagree. You are right that:
He isn't the best shortstop defensively and RBI's, Striking Out, and a few other areas aren't his stronger suits. He is in no way BAD at these things (just not great), but the question isn't "Is he bad at these things?"... Rather the REAL question is: "Do people believe that he is good at things he isn't?" Simply put, he is still a great debater EVEN WITH these weaker areas. This actually makes my arguments stronger because even in face of his weaker areas, he is a great player overall. Also, you said I dropped the RBI thing, when I most certainly did not. I argued that in the second position for the batting order, how often does he get a chance to hit someone home? Not that often. It is a weighted statistic. A more reasonable number to look at would be runs, which I believe you said he was 87th in. His career isn't over, and 87th of ALL-TIME is no small feat.

1. Hits - You basically just said that Derek Jeter getting hits supports your argument. What? He is on pace to be among the elite hitters of ANY generation. This makes him overrated?

2. You brought up his career average of 122 for OPS+. Pardon me for being one point off, I guess my source differs from yours. Anyway, you didn't even mention that he got over 160 in a season. How many people have EVER done that? Not many, I believe there are three. That is still a humongous talent.

3. I don't believe that you understand the concept of Adjusted Batting Titles. It is basically adjusted to fit the effects that stadiums had on other player's statistics. That means that if every stadium was a carbon copy of each other, than Jeter would have won three batting-titles. By the way, I never said he "Would have won three adjusted batting title". I said he "won three adjusted batting titles".

4. Even being considered at the pinnacle of the talent in MLB is still better than 1000's of other players can even imagine. Also, the point of the debate is to prove whether he is overrated. Do people believe to be the unanimous MVP? Unless they do, he cannot be overrated.

5. You say this point is moot because it relies on future statistics. Why does that make it moot. There is obviously a chance of it not happening, but there is a chance of him breaking every record next year. What we must do is project where he is going. He is projected to be among the premier hitters in HISTORY. That's bad? You also say that circumstance makes hi a good hitter. First off, batting second doesn't give him more chances of hitting. Also, a good team makes him be able to hit more? What? Tony Gwynn was a great hitter and he played for the Padres, who weren't that good.

6. You gave three shortstops from the steroid era that were great power hitters. Well, I just argued that, historically, the position isn't for power hitting. There are two types of hitters, those who hit for power, or average. Doing both is impossible to be expected off. He does the average bit, and does it well. And again, does anyone allege that he is the best homerun hitter ever? Because that is the only way he would be overrated on homerun hitting.

7. What does it matter what his historical position is? He does it well, and you never argued he didn't. I'm glad you put the perspective in there, but still. Also, again! Where is your info that says people think of him as the best person ever at driving in runs. HE ISN'T OVERRATED in your opinion. From what you have said, he is just bad (not true).

8. I never said the Yankees were terrible, but I don't think they are good. They are a wild-card team, and they are old. I also don't see how a team could inflate the STATISTICS of Jeter. Again, do people think he has the worst team ever and he makes them good? No. They don't. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that he is overrated.

My opponent has failed to mention the expectations placed on Jeter that he has not met, and therefore hasn't proved that he is overrated. He gave reasons that Jeter is bad, but never that he is overrated. Also, his basis of the statistics argument was that "Jeter has no stats". Also false. Jeter does have stats. Anyway, I have won the debate because the Pro hasn't met the duties necessary for him to meet to win (i.e. proving that Jeter doesn't meet some expectation). Also, I have extended all relevant points.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

My opponents argument is valiable, but has one fatal mistake. He says I must prove that people think too highly of him before I can make an assumption. But the mistake he makes is coming into this debate. Throughout this round, he has been arguing how Derek Jeter is not overrated. Had this argument been his only argument, it would be a good one, but there is a major contradiction. Think of it this way:
Round 1 Pro: Derek Jeter is overrated
Round 1 Con: Jeter is very good and should be recognized highly.
"He also had a very strong argument for being the AL MVP in both 1999 and 2006"
"He was voted 38th in top 100 celebrities (2005) and even has his own cologne."
"He is the captain of the Yankees. That is a hard achievement and they don't just give it out."
Round 2 Pro: He is not good and hence overrated
Round 2 Con: People don't think highly of him so he can't be overrated.
But Wait: In round 1 you proved to me people think highly of him?
So don't evaluate this argument, it is a complete contradiction and should be thrown out.

But, just for this debate, I will talk about his stats in the years he was an all-star, because the public thinks he is one of the best in baseball. The years are 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007. No way can people think he is not good in these years, because they voted HIM BEST IN BASEBALL.

Since the con concedes defense, RBIs, HRs, No MVPs, Average (yes, still has hits), stolen bases, and On base percentage, I believe that is enough evidence saying that he isn't good, and hence overrated. So, for these reasons, you should vote pro now.
The only things he has is OPS+ and hits.
OPS+: "many people have EVER done that? Not many, I believe there are three. That is still a humongous talent."
Well, he is still 87th all time. That is exactly what I'm talking about. People say 'oh derek jeter is so good he got some statistic one year in 3rd place.' That doesn't justify him being a good player.
Hits: You conceded average. This again supports my argument that even though he has a number of hits, he plays almost every game of the year. Anyone's bound to get some kind of record if they play enough games. I beileve average is more important, because it is a ratio. Since he conceded average, I win this argument. Don't let him bring up average in the last speech, that would be unfair, as he gets the last speech.
Runs: Whoopydy do, he touched home plate in the millions of times he went at bat. He's only 87th. This yet again supports my argument that he gets at bat a lot of times, so he'll get a record. Who has the most hits in MLB? Pete Rose. Do you know who has the most games played in MLB? PETE ROSE.

Answers:
1. I did not say he was not the leader, I said that we don't know how that affects a team and how much of a leader he is.
2. Bringing in Revenue makes him overrated because I believe he doesn't deserve it, and most people do.
3. Yes, my second argument does check this one. He is overrated and has nothing to do with his team's winning percentage.
4. Yes, I do think I should win because you didn't answer everything. If all you have his hits and OPS, I beileve those aren't significant enough to say he is a good player and not overrated.
5. "He is in no way BAD at these things (just not great), but the question isn't "Is he bad at these things?"... Rather the REAL question is: "Do people believe that he is good at things he isn't?"
Well, yes, it kind of is that first question. Since he went to all of these all star games, and he's bad, that makes him overrated.
6. "Also, you said I dropped the RBI thing, when I most certainly did not."
here's what you said about it.
"RBI's are important, and Jeter isn't drowning in them (although he doesn't have a slim number either), but he does have a high run's scored number "
Sounds like you conceded that. You never said that batting order argument in your first speech.
7. I most certainly do understand adjusted batting titles. What I am saying is that we need to look at the stats right now, and not adjust anything. Did he win three batting titles? No he did not.
8. "Do people believe to be the unanimous MVP? Unless they do, he cannot be overrated."
I never said is Derek Jeter the most overrated player in baseball, nor did I say he was a great player. He never got an MVP because they came to their senses, looked at his stats, and realized he is not that good. That doesn't change the fact that the fans thought he was the best SS in baseball and voted him to and ASG.
9. As I said, we should not rely upon future statistics because we never know what is going to happen, or what has happened. Look to stats RIGHT NOW.
10. "a good team makes him be able to hit more?"
Um yeah, if they get on base, that is not an out. 3 outs in an inning. They can get through the lineup more, allowing for more AB
11."Well, I just argued that, historically, the position isn't for power hitting. does anyone allege that he is the best homerun hitter ever?"
You never said this Power-average hitter argument until now. All you said was 'SS aren't power hitters'. I proved that the are. Nomar, Cal Ripken, A-Rod.
12. "never said the Yankees were terrible, but I don't think they are good. They are a wild-card team, and they are old."
Ummm yeah the Yankees are good. Their great. I proved that. Ok, their old. And wild card. THEY STILL MAKE IT TO THE PLAYOFFS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. The only reason he is somewhat good is that his team is good. Vote Pro on this argument.

So, I should win this debate, because I have proved that people think highly of him, because he was elected to 8 all-stars, and I only took facts from those years. I have proven that in fact, he is not a good player, and the only thing the con has arguments on is hits, OPS, and Runs. But, since these are all because he plays so many games, they should not be evaluated. There is a major contradiction by the Con, and they have very little offense against my case. Vote Pro.
Rousseau

Con

First, I would like to note that saying "Derek Jeter is good", and then arguing that the Pro never proved that Jeter was overrated is NOT a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if overrated meant "not good", but overrated means (as I have brought up) "To assess or think too highly of something or someone". It isn't a contradiction for me to bring up statistics saying that Jeter is good in that area UNLESS he is, in fact, NOT good at the area. Any and all statistics I brought up were true, and he is very good at the areas the statistics represent. The Pro side has failed to bring up in what specific places Jeter is overrated. He could have said something along the lines of "People think Jeter is the best hitter ever, that isn't true.", but he never did. All he proved was that Jeter isn't great at every single thing in the game. In fact, I agreed that he isn't great at every facet. Therefore (at least according to the arguments presented JUST in the debate), Jeter is not overrated. This is because Pro never proved that Jeter was assessed to highly in some area. He just brought up personal opinion of why Jeter isn't great. He never brought up anyone elses conflicting opinion saying "Jeter is the best ever" (or something along those lines). If he had, then he would have proved that Jeter was overrated, but... he has not. He said that I proved that people though highly of him. I did no such thing. I mearly proved that he was good in some areas, and unless those staistics lie, he is. I argued that Jeter brings many qualities to the Yankees, and he is valuable (justly so). So that means that I may think highly of Jeter, yet the Pro team has never proved that my beliefs were missplaced. Just that he isn't good at all areas (which I never argued he was). The one argument that even came close to proving that Jeter was though high of was the All-Star argument. Jeter has been elected to several All-Star games, and the Pro side tried to make that argument say that people thought too highly of him. However, for that to be valid, he would have to prove that Jeter is not deserving of the All-Star award. That, in fact, is not true.

Wilson - http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Jeter - http://www.baseball-reference.com...

I don't know if Jack Wilson is the worst, but the point is that Jeter is in no way the worst All-Star. If you look at season averages (it wouldn't be fair to compare career numbers, as Jeter has played longer), Jeter beats Wilson in everything (that I saw). Thus, just because Jeter is an All-Star, it doesn't mean that he is overrated. If Jack Wilson, who is worse in every area compared to Jeter, can get in a All-Star game... Well than I believe that Jeter is well-deserved of his. Also, just proving that Jeter got these awards doesn't prove that he didn't deserve them. All the Pro argued was that his statistics weren't ridiculous, but compared to other All-Stars, he definatly isn't bad. In fact, he is better than many other All-Stars, thus proving he, indeed, belongs in the All-Star game.

Anyway, I think that argument there should warrant a vote for Con right away, because the Pro failed to bring up anything that says people assess Jeter's abilities to high. He just proved that Jeter isn't great at some areas of the game. This in fact, means that the Pro hasn't fufilled his obligations as the Pro team, and there is really no choice but to vote for the Con. Anyway, I'll go ahead and respond to the other arguments, for good measure.

"Since the con concedes defense, RBIs, HRs, No MVPs, Average (yes, still has hits), stolen bases, and On base percentage, I believe that is enough evidence saying that he isn't good, and hence overrated." First off, that is a bogus statement. I never conceded any of those things. I actually had arguments on all of them. I conceded that he may not be great in all of those areas, but I never conceded that it made him overrated. In fact, the Pro has completely ignored my points on why they DON't make him overrated.
RBI's - Not much of a chance to get RBI's when you bat Second in any lineup. (He never responded to this, thus agreeing)
HR's - Argued that Short Stop is not a position that requires power. There are two types of players (power and average hitters), and Jeter is the player that hits for average. He never proved that you need HR's to be good, so therefore he never proved that Jeter was overrated.
No MVP's - He never once brought up that anybody thought he should be a MVP, and therefore... if it isn't expected of him, than his lack of MVP's doesn't make him overrated. I believe I argued that Jeter had strong cases to be an MVP in two seasons, but I never said I believed he should be one.
Average - You never brought this up, this is an untouched topic until last round, and therefore I couldn't have dropped it, because this is my first time to be able to respond to it. My response - His career batting average is .317, which is in no way bad. It is in fact good. Therefore, the argument saying "Jeter is overrated because he lacks average" is moot, because he does have a good average.
SB - The Yankee record is 326 SB in a career. Jeter has 264 and has enough seasons left in him to break the record. So therefore, Jeter isn't overrated because of his "lack of SB". Also, SB aren't neccesary to make a great, or even good, player. Lou Gehrig was a good player, and he didn't have record breaking speed. So was Babe Ruth (who granted was good for other reasons)! Therefore, Jeter isn't shabby at SB, and even if he wasn't, they aren't drastically important.
OPB - His is .288, which AGAIN, isn't bad. He would have to prove that people thought that Jeter was a God when it came to OBP, in order to prove that Jeter was overrated. He hasn't, and therefore, his arguments are moot and negated.

Other Arguments
Leader - You said, and I quote "we don't know how... how much of a leader he is". He is captain of the Yankees! Show me one captain of the Yankees who WASN'T a leader! Purely defensive arguments here, and therefore, it still makes him a better player (regardless of how much).
Revenue - You think that he doesn't deserve it, but many people come because he is something of a celebrity. This doesn't mean his playing skills are overrated. It just means people like the man.
"Do people think he is good at areas which he isn't?" - You again, argued the All-Star thing, which I disproved. Also, this operates on the assumption that you win your other arguments (which I have negated)
Yankees Make Him Good - Fine, you argue the Yankees make him good, I argue they don't. There is no way to countify how much the Yankees help, so I'll just try to disprove you. You say that the Yankees make him good. This means that being a Yankee inflates your statistics. Well.. I guess if I can show a Yankee with bad statistic, then you would be wrong. Welll.... Oh! Here you go: http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Batting Titles - You say that he never won Batting Titles, and that makes him bad. However, just saying it doesn't make it true. Good players can go their entire lives and not win Batting Titles. Also, Jeter is right-handed, and Yankee field does not favor Right-Handed hitters to well. Thus, adjusted Batting Titles are more fair (He's got three)
MVP - "He never got an MVP because they came to their senses, looked at his stats, and realized he is not that good. That doesn't change the fact that the fans thought he was the best SS in baseball and voted him to and ASG." - I proved he deserved the All-Star. Again, you have yet to prove that he is thought to be MVP, and therefore yet to prove that he is overrated)
"if they get on base, that is not an out. 3 outs in an inning. They can get through the lineup more, allowing for more AB" - But if he didn't have talent, he couldn't hit.

I have negated all arguments and the Pro hasn't fufilled all his duties. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JeremyMcNamee 4 years ago
JeremyMcNamee
I agree with Pro but dude your reasoning for it was not sound so I had to go Con
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Why thank you! You are a very good debater too, and this was close.

I'm 9-0-1 (with one tie) right now. And this is the debate I'm tied on:

http://www.debate.org...

I took up a devil's advocate position and the opponent made no arguments. Yet it's tied...

Ah well, cheers.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
ohwwww, 6 votes!

Rosseau, your a good debater and worthy opponent. I can't beileve your 9-0.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
hahahahaha
well then, go bosox i guess
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
... I'm a Boston Red Sox fan... I've mentioned that. Please try to control your "friends".
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
that was my brother's friend, but the Yankees do suck
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
you suck at life derek jeter sucks boston 4life
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Hah! Well obviously, a Freudian Slip. It probably means that you're a good debater. Yeah, well its about 1:30 AM over here, so... I hope that explains it. Heh..
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Simply put, he is still a great debater EVEN WITH these weaker areas.

hahahahahahahahaha I didn't know he was a debater
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
I'm not a debater, although I used to be and I constantly judge tournaments. Love to debate you some time, although I may be a tad rusty.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TD_Cole 4 years ago
TD_Cole
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I realized my original vote was based on my own study. Sorry
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 Bean 9 years ago
Bean
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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 jordanbs 9 years ago
jordanbs
Pluto2493RousseauTied
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