The Instigator
PeacefulChaos
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
GaryBacon
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

"Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,863 times Debate No: 18513
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

PeacefulChaos

Con

This is my first debate on Debate.org, so I am pretty excited about it! The first round will be for acceptance only.

Resolution:

The resolution states, “Do or do not, there is no try”, a famous quote from Yoda. I, con, will be arguing against this statement. I will be stating that there is such thing as trying.

My opponent, pro, will agree with the resolution. He/she will try to prove that there isn't such thing as trying.

Therefore, I stand firm in the following statement: There is such thing as trying.

GaryBacon

Pro

As a fan of Star Wars and Yoda, I must defend Yoda's position.

In the scene containing that famous quote, Luke is "trying" to raise the ship using the force. Yoda makes a valid point by showing that the words "I'll try" contain a defeatist attitude. Luke had the ability to raise the ship, but lacked the confidence and therefore the effort.

Of course, we are not merely debating a scene in a movie. You feel that this quote is not universally applicable. I disagree.

The definition of try is to make an effort to do or accomplish (something).

Yoda's point is very simple: if you make enough of an effort to accomplish an attainable goal, you will reach that goal. If someone claims that he or she has tried and failed, a further investigation into the matter will show that the effort was lacking somewhere along the way. Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried." And at that point, the commitment would pay off. No one putting all of their effort into an attainable enterprise is going to say "I tried"-- they are going to say "I did."

There really is no middle ground. You will find countless millions that claim they have "tried" something or other. But the efforts had to be half-hearted in order for them to not succeed.
Debate Round No. 1
PeacefulChaos

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I would like to say that I am honored to have my challenge accepted by such an experienced debater like you, GaryBacon. Now, it is on to my arguments! First, I will rebut my opponent’s arguments and then I will bring my own arguments into play. I will try to do my best (if you get what I mean).

Definition:

“The definition of try is to make an effort to do or accomplish (something)."

I agree with this definition.

My opponent’s arguments:

“Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried."”

This is not entirely true. Let us refer back to the definition of the word, “try”. It means to make an effort to do or accomplish (something). The definition does not state how much effort is required for something to be considered “trying”. Therefore, your argument, which I have quoted above, is incorrect. You state that the only way you can say that you have truly “tried” is to commit to something completely and totally, whereas the definition does not require you to commit to something completely or totally. It simply requires you to make an effort, no matter how small or how big.

“And at that point, the commitment would pay off. No one putting all of their effort into an attainable enterprise is going to say "I tried"-- they are going to say "I did."”

My opponent follows up with this argument. I have already proven that his previous argument is incorrect; therefore, this argument has no value. However, if we were to assume that his previous argument is correct, this new argument would still be incorrect. Simply because you commit to something completely and totally does not necessarily mean that your commitment will pay off. For example, if you commit to winning a debate (such as this) fully and totally, your commitment might not pay off (in other words, you might not win the debate). Moreover, you do not have to commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for. You could commit to something partially (about 80-90%) and still get what you are striving for.

“You will find countless millions that claim they have "tried" something or other. But the efforts had to be half-hearted in order for them to not succeed.”

I have stated before how someone could commit to something fully and totally and still fail, so this argument is irrelevant as well. I could have studied for a math test as hard as I can, and I could still not make an “A+”, which would have been my goal. I have also stated how you can commit to something partially (80-90%) and still reach what you are striving for. Now I shall present my first argument.

1. The existence of “processes” proves the existence of “trying”.

My argument is telling us that the existence of a process can prove the existence of trying. The first thing I shall do is prove the existence of processes.

An example of a process is doing a math problem. There is a beginning (the problem) and an outcome (the answer to the problem). Now, how did we get to the outcome of the problem? We went through a process of solving the math problem to get the answer; therefore, processes do exist. In fact, processes can be even more important than the outcome! When you solve a math problem, the answer is important; however, the process as to how to get to that answer is even more important!

“Process is more important than outcome. When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we’ve already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.” This is a quote from Bruce Mau, a Canadian Designer [1].

So, how does Mau’s quote apply to this situation? It applies because once you figure out the process of how to solve that math problem, you can apply it to all the other math problems in that area of math. So not only do processes exist and not only are they essential to getting an outcome, but they are also more important than the outcome.

Now that we have proved the existence of processes, you may ask, “How does this prove the existence of trying?” A process requires that you try (in other words, it requires that you put effort into your actions). Without trying, there is no process, which results in no outcome. As you can see, “trying” is essential to a process. Because this is so, if a process exists, so does trying, because without trying, there would be no process. The process is the big picture, but trying is one of the parts of a process. Therefore, because my opponent is arguing that there is no such thing as trying, he is essentially stating that there is no such thing as processes (which I have proven to be true), which makes his arguments irrelevant.

Not only does my argument prove the existence of trying, it also rebuts one of his last points.

“There really is no middle ground.”

This brings us back to my opponent’s second to last statement. By stating, “There is no middle ground”, you are stating there is no trying. Moreover, by stating, there is no such thing as trying; you are stating that there is no such thing as a process. If you are stating that there is no such thing as processes, then you are also stating that there is no such thing as an outcome. I have proven that there is such thing as processes and trying. You have agreed that there is such thing as an outcome because you are agreeing to the resolution “Do or do not, there is no try”. The resolution is stating that there is a “Do or do not”, which are examples of an outcome of a situation. You state that there is no middle ground, and at the same time, you agree that there are such things as outcomes. Therefore, you have essentially contradicted yourself.

2. There is more than one meaning of try.

When Yoda quoted “Do or do not, there is no try”, he neglected to realize that there is more than one meaning of try. The definition that my opponent and I have agreed upon is a common use of try, but there are other common uses of try as well. From Dictionary.com [2], we find that there are several other forms of try. A commonly used one is, “to test the effect or result of”. There is also, “to test the quality, value, fitness, accuracy, etc.”

Therefore, my opponent and Yoda are stating that there is no such thing as testing as well as trying. From the definition that I have quoted from Dictionary.com, it states, “to test the effect or result of”. Trying is not only putting an effort or attempting to do something, but it is also testing. I shall now prove the existence of testing.

When scientists want to make a law or a theory, what do you think they have to do? They have to go through the scientific method. In the scientific method, they do something called an experiment. The definition of experiment is a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc. [3] In the definition that I have provided, it states that an experiment is a test. So not only is trying testing, it is also experimenting! Scientists experiment all the time. They experiment to determine whether something is true or false, a law or a theory, correct or incorrect; therefore, experimenting exists. Because experimenting exists, so does testing. Because testing exists, so does trying.

I have proven the existence of trying by proving that there is such thing as testing and experimenting since testing and experimenting are trying.

I apologize that I could not include a summary. Sadly, it seemed that it was too many characters. Anyways, I await my opponent’s arguments and wish him good luck.

[1] http://vimeo.com... (It is not necessary to watch the video. The quote is directly under the video.)

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...+

GaryBacon

Pro

We both agree on the definition of try [I.e. to make an effort to do or accomplish (something)]. I said 'Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried."' You claim that this is not true, and that the definition does not say how much effort is required for something to be considered "trying."

But I think the definition does state how much effort. It says "an effort." The words "an" and "a" when used before nouns and noun phrases denote a single but unspecified person or thing. The term "an effort" denotes a single effort. Not a third of an effort, not half of an effort, and not three quarters of an effort.

You also claim that committing to something 100% will not necessarily mean that the commitment will pay off, stating "if you commit to winning a debate (such as this) fully and totally, your commitment might not pay off (in other words, you might not win the debate)." I disagree. I think you fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean. If winning a debate is really the ultimate goal, then everything else would be neglected to attain that goal. You would take days off of work and/or school, spend all of the free time between rounds analyzing and developing arguments, and refine the wording to perfection before posting. Of course, I know of no examples of anyone actually committing to a debate this much, but I definitely believe that it would pay off.

You state "Moreover, you do not have to commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for." I don't see how this is an argument against what I said. If anything, it supports my argument. If you believe that you can accomplish something with only an 80% or 90% commitment, obviously that goal would also be attained with a 100% commitment. My claim was that the goal will be attained with a 100% commitment. This does not imply that the goal will definitely not be attained with less commitment.

When you claim that you could have studied for a math test as hard as you can without getting an A+, I believe you once again fail to understand what a full and total commitment would require. You would have to make sure that you learned everything that could be on the math test, inside and out. If there was uncertainty in any area, you would have to make sure that you cleared up the misunderstanding. And that would require additional practice problems, reinforcing everything learned, and constantly working at it until you had no doubts at all about anything on the test.
Failing to commit to this level, and then studying hard the night before the test does not constitute a commitment of 100%.

Now for the new arguments:

You say that the existence of "process" proves the existence of "trying." The process of doing a math problem is used as an example. Then you state "Now, how did we get to the outcome of the problem? We went through a process of solving the math problem to get the answer."

As a reminder, we are debating the quote "Do or do not. There is no try."

Getting the answer to the math problem is DOING the math problem. There is always going to be an intermediate process that leads to attaining any goal. The fact that the process exists does not disprove the quote. Going through the process to get the answer and then arriving at the answer is not TRYING to solve a math problem. It is solving it.

As far as the Bruce Mau quote goes, there is really nothing to say. Whether the process or the answer is more important is an entirely separate debate. We are not arguing as to whether the process or the outcome is more important. The process could take precedence without detracting from my argument. My argument is simply that committing to something completely will yield the desired outcome. Telling me that the process of reaching the outcome is more important is irrelevant.

To recap, I do believe that there are outcomes. And yes, some process will take place to get to that outcome. And if you commit to reaching a certain outcome, you will reach it. There is no contradiction in acknowledging the existence of outcomes, processes, and the truth of the quote.

Then you move to the definitions of try. Yoda does not fail to realize that there is more than one definition of the word "try." As with all homonyms, context clues must be used to arrive at the correct definition. If I claim that I am going to buy a new mouse for my computer, I don't know anyone foolish enough to believe that I am going to a pet store to make this purchase. Nor do I hear people clarifying the word each time it is used. Context lets others know whether we are discussing a small rodent or a hand-operated device controlling the coordinates of a cursor. By not stating which type of mouse is under discussion, all of the people that use the term are not failing to realize that there is more than one definition. It is simply that context makes such explanations unnecessary.

Yoda's quote in question clearly refers to the definition on which both of us have agreed. To "try" in the quote is to make an effort. It is not to perform a scientific experiment.

If someone bakes a cake and asks me to try a piece, I cannot reply "I can only do the cake or not do the cake. There is no try." It wouldn't make any sense. Trying food is also not the type of try that is meant. We could exhaust all of the definitions of the word, but that just goes off on a tangent. The context of both the movie scene and the quote lets everyone know the correct definition of the word "try." To debate under any other definition would be to give up on debating the validity of the quote.
Debate Round No. 2
PeacefulChaos

Con



I will now address my opponent’s arguments/rebuttals.


My opponent’s rebuttals to my rebuttals.


“The words "an" and "a" when used before nouns and noun phrases denote a single but unspecified person or thing. The term "an effort" denotes a single effort. Not a third of an effort, not half of an effort, and not three quarters of an effort.”


You are essentially stating that it must be a full effort, since the definition is stating an effort; however, then we would have to determine, “What is an effort?” How big would it be? You cannot really measure “an effort”. Everyone has a different perspective of what “an effort” would be. If you put what you consider “an effort” into an action, someone else may consider that half an effort and not “an effort”. Then, once you determine what “an effort” would be, you have to determine how many efforts it takes to get to 100% commitment. Just because you make an effort does not necessarily mean that you give 100% effort. It might take you several efforts to get to that stage.


Moreover, let us say that I made “an effort” to clean my garage. Does that necessarily mean that it is spotless in all areas because I committed to cleaning it 100%? No, it simply means that I made an effort to clean the garage, and I could have failed or succeeded. Using common sense, we can assume that the speaker who says, “I made an effort to clean my garage” does not mean that he made a 100% effort to clean his garage. Rather, he simply made “an effort”, and because “an effort” is different for all of us, the effort could have resulted in him having a still very messy garage (since his view of “an effort” would not be very much). Alternatively, it could be very clean, because his view of “an effort” would be very high. Like I said, there is no way to measure, “an effort”, it mainly depends on the view of a person.


In addition, let us say that we have “a number”. Cant “a number” be any number? So could it not be 1.5? 1.5 is not a whole number, but it is still “a number”. Therefore, we can apply this situation to “an effort”.


“I think you fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean.”


I do not fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean. I simply claimed that it was possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100%. It is possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100% because you could be against someone else who is committing 100% as well; therefore, it is possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100%. This makes your arguments of, “Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried." And at that point, the commitment would pay off”, incorrect, as I have proved that at that point, the commitment might not pay off.


“You state "Moreover, you do not have to commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for." I don't see how this is an argument against what I said. If anything, it supports my argument.”


Again, I stated that it is possible to not commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for.


“When you claim that you could have studied for a math test as hard as you can without getting an A+, I believe you once again fail to understand what a full and total commitment would require.”


Remember, I am arguing just because you commit to something completely and totally, 100% does not necessarily mean that your commitment will pay off. In other words, it is possible to commit something 100% and still fail. (Your arguments are stating that if you commit to something 100% your commitment will pay off. I am pointing out the exceptions, thus proving your argument wrong, since you didn’t address those exceptions in the first place.) You could know your math book inside and out, know everything there is to know, and then realize that you studied for the wrong thing.


My opponent’s rebuttals to my arguments.


“As a reminder, we are debating the quote "Do or do not. There is no try. "”


I realize we are arguing the existence of trying. I was simply proving the existence of processes in that paragraph so that later on I could link the existence of processes to the existence of trying.


“The fact that the process exists does not disprove the quote. Going through the process to get the answer and then arriving at the answer is not TRYING to solve a math problem. It is solving it.”


The fact that process exists proves the existence of trying. I am not stating that trying is the process; I am stating that it is an essential piece to the process. Because trying is an essential piece of the process (as I have proved earlier), process cannot exist with out trying. I have proved the existence of process; therefore, process exists. If it exists and it cannot exist without trying, then trying has to exist or else process would not exist. This is how the existence of process proves the existence of trying, thus making the quote wrong.


“Whether the process or the answer is more important is an entirely separate debate.”


I put Bruce Mau’s quote just to further reinforce any doubt that process exists.


“To recap, I do believe that there are outcomes. And yes, some process will take place to get to that outcome. And if you commit to reaching a certain outcome, you will reach it. There is no contradiction in acknowledging the existence of outcomes, processes, and the truth of the quote.”


There is a contradiction, though. You are obviously arguing against the existence of trying, correct? I have proved that trying is so essential to the process that the process cannot exist without trying. If there is no trying, there is no process, which means you are also arguing against the existence of process. By arguing against the existence of process, you are arguing against the existence of outcome. It all boils down to this, since you are arguing against trying, you are arguing against process. Since you are arguing against process, you are arguing against outcome. At the same time, you are supporting outcome; therefore, you have contradicted yourself.


“As with all homonyms, context clues must be used to arrive at the correct definition. If I claim that I am going to buy a new mouse for my computer, I don't know anyone foolish enough to believe that I am going to a pet store to make this purchase.”


I understand that we must use context clues; however, in Round 1 I clearly stated what the arguments were to be. I stated that you will be agreeing with the resolution AND that you have to prove there is no such thing as trying. (I was referring to the most commonly used terms of try.) The resolution is just one of the forms of try that you are arguing against; therefore, you have yet to prove that these forms of try do not exist.


“If someone bakes a cake and asks me to try a piece, I cannot reply "I can only do the cake or not do the cake. There is no try." It wouldn't make any sense.”


I have already stated that we are not just arguing against one form of try; therefore, the argument you have made against me is futile. In a way, you have dug your own hole. It is EXACTLY my point that you CANNOT reply, “I can only do the cake or not do the cake. There is no try”, because it would make no sense. You have to say, “OK, I will try the cake”. Alternatively, you could say, “OK, I will not try the cake”. In this way, it supports the existence of trying, because you cannot reply with a do or do not statement; you have to respond with a try statement (or else it would not work).


3. To master the force, you must “try”.


Luke, in Star Wars, wants to master the force. This requires effort. If you do not put effort into the force, then you will fail at mastering the force. Moreover, you need the will to do the force. In order to have the will to do it, it requires that you put effort into the action. It requires that you actually care about it enough to “try” to do it. Therefore, “try” does exist.




GaryBacon

Pro

You: "You are essentially stating that it must be a full effort, since the definition is stating an effort."

This is true. Think about it: if it is not a full effort, is it really an effort? When someone claims that they have made an effort, they are basically lying to themselves. What they have actually done is given up. It sounds better to say "I made the effort." But adeep analysis of the situation will show that the person gave up somewhere along the way. And if you give up, you cannot truthfully state that you made an effort.

You: "Just because you make an effort does not necessarily mean that you give 100% effort."

But it does necessarily mean just that. Anything less is not making a real effort. Sure, people constantly claim that they've made an effort with less than 100%. But did they REALLY make an effort? They didn't give it their all, and deep down they know that this means they didn't REALLYmake the effort.

You ask how big an effort would be, what is an effort, and claim that it cannot be measured. You follow this up by stating "Everyone has a different perspective of what 'an effort' would be." People may view it differently, but through multiple perspectives we can arrive at the truth. Each time someone suggests something else that could've been done to make MORE of "an effort" that would move it closer to actually making an effort.

To demonstrate this, we can use your garage example. You claim that you committed to cleaning it 100% and yet it is not spotless. Why isn't it spotless? What was left uncleaned? At some point, you said "Eh, it's clean enough" and then gave up. People may have different perspectives, but the fact that the garage is not fully cleaned shows that your perspective is clearly wrong. Your so-called effort could not have been 100% as you claim. If it was, the garage would be spotless. Those that view this effort to clean the garage as a full effort are simply wrong.

As far as the number example, there is no such thing as a half of a number. A half of an effort, perhaps should be reworded as a half-hearted effort or a 50% effort. But I think my message was clear enough. If the effort is half-hearted, it is not truly an effort.

When it comes to losing a debate, stating that both parties were committed 100%, you need to really think about this situation. The person that lost the debate had to have had a distorted view of what 100% means. In order to lose the debate, there had to be some argument that wasn't used, some research that wasn't done, or some wording that was not quite perfect. If someone loses a debate, there was a flaw somewhere. And consequently, there was a lack of effort somewhere along the way. With two people committing 100% in a debate: first off, it would never happen. But if it hypothetically did, there could first be a tie. Then another debate challenge to continue, again and again and again. Someone will eventually give less than 100% and eventually lose. The one truly committed 100% comes out on top.

Moving on to the math test, you state: "You could know your math book inside and out, everything there is to know, and then realize that you studied for the wrong thing." This doesn't make any sense to me. If you know the math book inside and out, you clearly studied for EVERYTHING. How could this result in studying for the wrong thing? No matter what comes out on that math test, it must be included under the extremely broad umbrella of EVERYTHING. So, to steal one of your quotes that is ubiquitous throughout this debate, you have contradicted yourself.

Going back to the existence of process and outcomes: In these terms, Yoda's quote would be reworded as "Achieve the outcome, or don't achieve the outcome. There is no try." Maybe the word "try" should be replaced by the word "process" in the rewording. But since you make it clear that you are not stating that trying is the process, only a piece to the process, I've decided to leave the word 'try."

Regardless, the essence of the quote is easy to grasp. "Try" is the word people use after they have given up. They will say "I tried." But what should really be said is "I gave up." If the outcome was not reached, then you didn't REALLY try. Because of that, there really is no such thing as trying without doing. You wish to show that there is a process, and that trying is essential to the process. Furthermore, you claim that process is necessary for an outcome. What Yoda says is that you either achieve the outcome, or you don't. The process of achieving the outcome, or the "trying" that is part of the process, is not actually trying if that outcome is not reached.

You claim that since there is a process leading to the outcome, this disproves the quote and I have contradicted myself. I don't believe this to be true, but I suppose that is for the voters to decide.

On other definitions of try:

You state: "...in Round 1 I clearly stated what the arguments were to be."

QUOTE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ROUND 1: "The resolution states, "Do or do not, there is no try", a famous quote from Yoda. I, con, will be arguing against this statement. I will be stating that there is such thing as trying."

To me it seems pretty clear that you are arguing against the statement, and that I am arguing in favor of it. Because of this, I am not getting into other definitions of "try" when it is taken completely out of context. Voters may feel free to penalize me for not arguing against science experiments, trying a piece of cake, or that these are trying times that we live in. I believe that the quote was the essence of the argument, and it is that "try" that I am using.

To master the force, you must "try."

Luke, in Star Wars, DID master the force. It did require effort, as you rightly claim. And since Luke goes on to completely master the force, it is an example of an actual effort; not a half-hearted one.

Mater the force, or don't master the force. There is no try. Yoda's words obviously stuck with Luke. And I stand firm in my belief that the quote is true.
Debate Round No. 3
PeacefulChaos

Con

PeacefulChaos forfeited this round.
GaryBacon

Pro

I really did enjoy this debate.

With the lack of anything to rebut this round, I will simply summarize the points that I've made and clarify my position.

I am defending Yoda's famous quote, "Do or do not. There is no try."

In essence, Yoda believes that when a person says "I'll try" that person is showing a bit of a negative attitude. Consequently, if you did not achieve whatever it was that you set out to do, you did not truly try. Because when it really comes down to it, trying results in doing.

This does contain a consequence and a truth that most people don't wish to face. That truth is that every time you claimed to have tried, what you actually did was gave up. When you claimed to everyone else that you made an effort, you know in your heart that you stopped trying somewhere along the way. Because actual trying and actual effort leads to a desired outcome.

This is something that we don't like to admit to ourselves. But if you really think about it, Yoda is right. Saying that you tried and failed means that you didn't ACTUALLY try. You gave up. Somewhere along the way, the wind was taken out of your sails, and you decided to end whatever task you had set for yourself.

Whether it was cleaning a garage, acing a math test, or winning a debate such as this, a true and full-fledged effort should and will result in the desired outcome.

My opponent tried to negate Yoda's quote with the concept of "process." Looking back on it now, it has some slight analogies to Xeno's paradox. Xeno's paradox states that the arrow I just shot at you will never hit you. For, in order for the arrow to hit you, it must first reach the point halfway between you and I. And then it must first travel halfway between the midpoint and you. And halfway again, ad infinitum.

So Xeno's paradox plays on the fact that there are an infinite number of points in between the arrow and the target. Similarly, my opponent's argument of process plays on the fact that before setting out to achieve an outcome and achieving that outcome, there are many intermediate processes that take place.
But just as the arrow that a person shoots does hit the target, despite the infinite number of points, the person that tries (in the true sense) does achieve the outcome, despite the numerous processes that take place.

If you aren't giving it everything you've got, are you REALLY trying? Simply put, no. And that is why Yoda's quote remains true.

"Do or do not. There is no try."
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I now understand what you were trying to say. I do not know why that happens.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Voting for myself is not an issue. Whether it's allowed or not is usually pointless since both parties vote for themselves, which is the equivalent of neither voting. I was wondering mostly about the fact that our debate doesn't appear to other members (without them searching for it). But I guess that is the default setting. It just seemed strange to me.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I think that whoever created the debate determines if you can or cannot vote for yourself. I just had nearly everything on automatic, so I apologize that you cannot vote for yourself. Looking at your past debates, I see that you enjoy voting for yourself.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Just curious. I know debate.org has changed a lot since I last debated. Are there now certain settings you can place on a debate? This one doesn't appear on the main page showing all of the recently ended debates. It also seems that we can't vote for ourselves. Were both of these because of restrictions placed on the debate?
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I actually thought I had a day left. Well, it was still fun :) Sorry I did not get my last argument in. I would have made several points, but due to lack of time and the fact that I thought I had one more day left, I did not do so.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
A friend introduced me to this site a couple of years ago. I debated for a while and then stopped. I haven't had a debate in years. But I always believe in my position, so my arguments sometimes stem from deep introspection. I try to find the rationale behind my beliefs, and I use that reasoning in my arguments.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Dang, your good. How long have you been debating?
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Oh, I didn't see your other comment. I don't think that you should leave your next argument blank. Like I said, you only made a few key points in round 1. You may post as many arguments as the character limit will allow you.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I suppose they like camels :)
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Ok, it's my turn. Should I leave the next argument blank due to my infraction in round 1? Let me know.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering phantom.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 5 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct since Con forfeited a round. I personally think Con had better S
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 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: FF
Vote Placed by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Thought I would tie it even further?
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am countering that V-bomb to make other votes fair
Vote Placed by Off_the_Wall.Paul 5 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
PeacefulChaosGaryBaconTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Yoda is a fictional character, he is difficult for me to argue against. With that, overall I believe Gary Bacon succinctly argued his points and was just that much better in each category.