The Instigator
Mogget
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
LakevilleNorthJT
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site.

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: 6/11/2008 Category: Arts
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,748 times Debate No: 4385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (29)

 

Mogget

Pro

Just a spontaneous idea, I think it would have an overall benefit to the debate.org community. Anyone have some sort of opposition?
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

My opponent argues that every debate.org member ought get a friend to join. My argument is that every debate.org member should get TWO friends to join. This is a completely doable task and will have twice the benefits.
Debate Round No. 1
Mogget

Pro

Aye it is true, having two friends join this site would most likely double the benefit. However LakevillNorthJT has not done anything to contradict my case, instead he has confirmed it.

For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend.

If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange.

Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.org can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.org.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.org.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.org falls under my resolution.

In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

The resolution states that everyone should get A FRIEND to join. If we assume the resolution true, everyone needs to get a friend to join. Not friends but rather a friend. This means taht by bringing two friends instead of one, you are negating the resolution.

"For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. "

Under the wording of this sign, only one friend should be brought to McDonalds.

A FRIEND = 1
FRIENDS = 2+

Thus had the resolution said friends, my opponent would win.

"If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange."

I would argue this is not true. The people eating three should be punished for breaking the rules.

For example, lets say a teacher says if you get 80 percent you get a B. Students who get 90 percent would not get a B but rather an A.

Using this logic, we see that my argument clearly negates the resolution.

" Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.org can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.org.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.org.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.org falls under my resolution."

After the first step, the vote is pro. After the second, the vote is con. Bot of these steps MUST occur under my counterplan. The resolution says A FRIEND. After the two steps, you would have invited FRIENDS.

"In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.

A FRIEND limits the scope of the resolution. By extending this to two FRIENDS, I am contradicting the resolution which leads to a CON vote. Exactly one friend is the same as only one friend which the resolution implies.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 2
Mogget

Pro

Mogget forfeited this round.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

The resolution states that everyone should get A FRIEND to join. If we assume the resolution true, everyone needs to get a friend to join. Not friends but rather a friend. This means taht by bringing two friends instead of one, you are negating the resolution.

"For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. "

Under the wording of this sign, only one friend should be brought to McDonalds.

A FRIEND = 1
FRIENDS = 2+

Thus had the resolution said friends, my opponent would win.

"If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange."

I would argue this is not true. The people eating three should be punished for breaking the rules.

For example, lets say a teacher says if you get 80 percent you get a B. Students who get 90 percent would not get a B but rather an A.

Using this logic, we see that my argument clearly negates the resolution.

" Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.org can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.org.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.org.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.org falls under my resolution."

After the first step, the vote is pro. After the second, the vote is con. Bot of these steps MUST occur under my counterplan. The resolution says A FRIEND. After the two steps, you would have invited FRIENDS.

"In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.

A FRIEND limits the scope of the resolution. By extending this to two FRIENDS, I am contradicting the resolution which leads to a CON vote. Exactly one friend is the same as only one friend which the resolution implies.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
"If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange."

Yes but only given 1 balloon.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Sure Logical, what debate comment section are you bringing me to?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Mogget, I wish to subpoena you to a future debate comment section. Do you accept?
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Did anyone mention that "bring ONE friend" and "bring A friend" are completely different?

Oh well, I had another way to win as Con. Pro didn't have much of a chance here, it's a bad position to be in.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Meh sorry, was distracted, by the way, you should stop using multiple accounts very quickly.
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
LOL LOL, funny debate, almost as wacky as my IM HOT debate...idk y i made that debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
. . . but in that process, you'd still be getting A friend to join this site, thus you're essentially agreeing with Mogget. :(
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by emman101 8 years ago
emman101
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 beem0r-sucks 8 years ago
beem0r-sucks
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 ally93 8 years ago
ally93
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 bacon 8 years ago
bacon
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 necromancer 8 years ago
necromancer
MoggetLakevilleNorthJTTied
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