The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Fish are Awesome

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 41545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)




Fish are awesome.


I would like to thank my opponent as always for the invitation. What I will be discussing in this round is a criticism not aimed at my opponent personally, but at a situation (trolling!) on that continues to be problematic.

I would like to use this round first and foremost to express my utter frustration at trolls. While I could use this space to humor the debater, this would only support and supply the problem at hand. I could also ignore this topic, but then someone else might accept this challenge and spend several rounds spewing whatever words happen to come to this persons head. Both conditions:
1) Would be disrespectful toward other debaters who sincerely use this website as a means of achieving a greater understanding and expressing themselves, and not simply as a time-waster.

2) Would allow trolls to vote more easily than non-trolls. Someone who wants a few quick but irrational rounds will access voting privileges faster than one who doesn't troll. While voting for me won't change that fact, it will at least be a way of de-incentivizing trolling and rewarding people for actually debating.

3) Would make people less likely to take voting seriously. Because there are so many troll rounds, it makes those who vote tend to think that these their duties are less important. This type of debate may even influence voters to impatiently not read through a full debate carefully. I know this frustrates everyone; by voting my opponent down you will have validated the need to vote carefully.

In order to put an end to trolling, I have decided to intercept this round to make my views known. Stop the trolling!!!!!! Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1


Kavstar forfeited this round.


I wish to point out a few things.

4. I really like fish. I think it could be a good debate, if my opponent was genuine. But (s)he is not, and seems thus far to waste my time. Despite all my analysis, by opponent couldn't be bothered by more than a few words. This is rude, and makes debate less fun.

5. The first is that my opponent has, as of now, three debates going on. This is the same number needed to vote. Thus, my opponent put up this debate, not because (s)he felt that defending fish is particularly important, but that having completed three debates apparently is.

a. In case it changes, the debates are "Am I in the Truman Show," "Fish are Awesome," and "Has modern man advanced too much?"

b. IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, my opponent gave very at least one response that is less than a sentence long. In my case, my opponent did not even bother to reply, because my opponent wants to waste debates to get voting privileges.

c. This is a condition not unique to my opponent. Many people simply make three unimportant topics to try to simply finish their voting privileges. At least vote my opponent down.

6. The second is that my opponent forfeited the first round, which shows that demonstrating that "Fish are Awesome" is apparently not important to my opponent;

a. Thus, this debate would, under ordinary circumstances, be a waste. I will not let it be a waste. I will use this opportunity to show through debate how trolling is problematic.

b. I believe that debate has the power to change minds. I genuinely do. That is why I am debating this here now. My opponent apparently isn't bothered, because (s)he didn't respond to this debate.

7. Off round (because my opponent doesn't seem to care about the debate), my opponent admitted that "not many people are opposed to fish being awesome." This is exactly my point, and my opponent admitted that.

8. I don't even really know what side I'm on, what kind of fish we're talking about, how the round can be judged, whether the first round is acceptance or not, or what the definition of "awesome" is. I am given nothing. My opponent should be docked points for vagueness, lack of brightline (ways of cheating), and general unfairness and lack of education. Also, this shows that my opponent doesn't care about the debate.

Here's my critique of dropping rounds in general:
I will add some further points. While I understand that life gets in the way, I must add some of the problems with forfeiting rounds.
A. It's rude. I have spend a lot of time constructing these arguments, so for someone to simply not contend with them is very disappointing, and possibly a tad disrespectful. This might be reason enough to penalize my opponent. I don't know how you respond to rudeness judge, but if you respond to it negatively this might be something to consider in your final analysis. This is additionally rude, because I though my opponent invited me to debate, but that was shown not to be the case.
B. It's bad for debate. We are not able to come to a more educated understanding of the topic if only one side responds. I will have no idea what my opponent was thinking when (s)he wrote "Fish are awesome." I will have learned virtually nothing. In addition to that, people who read this debate will only witness one side of what ought to be a two-sided issue. Demonstrating two sides to an issue to increase education is what debate is all about, but my opponent has done the opposite of this. Even if my opponent debates in the next round, I will have lost an opportunity to respond, so therefore I will not be able to engage in my opponent's opinions. Such a case would not be a debate but a mere coinciding of opinions. Anyone who reads this debate in that case would incorrectly assume that I have no argument against my opponent's case, since I would be unable to respond to it. Thus, because Kavstar forfeited this round, this becomes less of a debate (since I can't engage in dialogue). Because (s)he has removed the validity of this debate and made this all a waste of time, I believe that you would be justified in voting for me in this debate for that reason alone.

In addition, my opponent dropped all my rounds which shows that all my original points (1-3) were accurate.

Remember, my opponent does not care about this debate.
1. (S)He has made three debates only, demonstrating (s)he wants to get voting privileges without doing work.
2. (S)He previously gave one sentence replies in ALL OF HER DEBATES
3. (S)He admits that few people would ever think fish aren't awesome. What does this topic even mean, anyway!?
4. (S)He dropped her round (making me wait), which shows not only rudeness, unfairness, but also that (s)he doesn't care about the debate.
5. (S)He gives me nothing to go on about what this debate even is about in the first or second rounds. How am I supposed to debate that way?

1. I had to accept this round to avoid trolling
2. I intend to stop trolling through this round
3. Judges who don't like trolling have to vote for me
4. By not replying to all of our points, my opponent is tricking us into debating, but actually wastes our time. See the "Has the modern man advanced too much?" for an example of how my opponent does not seem to care about the debate and wastes the time of others who want to genuinely debate.

Just so that no one can say that I haven't debated the issue, I will say this brief sentence. I am not giving into my opponent, but just making sure all my bases are covered.
Ahem, "NOT all fish are awesome. There is lots of pollution. Dolphins are killed for example by tuna fishers. They are not "awesome." They're in pain."
Again, this is simply so that judges will recognize that I CAN debate this topic if I want to, but I am choosing not to so that I can instead advocate the importance of not trolling to change my opponent's mind and also the minds of those reading. Judges, please indicate that trolling topics should not be made, and only people genuinely wanting to debate should debate, by voting for me on your ballot.
a. I am advocating for better conduct in all debates.
b. I am also treating my opponent with respect, and yet challenging my opponent by suggesting that debate is more important and takes more time than a twitter update.
c. My opponent has rudely made me wait three days without defending her/himself. d. My opponent has also made debate less debate like by making only me speak and not speaking her/his own mind.
e. Additionally, my opponent has lowered the education of the debate by talking about something that is uncontested

Grammar: My opponent should have capitalized "are" in the title:

Arguments: All of my arguments are uncontested. I have clearly demonstrated why I am taking this debate and proved with all evidence that can be reasonably be expected that my opponent has disregarded this debate. All of my above arguments have been ignored by my opponent. My opponent has given me no way to debate, so I have made my own space and debated something truly important. I even debated about fish.

Personal Testimony: In my life I have used debate as a means to get along in the world. I'm not very good at socializing, so debate has been a great help in this regard. I believe that I can express myself through dialogue. However, some people simply aren't appreciative of debate, and think of it as a joke. I have truly found a place that I feel I can call home in DDO, but certain people spit on debate by making a topic and never touching it again. This is just like kids at school.
Vote Con

I have two great sources, and my opponent has zero.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm afraid sir/madam, that this is a debate about Fish being awesome. You have strayed too far from the question. This is not about how genuine i am or if I'm trolling. Please state whether fish are awesome or not.


My opponent has given me 2 points to match what by my count is 33 separate points and sub-points:

My opponent says:
1. I've "strayed" too far from the topic

My response=======
As for her/his first point, I have EXPRESSED in EVERY ROUND NOTHING BUT EXPLANATIONS for why I am choosing to talk about trolling, why my opponent is trolling, and why trolling is bad, and why my case helps stop trolling. My opponent has dropped all of these.
See particularly my arguments 1-8.
My opponent's dismissive first point is evidence against him/herself: My opponent literally missed every single one of my arguments explaining why this is the relevant debate. In addition, my opponent dropped all of my points, thereby conceding that trolling is relevant to the topic.

Not only that, but my opponent did not even say WHY the debate is about Fish being awesome. (S)He refused to give even one reason for this. I'm afraid that this is not even a debate, since there's no arguments to debate.

Remember, my entire case explains why I am debating this way. By dropping all of these points and not reading my case, my opponent is being very rude.


My opponent says:
2. I have not stated whether fish are awesome or not.

My answer=====

Yes I did. This proves that my opponent did not even read my debate.

And I quote: "NOT all fish are awesome. There is lots of pollution. Dolphins are killed for example by tuna fishers. They are not "awesome." They're in pain."

I have clearly explained why trolling is harmful to debate, why my opponent is trolling, why trolling should stop on DDO, and why voting for me will help this. My opponent dropped all of these points, so voters are forced to say that I win the arguments.
Additionally, in my previous argument, I have explained why I have won in terms of grammar, in terms of conduct, in terms of sources, and in terms of argumentation. I have also explained that fish are great, but they are not doing "excellent" since many are hurt.
I have nothing against debating about fish. However, my opponent has proved that (s)he doesn't really want to debate. Thus, I win.

There is literally no reason my opponent gave for me to lose. My opponent effectively CONCEDED (possibly an effect due to trolling) that I should gain all of the points from voters, including GRAMMAR, ARGUMENTS, SOURCES, and CONDUCT, as well as an overall win.

Thanks for reading, and thanks to my opponent for a fair debate. Make sure to vote!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Josh_b 2 years ago
I finally have a chance to comment on this debate. All new debaters should be treated this way. I don't agree with the 3 debate gate that new users must pass through, but as long as it stands, it should be followed with integrity. If you are going to debate, do it right from the beginning.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
@Kavstar, sorry again for raining on your parade. It's not your fault personally, but the three debates to vote system that caused this topic to pop up. If you feel that you are unable to respond this this round, that's fine; but please take the time to write "I will not comment on this round" instead of making me wait three days, ok? :)
Posted by Gohan12345 2 years ago
This is a pointless debate
Posted by Kavstar 2 years ago
I personally believe this is a valid argument worth debating but quite happily, there aren't many opposers to Fish being awesome.
Posted by RobertV1992 2 years ago
Well I think I agree with the first guy, that fish are indeed awesome. He has a great point
Posted by Howdidyoucomeupwiththat 2 years ago
I'm happy you took this debate :).
Posted by HOBOES 2 years ago
Posted by Gohan12345 2 years ago
What a debate we have here
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
I am sincerely sorry to rain on your parade however :(
Posted by TetsuRiken 2 years ago
What kind
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: to be honest, the con said too much. i was getting very tired of reading boring things. the Con still won after pro didnt really do anything.
Vote Placed by yay842 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered no facts to why fish are awesome and FF. Pro had no argument and did not even bother to give explanations.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and didn't have any arguments.