The Instigator
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Coveny
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Fordebating.com will not see a substantial gain in membership based on the site owners advertising..

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/12/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 106662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (4)

 

TUF

Pro

Full resolution: "Fordebating.com will not see a substantial gain in membership based on the site owners advertising methods on Debate.org"

The site owner in this context is coveny, who is also my opponent in this debate. I mean for this debate to be a well thought out construction of arguments to settle a dispute we've had in the main forums for some time now.

The debate resolution was agreed upon by my opponent in this post:

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

I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate, and encourage fair voting. Because my opponent has shared his opinion that his public perception in this debate may be biased against him, I will personally be reporting any votes that I don't feel fairly show they represent they have read both sides of the debate to the fullest, or overtly display bias.

Thanks coveny in advance for accepting this debate. 1st round will be for acceptance, and I have the character limit set to max at 10k. Select winner system is in effect to suppress vote juicing. Arguments should be prioritized over conduct violations, spelling and grammar, and sources, though all of these things collectively should attribute to the argument.

Good luck.
Coveny

Con

Accepted.

Thanks much more equatable that I was expecting. I like it. I look forward to seeing you work.
Debate Round No. 1
TUF

Pro

Thanks again Coveny, for accepting this debate. I look forward to an intellectual debate with you, and hope this goes well.

Key Affects of Advertising

To start the debate I would like to post my thoughts on what effective advertising is, and how I don't see Coveny specifically hitting the major points that would require him to be successful. In an article by author Rick Suttle, we can see what he feels are major important factors in hitting a target audience.

The first is Reach. "This measurement pertains to the number of people who actually saw a company's advertising."(1) Keeping in mind that Coveny's advertising most likely extends other places besides just Debate.org, when we look at the physical amount of individuals he is appealing to, we have to consider how many active members are even aware of his posts. It's safe to assume that the majority of active forum users are also long term users who either been around for a long time, or look for a community they like to stick with and grow. That said, the number of individuals he is appealing to, is already a very small portion of the website. As far as I have seen, Coveny's only made a public spectacle of himself and his website within the forums, and one debate between himself and Mikal in which the topic specifically refers to Fordebating.com. (2) A debate that despite the appearance of a large amount of views (Views are counted upon refresh, so can easily have been pulled by the two debaters and any moderators that had to look at the controversial debate multiple times) only ever received one vote. Even if we were to grant him that all of the users he engaged with in heated arguments in the forums or even people who just saw the drama and were interested in his website for some reason, were to sign up as members of his website, by contrast the total intake of members isn't going to be large. I'd be surprised if there are more than 20 people in the forums who even know about or care about the drama on top of that. Assuming he was able to convince all 20 individuals he's appealed to through his out-reach on Debate.org, that doesn't seem to qualify as a substantial gain. At least not substantial enough to justify all the time he has spent appealing to these forum members, where this time may have been better spent advertising elsewhere or even working on his website to ultimately yield more of a growth in user base.

Another point Mr. Suttle lists is Sales and Profits. "The best way to build sales and profits is by reaching the right target audience. In other words, small business owners must make sure their advertising reaches the people who are most likely to purchase their products." (1) In context to Debate, he certainly is on a website that is topical and relevant to debating, but the real question is how he is pitching his website to these debaters in a way that would make one heavily consider switching the community they spend time on from Debate.org, to ForDebating.com. Coveny believes that by simply being a presence he is marketing his website. What he hasn't been focusing on nearly as much, is pitching the benefits of the whole package. He made one initial forum talking about ForDebating, and occasionally he makes little quips about his new website to individuals who complain about the site of DDO here and there. But we should think of a decision to move website similar to switching an Internet provider. If I have spectrum Internet, and I hear about savings, faster speeds, and less of an agreement term, I am more willing to switch than simply seeing an advertisement where the owner of AT&T makes fun of Spectrum's consumer base and constantly argues with them. Coveny has a whole theory on "drama being an effective advertiser" which I will get into later, but what he isn't prioritizing is focusing on key aspects that are far more likely to attract people. Coveny would be much more successful by putting a greater focus on the benefits of his website, and highlighting key features people will be able to take advantage of.


The effects of controversy against Brand Awareness

If there's one thing to credit coveny on, it's his Brand Awareness for the website. Certainly when Coveny is brought up, the automatic thought is to place him as a the head of a website he has invested time and money into. The heart of his pitch has constantly been that he is not adverse to the controversy that has taken place between him and the other members of the website, because it furthers awareness of his website. But we can take my earlier point into consideration here, that the controversy is driving away the same members he is or should be trying to appeal to. Again we are taking a very small margin of a forum based community, as opposed to appealing to other aspects of the site. When the majority of a community tend to dis-agree with you or think you are an "@sshole" (3) as one of his recent debates lists him as, he is not setting up a whole lot of incentive for these same members to check out his website.

So I think an important point to talk about here that will inevitably be brought up during this debate as it has been discussed about in length on the website, is the effects of advertising through drama. My opponent has consistently brought up the point that controversy will aid him, the same way it aids others like Alex Jones. Alex Jones has a net worth of 10 million, which coveny attributes to him marketing through drama. Well this isn't entirely true. Alex Jones appeals to the insecurities of his listeners: "An examination of his business seems to indicate that the vast majority of Infowars’ revenue comes from sales of these dietary supplements. Infowars isn’t a media empire — it’s a snake-oil empire." (4) But Alex Jones certainly is a character, and his outlandish views and beliefs certainly bring him an audience, even if a major portion of that audience deigns to listen to him knowing he is absurd to make fun of him.

So granting coveny that being absurd can attract an audience in specific situations, it is definitely not the same situation with Coveny's debating website. Alex Jones is a radio show, and when you listen to him you know you are going to hear some oddball theories. Is that what people in a debating community are looking for though? Is this really what Coveny should be wanting for his website? I don't think it is. In fact, Coveny himself said otherwise by constantly highlighting issues with debate.org "There seems to be some major problems with spam, voting, and just a general disinterest in the website over there. All looking very good Fordebating.com" Wouldn't this make a better selling point than a "Hey look at me, I am controversial". Users aren't going to be hooked by drama, they want features and this is what Fordebating has. This should be his selling points. To equate Alex Jones to himself, is essentially saying that he knows what he is saying and doing is bull crap for clicks. Getting quick clicks doesn't create a community of members though who are prone to refresh a page daily and make them more likely to click advertisements, or engage in other aspects of the website that will produce money. Coveny should be looking forward to building a professional environment that encourages and challenges free thinking, networking, and better features. An Alex Jones approach is just selling snake oil for money, and if money is the only goal this simply won't work. Obviously this is a business venture for him, but it needs to be more than a business venture in order to be successful. Great YouTubers who make money like Casey Neistat, or successful business owners, all have to have a vested interest in their product, show, and believe in what they are doing, and the money comes later.

Conclusion

Advertising a product through negative attention will not yield a substantial gain from this website. It is my belief that Coveny could have been more successful with his website if he had invested his time with trying to sell the product, rather than himself. It is my hope that Coveny finds this out, maybe even through this debate. I genuinely hope his website does well, and I think with a bit of proper focus, he can make that happen.



Sources:

1. http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. http://nymag.com...
Coveny

Con

***Note***

The use of the future continuous tense of the verb (will not see) means that Pro must prove that it is not possible for substantial gain in membership to happen ever, and that I must only prove that it is possible. I think it’s very important for voters to understand that the debate is set not just in the present. This is similar to reasonable doubt in a court case, even if you don’t feel like I have made substantial gains, if you have a reasonable doubt that I could achieve substantial gains then you should vote for me. Again this debate is about what will happen in the future.

As this is the first round I will wait to rebuttal Pro and just put forth my arugement.


The five points that I will use to prove that ForDebating.com will have substantial gains from my advertising

1) Substantial gain from Mikal’s to Tuf’s debate

2) People openly support me or defend my behavior.

3) Advertising based on my strengths

4) Strategies other than smack talking and fighting

5) Marketing through controversy works



1) Substantial gain from Mikal’s to Tuf’s debate

Before I talk about the future though let me start with the present. Do you consider a 30% increase as substantial? Pro needs to prove that 30% isn’t a substantial gain. Would you consider 30 years longer on a 100-year lifespan substantial? Would you consider $12,000 more on a $40,000 a year job substantial? I think we can all agree that 30% is a substantial gain.

I posted my numbers during my debate with Mikal. Here is a link to that debate for reference: http://www.debate.org...


Here are those numbers compared to my current numbers showing an average of a 31.6% increase.

As of 1-13-2018

Mail list – 3 > 4 = 33% increase

YouTube – 6 > 8 = 33% increase

Facebook – 35 > 45 = 29% increase

Stats from Mikal’s debate - https://imgur.com...

Current stats - https://imgur.com...


As you can see my lowest stat is a 29% increase. This is a substantial gain in membership, and I don’t need to prove the future possibility of gain as I have achieved it already, but I’ll continue for the sake of debating.


2) People openly support me or defend my behavior.

I have had several people support me both publicly and privately. Here are a few examples.


From Inferno’s “DDO’s rising star” thread – “Coveny is the coolest muther-effer in the world…. he has made his presence known on this site so far and Im impressed, which is rare for me here.”

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


From zmikecuber’s “Coveny” thread – “Literally has done nothing wrong… I think alot of people support him and know he's right … Any semi-intelligent person knows he crushed Mikal in that debate…. Coveny, keep doing what you're doing.”

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


From Mikal’s “Can we Vote Coveny off the Island” thread –

#41 Leaning – “He doesn't seem to me to be any more rude than any of the people he argues with.”

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


From EmilRose’s “Cowards on DDO” thread

#32 Vaarka – “at this point you guys are bullying him imo”

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


Even from those smack talks, fights, debates, etc. people supported me. This is proof of something Pro doesn’t want to give credit to… respect. If you check the video at 1:00:40 you’ll hear someone accuse me of “running away from conflict”. To which at least two people speak up to defend me, saying that I have not done that and that I am the opposite of that.

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



3) Advertising based on my strengths

I hold no illusions about my charm or social skills to win friends. For me to attempt to win people to my side with friendliness would be futile because it’s simply a skill I don’t possess and given that I’m 45 I’m likely to never possess it.


This is a debate website, I enjoy debate, and debate at its core is conflict, it’s fighting for what you believe, and fighting for my convictions is something that I am strong in. Smack talk is no different. So not only is it something that I am good at, it’s also something that shows, at least to a degree, that I have debating skills. People respect a fighter and someone who stands up for what they believe in. I believe in debate and I’m passionate about it.


My actions have garnered support not because I “sold” them on how great of a person I am, my actions have garnered support because I have fought my detractors. This doesn’t tend to start off with a good impression, but it does work over time as people see my character in the fight. You see how dirty they are, how far they are willing to go to “win”. My fights have shown both my ethics and my integrity to those willing to see them.


Here are a couple of examples of winning over people who thought badly of me at first. (RocketEngineer’s change of attitude toward me is a great example of the change I’m referring to).


From airmax1227’s “Tough Questions Special E1: Coveny and Mikal” thread

#43 – RocketEngineer – “I will admit I didn't like coveny very much”

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


From YYW’s “RFD: Mikal v. Coveny (Coveny Trial)” thread -

#17 RoketEngineer – “This was a clever comeback lol”

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


But there is also Disc who has re-evaluated his opinion of me from my interactions

From Varka’s “Beginners' Mafia 56.1: DP1” thread -

#371 Disc – “Coveny is acting stupid”

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


From Forever23’s “Coveny Is A A$s Hole” debate –

Disc Comments – “Coming from someone who absolutely enjoyed being a dick to Coveny in the mafia game and is only now realizing all the other 'controversy' about him, I'm definately leaning con on this.”

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



4) Strategies other than smack talking and fighting

My detractors act like the only thing I do is get into fights and talk smack, but that’s not the case. I have used several advertising strategies. Such as:


Offering to play League of Legends with people

“Open invite LoL ARAM with Cov between 7-9pm”

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


In Inferno’s “DDO’s rising star” thread I told a story from my time in the military.

#38 - http://www.debate.org...


I created “Want to debate me on something from my book?” to get into debates.

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

This got 17 people to download my book.

https://imgur.com...


Which Danielle saw and lead to a discussion of topics in

UtherPenguin’s “I publicly challenge Danielle to a debate *”

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

#11 Danielle – “But you proposed topics that were really interesting and unique.”

On finding out that I used smack talk to generate interest she responded with


This debate also has ForDebating.com in it, and counts as advertising, and there is no smack talk in it. Now that attention has been generated and people have started listening to me I’m garnering more and more support and membership from DDO.



5) Marketing through controversy works

In the above thread Danielle is familiar with the tactic and how successful it can be.

#13 Danielle – “the old guerrilla marketing tactic through stirring up controversy online. I can appreciate that… Ryan Holiday … While promoting a movie… He would post on all these feminist forums about how the people behind it were filthy misogynists, etc, and sure enough the chatter got the movie a bunch of attention. He's pretty brilliant and became Director of Marketing for American Apparel”


I have given several examples of how effective this technique is in the past, but getting past the subjective dislike of the technique to see the objective effectiveness of it isn’t something everyone can do. So let me repeat Danielle here: they considered a person who’s used my tactics “brilliant” and that person became the director of MARKETING. From the linked interview at 1:04 “it was a brand that deliberately courted controversy and attention, and sometimes there is a backlash to that, but what people didn’t understand was the reason … we went that route because we didn’t have a billion dollar advertising budget”

http://fortune.com...


To define what Guerrilla Marketing is:

“Guerrilla Marketing is about taking the consumer by surprise, make an indelible impression and create copious amounts of social buzz”

Or from individuals in the marketing industry.

“…unauthorized and disruptive” and “sticky.” – Brett Zaccardi of Street Attack

http://www.creativeguerrillamarketing.com...



Conclusion

Advertising in general is about testing what works. I continue to change and adapt my strategies to see what gets me the most engagement for my time. I don’t need to win everyone over right now, I just need them to know I exist. As a small business, I have the flexibility to try all sorts of different ways to advertise and I have many more up my sleeve. For example, I intend to make a video where I play up my Arkansas accent and call myself the “redneck debater”. I’ll make a bunch of goofy comments, and get a laugh. If it works out I’ll make more of those. (the two people who I’ve read the skit to thought it was hilarious but that’s hardly proof) The point being that smack talk and fights are just one of the many things I’m trying, and it’s not even the only thing I’m trying here. The numbers (and the community) show I’m gaining traction, and I’m getting people like Mikal who hasn’t debated in 7 months, Tuf who hasn’t debated in 5 months, Bsh1 is debating again after 5 months, and Danielle who hasn’t debated in 3 months debating. Who here can claim that? How many have tried to get them to debate and failed?


Even if you don’t agree with my methods, how can anyone disagree with my results?

Debate Round No. 2
TUF

Pro

Thank you coveny, for the quick response.

I'll start by addressing his note at the beginning his round 2. I am okay with his note as long as it includes the whole title of the resolution listed in the beginning of round 1 that he agreed to. Saying he will not ever see a substantial game, is semantics and not what I was proposing. I am proposing he will not see a substantial gain in advertising if he continues to use the methods he has on debate.org. This is specifically talking about accruing membership through debate.org, through his past advertising methods, not other methods, or if he later changes his methods, which I genuinely hope he does for the sake of his site. The clarification is to prevent semantic issues, but I am sure my opponent will agree to this.

Rebuttals

"Substantial Gain"

To begin this argument, we must first understand what qualifies as a substantial gain. What is the general goal post for a website to be successful via ad revenue, and how does that reflect on the resources including time spent on the advertising? To look at a group of very very small numbers at to create percentages out of them, it's easy to create the illusion that a "substantial" gain has been made. But out of context, these percentages mean very little for the success of his website. For example, my opponent doesn't have a way to verify that the 1 person who joined the mail list, the 2 people who subscribed to his channel and the 10 facebook followers actually stemmed from his advertising through controversy (his main method as self admitted of late that he claims will bring him success). However even granting him that these very small number increases occurred through advertising with controversy, he still has to prove how they are a substantial "gain".

To paint a picture here I will give some ideas of what minor success is qualified as. As a business venture in which the owner wants to make money from, especially when one has presumably put a few grand on their investment, you would expect to see a significant growth over a short to long period of time. Let's use adsense as an example as it is a fairly commonly used advert among new business owners. While the site's owners projections for income would probably need to be higher to factor in costs like server maintenance, paid techs to fix bugs and/or other issues, hosting fees (larger considering needed server sizes), we'll start with saying earning 3k a month is a pretty low ball standard to shoot for in the beginning year of profits. To achieve this, you would need to make about 100$ a day from membership gains. Chris Lee says the following: For me, I was able to reach a full-time income when I was consistently getting over 150,000 visitors per month. I wasn’t just getting that with one website though. Traffic was spread throughout about 20 sites, with 3 of them generating 90% of that. (1)

Success was achieved through 20 sites, which demonstrates that to be profitable from one website it clearly needs to more than the 150,000 visits on just the single website he is planning. You can calculate percentages of revenue by visitors with something called "RPM", which is a calculation of how much profit a website gets per 1000 visitors. If we were to assume that every single member of his mailing list, youtube, and facebook were all unique visitors (unlikely, we're just giving him the benefit of the doubt) His total visitors according to his own "stats" as of 1-13-18 is 57. It takes 100 unique visitors to even equal 1$ in adsense revenue, so we can see that a 50 cent gain in revenue really isn't all that enthralling. While there are potentially other unknown factors for revenue Coveny has planned, it is unlikely they will yield a significant profit from just the member base that is assumed from even his highest margins. Being profitable is an attribute to a significant gain, so if we were looking at ad revenue by itself, the margins for his sales are pretty meager.

All of this aside, even if we are assuming these numbers are relevant and will reflect his actual site membership and join rate, the website isn't even released yet. Using these percentages doesn't prove anything until the website is actually released. Just because you've enticed a lot of facebook friends to like your page, doesn't mean that all of them are going to join the website, or even stay as an active user. Having 4 people on a mailing list doesn't show how many of them read your emails rather than marking it as spam, and finally having 6 youtube subscribers doesn't mean all are interested in joining the website. The image posted by my opponent that contains a list of views for each video doesn't prove anything either. I clicked on a few of them myself (mostly to see who this guy was). But a simple view doesn't prove the individual watched the entire video. Secondly it is incredibly easy to boost view counts on YouTube. Point being, these views don't correlate with anything tangible nor should they be considered "Stats" for an un-published website.

People supporting Coveny's Behavior

This point is a fairly easy one to refute. First and foremost, simply defending coveny doesn't mean you will become a user on his website. This seems like a fairly simple point to grasp so I won't spend too much time on it. Mostly this explains itself. I personally have defended coveny in instances where I felt he was being abused. I've reported Emilrose who harassed his wife, and I publicly shamed her for doing so, even so I still am taking a position in a debate against him.

Inferno expressing a liking for an individual isn't a signed contract that he will be a member of his website.

Leaning in the same post that coveny partially posted said this "Even if someone is unpleasant or a detriment to a community, don't they still have a right to be a part of it?" The topic was specifically about kicking coveny off the website, and even I agree that this was blown out of proportion by Mikal. Talking about whether someone is an unpleasant detriment to a competitors community is a stark contrast to meaning "I am going to join your website".

Zmikecuber was actually being sarcastic in that thread, as mikal called out early on. He has a history of being facetious in this way and making public jokes, even on his friends like Emilrose (where he jokingly accused her of being a male). While it was probably a joke and not intended to cause conflict, even granting it is serious, no where did zmike say he was joining the site over it.

Me and airmax defending Coveny in that video because unstoppable was being an emotional and using false logic against you doesn't mean we are signing up for your website.

This point is none of the examples cited are relevant to attracting members to his site, and thus this whole point is irrelevant.

Advertising based on strengths

I feel like this is a fairly easy point to refute, so I won't spend a ton of time on it. It is not my goal in the debate to prove that "Everyone hates coveny because he has no good personality traits", or even to say that he is hated by anyone at all. This whole argument is a pretty big non-sequitur. Just as with the last point, simply having a friends on the website, or having people defend you doesn't mean they are going to join your website. I've argued with you myself extensively in the forums, and while the arguments get tedious and feel as if they go in circles, it doesn't mean I or others don't think you have qualities that make you a good person. No one is supposing you are wrong all the time in the arguments you've been in. All of this is irrelevant.

At the end of the day, coveny needs to prove how his strengths are working towards getting him customers (members joining his website), not how many friends he is earning on a competitors website. Not only does he need to get written testimony to these people joining his site, he also needs to show how he is making a substantial gain from those people. How many people are we talking about here that the "advertising" is appealing to? You've spent multiple hours of your personal time "advertising" here, so there needs to be some sort of demonstrable pay-off for advertising through these personality traits in order for this point to be valid.

4. Strategies other than controversy

Most of the same points from the last two points also apply here. Making friends=/=earning customers. I made a website sub-function for Debate.org called DDOfans.org in 2014. I was the DDO president at the time, and felt like I had a good plenty of friends on the site. When I first unleashed the site, it was popularly used for about maybe 1 week. After that, people kind of stopped caring about it, despite me putting in new features actively (like history archives with links to all DDO shows, articles about major posts with polls in them, presidency election stuff, etc). I think it's great your are making friends and connecting with people in a non-negative way, and continue to endorse that behavior, but frankly I don't see it being a fail proof marketing strategy. This debate isn't about a coveny popularity contest, it's strictly about marketing and advertising.

5. Marketing techniques

I have already responded to most of this in my opening arguments that I am sure Con will get to in the next round. Due to character restrictions I will refer you there, and in the meantime quickly re-touch that controversy does work for certain markets, in certain situations. It is not my belief that drama works in situations where you are trying to build a community environment like social networking. It works for people who look for the controversy as their main source of revenue. That is not what one tends to look for when wanting to build a social profile in an online community. I am now out of characters, and will allow my opponent a chance to respond to my arguments as well as my rebuttals to his.

Sources
1. https://www.rankxl.com...

Coveny

Con

**Note**
Pro is both “okay with his note” and “not what he was proposing”. This is the first of pro’s contradictions. As judges, you will decide if the use of the continuous tense means that the resolution of the debate is “he will not ever see a substantial gain”, but my position on the matter has not changed. Saying “will not see” means the future, had the topic state “has not achieved” I wouldn’t have accepted the debate.


Then we have Pro’s first attempt (vague and ambiguous as it may be) to move the goal posts: “his past advertising methods, not other methods, or if he later changes his methods” which Pro is sure that I will agree with, and I don’t. The advertising methods I used in the past (or the “other methods”) changed and adapted, I assume Pro is referring to advertising through drama, which is not, and has not been my only form of advertising I used on DDO and my other forms of advertising are within the resolution of this debate. Pro attempting to move the goal posts and narrow the debate to encompass only drama when the resolution I agreed to, does not state this debate is only about drama. Foul I cry, foul.


Rebuttal – Reach
Pro contradicts himself again here. The implication is that I haven’t achieved “reach” going so far as to say, “we have to consider how many active members are even aware of his posts.” Then later he says, “If there's one thing to credit coveny on, it's his Brand Awareness for the website.”. So how can active users be aware of by brand, but I haven’t reached them? It’s not possible, and this is another point where Pro refutes his own claim.


Pro also moves the goal posts again here. The resolution clearly states on debate.org not other platforms, and yet Pro argues my time should be spent advertising elsewhere “where this time may have been better spent advertising elsewhere”. Although I am spending my time elsewhere, when Pro attempts to extend the goal posts to encompass my advertising on other websites, again I say foul.


Rebuttal – Sales and profits
While Pro misrepresents me with “Coveny believes that by simply being a presence” I’m going to continue showing how he moves the goal posts. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that I need to be profitable, and I am selling nothing. The resolution is about membership gain, and yet here (and in round 3) Pro is moving the goal posts to a successful profitable business. Proving that is not the resolution of this debate. I need only show membership gain has or will have substantial gain. I have stated numerous times that my expectation is that the ForDebating.com statistically should fail financially, and that even if it is successful it will take years to grow the user base. (more on this later)


Rebuttal – Brand Awareness
Let’s move back to Pro’s contradictions now. Here are a few of Pro’s comments about how important I’m viewed by the community is in round 2: “controversy is driving away the same members he is or should be trying to appeal to” or “the majority of a community tend to dis-agree with you or think you are an "@sshole" (this source is a troll debate from the self-professed troll queen of DDO, I’m glad the troll queen thinks I’m an @sshole) or “hear some oddball theories. Is that what people in a debating community are looking for though”. Then in round 3 Pro does a complete about face referring to people who have supported and defended me on DDO “This point is none of the examples cited are relevant to attracting members to his site, and thus this whole point is irrelevant.”. In round 2 how people viewed me was Pro’s whole claim, and when I prove he’s wrong, Pro contradicts himself as he changes his stance to that claim being irrelevant.


Rebuttal – Substantial gain
And back to moving the goal posts. The resolution is not if I’m making money, it is not about how many people have signed up for ForDebating.com (because that site doesn’t exist yet), it is not about being successful, it’s about gain. I don’t need to prove that I will earn a living off Fordebating.com, that’s more of Pro misrepresenting my intentions, all I need prove is the goal posts I agreed to in the debate. It’s about substantial gain in membership. The goal posts don’t move from membership to join rate for ForDebating.com, FD isn’t online yet, I can’t have a gain in membership there. But I can, and have gained membership on Facebook, YouTube, and my mailing list.

Back to contradiction. Pro states “so there needs to be some sort of demonstrable pay-off for advertising through these personality traits in order for this point to be valid” but earlier states “Using these percentages doesn't prove anything until the website is actually released.”. So I can’t prove anything because the website isn’t actually released, but I must prove there is a payoff for my points to be valid.


Back to goal post move, Pro would like to define substantial gain as profitability as I’ve just shown, and with that Pro moves the goal posts to what a fully functional successful business would need to achieve and states that as the yardstick. I am not running 20 websites, nor do I have any intention of running 20 websites, and yet to discredit my gains Pro compares me to individuals running 20 websites and requirements of 150k in visitors a month. The article even states “I wasn’t just getting that with one website though.”, on top of that Pro knows (because he has access to the development website) that I’m not using ad words so not only has Pro pitted FD against 20 websites, the pricing model he uses isn’t the one FD is using. The whole thing is ridiculous.


Back to contradiction Pro states “look at a group of very very small numbers at to create percentages out of them, it's easy to create the illusion that a "substantial" gain has been made.” As a way to discredit the gains I have made, but earlier Pro also stated “I'd be surprised if there are more than 20 people in the forums who even know about or care about the drama on top of that.”. I’ll remind you Pro already stated in his brand awareness section “when Coveny is brought up, the automatic thought is to place him as a the head of a website” so the logical conclusion from people automatically think of my website when it’s brought up. So if only 20 people aware of me, this leads to Pro believing there are only 20 active people on the forums. Yet 10 is a “very very small number “. Converting 10 of the 20 users on DDO to members of my Facebook page. (that’s a half according to Pro) Again this is just a debate about Debate.org and if 20 active members is all I have to pull from, then 10 is not a small number in comparison.


And that’s not even me going into the timeframes of 10 users in a month growing exponentially, or the fact that a user base must start out small, and grow slowly. (they aren’t coming in chunks of 50k)


Rebuttal – Friends =/= membership
Combo Pro’s contradictions and moving the goal posts. This debate is about substantial gain. Gaining friendship, gaining respect, and gaining support are all progress toward gaining users. Pro seems bitter about his failed attempt at a fan site, but he does contradict himself on the point of friends =/= membership when he says “I had a good plenty of friends on the site. When I first unleashed the site, it was popularly used for about maybe 1 week.”. So Pro is stating that he had plenty of friends and the site was popularly used. (membership) Now I should clarify that there is a difference between getting people to join (membership) and getting people to stay. Here Pro attempts to move the goal post from getting membership to staying on his site, however contradicts himself with the “plenty of friends” that made the site popular, therefore by Pro’s own words friends = membership. (even if he had nothing to offer them once they got there)


Pro concedes with “Alex Jones certainly is a character, and his outlandish views and beliefs certainly bring him an audience, even if a major portion of that audience deigns to listen to him knowing he is absurd to make fun of him” that advertising through drama will bring people to FD even if it’s just to make fun of me. Therefore allowing me to include the people who don’t like me as part of my substantial gain in membership.


Conclusion
Pro is against drama, and yet creates a roller coaster with his arguments stating that I have both reached and not reached, users opinions are important and not important, I’m driving people away and it doesn’t matter if they support me, and back to it matters if users like me, and it does not matter if users like me. I feel like I have whiplash from watching a high-speed ping pong match as Pro moves goal posts and goes back and forth on positions. I hope that the people reading this have the take away that Pro will say whatever he can get away with saying to win, and doesn’t care about the truth. I care about the truth, I care about creating a community, care about debating, I have a passion for debating, I believe in what I am doing, and I’m not creating ForDebating.com to make money. I am doing all the things Pro states successful business owners do: “Casey Neistat, or successful business owners, all have to have a vested interest in their product, show, and believe in what they are doing, and the money comes later.”.


I have gained a following, I have gained membership in every metric, and I will continue to change my advertising (as I have done here) trying different options to what works best. I would hope that users can be objective about the gains that I have proven, rather than listening to the ping pong of Pro’s argument.

Debate Round No. 3
TUF

Pro

Semantics

My opponent has tried to make a semantics argument out of the resolution, which is something I am not willing to let him pursue. His use of the words "Will not see" as a future tense also forgets that we are talking about a substantial gain as a whole. The resolution is clearly referring to past actions, as I or anyone cannot predict how one will change an action later to effect an on-going debate. For the purposes of this debate, we should be referring to actions that took place leading up to the debate. My opponent here is accusing me of moving goal posts, but that is essentially exactly what he is doing. Imagine if I were to start a debate with a friend saying "My friend will not score a date with his his co-worker based on his behavior". Then, after starting the debate, he shaves, starts to shape up a little, and genuinely becomes less of a slob. His approach and strategy have changed, and I originally was only arguing about how he initially behaved. If he then says "I changed my approach and now she doesn't ignore me anymore", his argument would be irrelevant because I was only arguing to the extent of his previous behavior. This is what actually moving a goal post is. Coveny past behavior prior to the start of this debate is really all that is relevant. My opponent is saying that I am assuming this controversy argument was his only advertising approach. I definitely have admitted that there were other avenues used, but that this was the bulk of what has been seen around the forums, and it was a self-admitted strategy by coveny himself. He himself in his arguments uses all of his stats to show how he thinks drama is what helped his views, subscribers, and mailers. He says this was after the mikal drama, he never tries to show his growth after his one early thread talking about the upcoming site. Since the debate started my opponent has tried starting several threads to promote the website, and even specifically mentions this debate as inspiration(1). My opponent is trying to move the goal line inches in front of him, when this strategy was rare from him prior to the start of this debate. While I do applaud his change in attitude with his marketing (I still don't think it will yield an substantial growth in membership), I implore the voters to look past my opponents grievances based on semantics.

Lastly Coveny tries to sell you that I said he isn't advertising elsewhere, which is just false (and kind of funny that he didn't understand that argument). My point was that he would be more successful if he had opted to spend his time advertising through his other methods and websites, than arguing with people on debate.org. Danielle says this perfectly when she says "If you're truly committed to your new site as a money maker, I would advise you diversify your attention away from DDO and into more marketing endeavors with much broader reach." (2) Moving on.

The Key effects of advertising

Subpoint A "Reach"

My opponent tries to uses something I said as a contradiction here, but again is something he just failed to understand. When I say that he has brand awareness, I mean that the people who are aware of him know that he is the head of an upcoming debating website. This is because most of his posts are justified as advertising strategies, even when disputes get personal. Just because people who know you associate you with something, doesn't mean that is a positive association. Louis CK was a great comic for years, and one instance of sexual assault has made known as a sexual deviant and lessened his impact of being a well liked comic. When people see Coveny who know his past posting behavior, they know he is the leader of a debating website, but that doesn't mean I said that there was a significant number of people who even know about him to know about the website. It also doesn't mean that association is a good thing for his website.

Subpoint B "Sales and Profits"

Con is again trying to accuse me of moving goal posts by saying that sales and profits aren't relevant to this debate, I would dis-agree. Mostly in the area of time spent, vs payoff. Even if Con isn't trying to make money immediately, it is an ultimate goal of his, and something he wants to do in the long term. In order to do that, he needs to get members on his website. It is my point that if he was trying to get a substantial gain in membership, his time is best spent elsewhere, as members here probably aren't going to switch websites easily. Even if he gets a few of the member base, he needs to prove how his time spent here is more beneficial than how he could have spent his time elsewhere. That is the purpose of this debate.

Substantial Gain

The main point to respond to here is where my opponent is trying to say his stats qualify as a demountable pay off, and my point is that he isn't showing them. He is trying to confuse my argument by saying that he cannot prove a demonstrable payoff based on an un-released website, and I agree. But my opponent is the one making the initial claim that he can with his "Stats", I am literally just saying that he can't. I am saying that if he is going to use stats, he needs something more demonstrable than vague stats on youtube channels, facebook visitors, and mail subscribers. Those are not guaranteed signups. My opponent should be showing statements where people have omitted they were wanting to join the website, or said that they want to join specifically for the way he advertises. To clarify, I am not the one who made the statement that he can verify visitors through stats. HE did, and I refuted it saying that the stats he provided are not contractual agreements to his website. A verbal testimony saying someone will join his website would help him more than any of the numbers he has tried to attribute to the debate.

Secondly Con responds to my argument where I said I would be surprised if 20 people knew about his website from these forums. He tries to twist this by using each unique view is someone who is aware of his website. Again that misses the point, because Con cannot prove those views were garnered from THIS website. Views on a video can be created by yourself and friends, same with mail lists and facebook subs. Just because he got a small gain in subs on his page, doesn't mean he can confirm they are strictly from this website. I maintain I would be surprised if more than 20 people knew or cared about his drama and his website, but even if they knew about it that they wouldn't join, so there is no way to view this metric as a gain, nonetheless substantial if you only converted 20 members.

Friends =/= Membership

Con is trying to say that making friends means he is gaining respect, and overall support. But with the examples he used, that doesn't actually show that in the slightest. Zmike being a sarcastic jerk, Rocket saying he thinks a simple joke was funny, leaning defending him from being bullied while at the same post saying he is generally looked down on by the community, none of that is actual support. Con seems to think that any post that isn't directly arguing with him is some form of support. This is not the case. Con needs to show Pm's where these members said they want to sign up for his site, or posts where they have. None of that means support for his website.

Next Con says that I attributed the friends I had on the site to membership, and I didn't. In fact the whole purpose of me using my website as an example was to show the opposite. So please ignore my opponents constant complaints about this goal post stuff. My whole point was that my making friends DOESN'T guarantee membership. Con is trying to make me sound as if I am saying something I am not.

My opponent next says that I conceded the Alex Jones argument which means I said even if people make fun of him, they will join the site. That is not what I was saying at all. In fact it was just the OPPOSITE of that. My opponent using Alex Jones as an example works against him because Coveny is trying to market a community building social networking site, and Alex Jones is trying to get a few quick clicks on his pod cast where people opt to laugh at him and leave. That is not a membership gain. Alex Jones critiques don't have to become a member to watch his youtube clip, laugh, and leave. Coveny is marketing a website where to be successful, it will need a membership to be adding content that inspires other members to join. Having someone quickly click on the site to make fun of coveny, and then they log off isn't going to gain him any membership. My opponent has dropped this point by being so attached to the "Moving the goal post" argument, so we should consider this argument a concession.

Conclusion

My opponent is trying to sell you on foul play, rather than spending the time to argue logically. In his debate with Danielle he attempts to sell his audience that she makes a conduct violation over something completely irrelevant to the debate, when he accuses her of plagiarism for her own argument. (3) Because my opponent was too busy trying to tattle on his opponent to the voters for irrelevant things, he missed most of the entire point of the debate, and also missed out on several opportunities to sell his case appropriately. Con has mis-understood most of my arguments and rebuttals, which means he has also dropped them as well. I implore the voters to focus on the important part of this debate, the argument. I implore the votes to Vote Pro, as I have successfully proven that Con hasn't demonstrated the ability to market his product sufficiently, and by extension will not see a substantial growth in membership through his advertising on Debate.org. Thankyou for reading!

Sources:
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
Coveny

Con

Let’s recap the debate.

My 5 points
1) Substantial gain from Mikal’s to Tuf’s debate
2) People openly support me or defend my behavior.
3) Advertising based on my strengths
4) Strategies other than smack talking and fighting
5) Marketing through controversy works


1) Substantial gain from Mikal’s to Tuf’s debate
I started this debate showing that I have made substantial gains in membership in the month from the time I last did a debate about ForDebating.com. Let me repeat that, in a month. (time matters just as much as numbers) Did I show that I now have a successful website now? Of course not, that wasn’t the resolution of the debate regardless of Pro’s comments to the contrary. “he needs something more demonstrable than vague stats on YouTube channels, Facebook visitors, and mail subscribers.” These count as membership. Obviously, I can’t prove that I’ve gotten substantial gain on a site that isn’t up yet! Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither is a website. New business by nature starts out small and through gains gets bigger. To a small business my gains are substantial gains, and even more so if you look at the history before the confrontation. (which was zero gains for a month talk about small numbers) Pro compares those gains to someone who owns 20 websites, and of course they aren’t what that company would consider substantial gains.

2) People openly support me or defend my behavior.
Pro wants to use the self-proclaimed troll queen of DDO (Forever23) debate “Coveny is A A$$hole” as proof that “the majority of a community tend to dis-agree with you or think you are an "@sshole" (3)”. The troll queen of DDO … are you serious? Then later goes on to say it doesn’t matter that people are supporting me. When I show that as a contradiction with his “popular website” he changes over to the people who are supporting me aren’t really supporting me. It’s like playing whack a mole. In the ONE thread that I posted after this debate 7th say “keep up the good work!” The support continues to grow…

3) Advertising based on my strengths
Pro confuses respect with support. You don’t need to be liked to be respected, and this is the opposite of what Alex Jones does. The integrity I’ve shown can be seen for anyone who looks. Pro just doesn’t understand that because he changes his stance and position with the winds so he doesn’t understand the concept of integrity.

4) Strategies other than smack talking and fighting
Pro lies to refute this point “He says this was after the Mikal drama, he never tries to show his growth after his one early thread talking about the upcoming site. Since the debate started my opponent has tried starting several threads to promote the website, and even specifically mentions this debate as inspiration(1).” It’s easily verifiable than the 3 alternate methods of advertising I linked in this debate all happened before this debate started. “Coveny past behavior prior to the start of this debate is really all that is relevant. “ I was doing more than talking smack before this debate began, and will be doing more than talking smack after this debate is over. My behavior is “relevant because I was only arguing to the extent of his previous behavior.” (my approach and strategy have NOT changed) Pro goes further with his lies with this statement: “Con cannot prove those views were garnered from THIS website.” I only can because one of those “other” advertising things was listing my book on DDO, that proves the 17 people who download it all came from “THIS website”. He makes it easy for me to make him look bad…

5) Marketing through controversy works
I have created ONE thread which Pro suggested in this debate and it got 13 replies. (over half of which were mine) The last reply was two days ago; the thread should be considered dead and over at this point. Mikal’s debate (which Pro linked to support that my controversy didn’t have “reach”) got 82 comments. My point stands unrefuted, case closed…

On my points
I have achieved substantial membership gain. I have also shown the general sentiment on DDO about me is changing in my favor as I gain additional support by advertising based on my strengths. I have shown how I try out different advertising techniques to see what is most effective, and will continuing to adapt my marketing strategy to whatever is most effective in the future as I see what produces results.

On Tuf’s 3 points
I have achieved Pro’s reach, and brand awareness arguments for two of Pro’s three arguments against me. (Pro has not refuted this) I have brought up that I’m not selling anything, and I’m not looking for profits to cover his third point showing it to be a swing and a miss. This debate should be an easy win by that count alone. Look at the post Pro linked and indicated would be a “better selling point” to what I’m currently doing and you will see it has 5 replies (if you discount the people in this debate) proving Pro has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to effective ways to advertise.

Conclusion
During this debate Pro has went in any direction he can to try to discount and disprove my position. This debate is supposed to be between me and him, but he “tattles” on me… to say I’m a tattler. (The hypocrisy burns) Pro has directed me to advertise elsewhere but this debate isn’t about elsewhere, it’s about my advertising on DDO. At every turn Pro goes off on tangents that fall outside the scope of this debate. I ended up playing whack a mole with his ever-contradictory argument, everchanging arguments, and goal post moves yet he wants to claim I dropped points? I have addressed reach, sales and profits, and Brand awareness in-depth in this debate, those were his listed points, they have not been dropped.

How Pro sees my success can best be shown in his example about his website. The debate is about membership, right? Membership, as in they show up to the website. Not that they love him and stay there forever! Regardless of what semantics games Pro wants to play they showed up and were members of the site. Pro had a popular site, Pro had membership, Pro achieved the resolution of this debate in the same way that I have achieved resolution of this debate. Even if you don’t agree with that, you must agree that it is possible for me to achieve it at some future date.

Either way I win.

Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SupaDudz 5 months ago
SupaDudz
y u no like limits?
Posted by Coveny 5 months ago
Coveny
@Tuf
I asked for specific advice of places and ways that I could freely advertise. I'm already working on what you suggested as my side of the argument shows.

As far as the hangouts go, not going to really be my thing man. I don't enjoy small talk, or sports, or gossip on other members, I'm just not wired that way, and the conversations most find riveting in that regard bore me to tears, and make me want to stab myself in the eyes. I will never be a social butterfly, and I will never win friends by my social skills, but you want to talk deep philosophy, politics, or other major issues, concepts, or ideas I'm in. That's not what hangouts are about, and that will just be a waste of my time. That you suggest this means you believe that I have your skill set which I do not, nor do I hold any illusion about having that skill set. (see debate topic #3)

I am leaning toward just doing the same thing here moving forward that I do with other 12 or so forums I post on. Danielle makes a strong point about the amount of users here versus the amount of time I'm allocating to them. So moving forward DDO will likely just get the same copy and paste stuff the other sites get, and I'll respond if someone responds. Someone indicated the politics forums may be a better place to post to get debates rather than smack talk so I'll go that route.

You got the win, Bsh's vote has passed mod so it's not going to be removed. (I didn't report it for the record) The likelihood of anyone voting for me is low, and there is only a day left. Why would you report the vote other than to waste the mods time? Even if it is a "bad" vote, it makes no difference, and the mods already have plenty to do.
Posted by Coveny 5 months ago
Coveny
@Tuf
#1 I don't see how you can say that changing from "effectiveness at X location" to "What is the most effective location" as having no effect on the debate. I mean that is a huge difference to me, and how I would approach that debate. The first does not encompass the second or vice versa. I believe you were the one talking sports in the hangout so I'll try that as an example. The resolution "Green bay won against the Bears substantially with a score of 20 to 10" is not the same as saying "Green bay is a substantial winner is the league". These use different metrics and different stats, and being the bears doesn't mean that they are the best in the league, nor does being best in the league mean they beat the bears. Does that clarify it to you why those two resolutions are NOT interchangeable?

#2 You stated "where this time may have been better spent advertising elsewhere" in the debate, and in other places and other ways. Not out in left field.

#3 And now you admit that the debate is about "We are specifically talking about how your marketing here will fail, "significantly" according to the time and energy you've spent advertising here." marketing here, time and energy spent advertising HERE... NOT other places. That's what the debate was about that I agreed to, and that is why danielle judging the debate based on "whether or not Coveny should be spending time here, or if it would be more useful to diversify his attention." is NOT judging based on the resolution of the debate.

You don't have to imagine I'm using similar tactics on other websites I've told you DDO is the only website I'm using controversy, and I only used it because I got ignored the first time around.

As far as Danielle goes she did touch on that lightly, but her major push was one that I agree with, and that was that DDO doesn't have a very large active user base. I agree with much of what she wrote in the RFD, but that's not the point.
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
For the record I will be reporting supas vote cov.
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
In response to your last paragraph, the problem members have with the website isn't the website itself. When you initially brought up the website I was all ears for it, and I think others could have been too. It was the behavior from you that followed that turned people away from the website. The behavior you feel is helping you is actually what is what is probably going to hurt you. Since you asked for advice, I'll give it, and this isn't a hindsight manuever either, I still think this can work. Become a forum member here that people like and respect. Interact with the community in different ways other than controversy, and try to enjoy yourself here. We have a close knit community of people who know each others personas pretty intricately, if you can't tell by how often we do community hangouts, or if you see threads with inside jokes, etc. Many members have controversial pasts here, or are still controversial but are still generally liked in the community. You can do that as well, and lately I have noticed your perspective and behavior change because I think you also see that. If you continue to engage with people the way you have lately, maybe pop in hangouts from time to time, etc, people will probably end up joining your website. Especially if others here start joining over that would be your best bet. I can't say for sure if that will happen or not, but that is going to be your biggest option.
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
1. The change in resolution you are suggesting does not effect the debate. I am arguing that your time would have been more successful if spent more on other websites then here, specifically with the methods you are using. The resolution I proposed encompasses that, there is no point to add extra stipulations unless you plan to do exactly what you did, argue purely semantics.

2. It was never my position that you should leave. That statement is pretty far out of left field.

3. Why would I ask you about your lack of marketing on other websites? We are specifically talking about how your marketing here will fail, "significantly" according to the time and energy you've spent advertising here. While I can imagine if you are employing similar tactics elsewhere as you have here, those will also likely fail, that is besides the point. Back to the apple analysis, since is seems to be easy to understand for you. I understand you are selling apples on a lot of street corners, but the debate is about whether or not selling those apples is profitable on this particular street corner, and talking about how ineffective your methods of selling those apples are. All of which Danielle pointed out accurately were not going to work based on the things discussed in this debate.
Posted by Coveny 5 months ago
Coveny
@Tuf
If you wanted to debate
"Fordebating.com would see more substantial gains in membership with the site owner advertising on other websites than Debate.org" then that should have been your resolution instead of
"Fordebating.com will not see a substantial gain in membership based on the site owners advertising methods on Debate.org".

It would have completely changed my approach to the debate. I'm advertising in about 70 other places as well as here. (on a regular basis) So it's obviously not mutually exclusive to advertise there as well as here (or anything else you suggest) invaliding your position that I should leave. The best you could have done was ask places I have chosen not to advertise on and found that I wasn't advertising on instagram or twitter and then made a case that those two in comparison to say time spent there would be better served than time spent here, but then again that would be a totally different debate resolution, and I could add those to my advertising without stopping my advertisement on DDO. The resolution says "on Debate.org", the debate is only about what has happened on DDO. To link it back to the example "on that street corner" not a comparison of all the street corners. I am "selling apples" on a whole lot of other street corners while I'm selling apples here.

Look I don't like watching TV, I don't talk about sports, I enjoy debating, and it is the hobby that I spend hours of free time on every night. If you or anyone has suggestions on how I should advertise that don't require money I am all ears. I'm working almost every angle I think of, and I'm working all the ones that I think may bear fruit. DDO has several who've watch this site get worse and worse and it's made them angry and bitter about advertising. I'm providing another option, but instead of embracing it and being open minded I get attacked at every turn.

I hoped for more openness to an alternative solution as this one has failed... but I was wrong.
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
Lol funnily enough that's exactly what I said to Max last night dsjpk5. Whiteflame just copy and pasted the vote decision from airmax though, so that was Max not whiteflame lol.
Posted by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
It's ok, Whiteflame, my votes are reported so often that you probably assumed it was one of mine!
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
I don't agree coveny and that was never specified in the debate. Substantial means substantial. My major point in this debate is trying to point out that DDO isn't a profitable street to sell apples from. I actually like that example lol. Except I wouldn't say "best". I can't say what the best source for your advertising is at, just that it isn't debate.org. I don't see how this is not resolutional though. We talked about this since round 1. You just tried to argue semantics around how that was moving goal posts somehow. I don't agree in the slightest, especially since it's one of the major reasons I wanted to debate you on this subject.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 5 months ago
SupaDudz
TUFCoveny
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: TUF on limits. RFD is simple, Cov's argument break the rule of limits in my eyes, as he broadens what substantial growth is, where TUF addresses this by it can vary with people. Con's support blocks are based of the limits which TUF, aka the Pro mentions as overbroading. Overboarding is bad in this kind of debate as it makes the debates boring as the Con can literally can bring anything up. The claim which is brought up by TUF saying that his advertising isn't doing anything, is weakly responded to as the evidence just isn't there on Cov part, which could have outweighed. TUF on Limits
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 months ago
Danielle
TUFCoveny
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I can think of some arguments that Coveny should have used but didn't. Specifically, Coveny should have argued that even though DDO only has a few *active* members, plenty of people visit or come across the site that aren't reflected in the activity. Thus he may be reaching more people than we realize. But alas, he didn't make this argument so I couldn't consider it in my RFD (which is in the comments section). Good job to both debaters though. I'm proud of you guys for keeping it civil. Also, while Coveny isn't the strongest debater, I have to admit he can come up with some clever arguments. I didn't appreciate the semantics argument so much in this debate, but there are many debates where it could work. I could see Coveny improving as a debater over time (if he's interested) the way TUF has definitely improved over time. Overall, you both did a decent job.
Vote Placed by Mikal 5 months ago
Mikal
TUFCoveny
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I was going to type up a long RFD but Im still stuck at work but to summarize this debate comes down to one major issue. Whether or not you buy into covenys semantical argument about what substantial means. I think TUF clearly lays out what substantial constitutes as in this debate. A net gain over a period that will do something positive for Covs site. Most of Covs points about members backing him are entirely irrelevant as most of those members have shared they were trolling and even if people support him, it's a non sequitur. He would have to show those people would convert to his site. His other points is that he is marketing to his strength and this works for him. Ruf dismantled this by showing how it would affect his brand in a negative way. Debate boils down to coveny showing his method works which he could not do outside of semantics (which Tuf addresses ). Easy win for pro. If needed to clarify I will but this debate is an objective win for pro
Vote Placed by bsh1 5 months ago
bsh1
TUFCoveny
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Good debate to both. I vote Pro. [Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Pro.]