The Instigator
Viper-King
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

I am a bad debater.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-9
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 18 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,717 times Debate No: 19959
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (38)
Votes (18)

 

Viper-King

Pro

I think I'm a bad debater because I have only won 1 out of my 7 debates and that my win percentage is not even 15% yet. I think that I am also bad at debating because many people believe me to make no sense and to have nonsense arguments. I will therefore finally say that I am a bad debater.
thett3

Con

Thanks for the debate. Here's something you should be taught... ALWAYS offer your own definitions.

I will be defining "bad" using the "street" context. "Bad" could be considered a shortened form of bad@ss. Urban dictionary supports this claim, with the second defintion being: " dope, good, tight" [1]. Further evidence for this can be found in the songs "Bad, Bad, Leroy Brown" "Big Bad John"

As you can see given my Opponents opening arguments, he is not a "bad" (as in bad@ss) debater due to his low win ratio. Therefore since I've offered a definiton and he hasn't, I win.

Further consider that dropped arguments are concessions. My opponent cannot respond to any arguments I make, fallacious or not.

1.

Debaters with default avatars ought to lose their debates.
Viper-King has a default avatar
Therefore Viper-King ought to lose this debate.

2.

Debaters named thett3 should win every debate.
I am thett3.
I should win this debate.

3.

If Kim Jong Il just died, you need to vote for thett3
Kim Jong Il just died
Therefore you need to vote for thett3

4.

If kittens are cute, I win
Kittens are cute
Therefore I win.

You should vote con.

Debate Round No. 1
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
NOOB SNIPER!!! nac
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
NOOB SNIPER!!! nac
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Nah see my argument was that "bad" meant "bad@ss" do him losing reinforces it
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
This is so ironic how do you lose a debate talking about how bad you, By him losing the debate he was proven to be right which means there should be another revote.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Last time I checked, this thing was tied. Was Mirza here?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
your argument was CRAP, well and hillarius
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
wtf
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Nice win. XD
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Yeah, after you changed your vote THREE times to insure I lost, I still won. Wtf indeed.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
wtf
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally, conduct would go to Pro, because of Con using abusive semantics when the meaning was clear. However, instigating 1 round debates are a loss of conduct as well (since debating does not actually take place). Since Con used abusive semantics, his arguments don't stand, leaving Pro's arguments. Also, the "drops = concesssions" does not apply, as "dropping" indicates that an opponent could have responded but choose not to.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to the vote bombs below. Drops=Consessions Changing vote to allow OrE_ele to counter. Please see comments as to why I countered
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly Debate, but that is Okay. Con ultimatley negated the resolution and made some good points on drops.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave evidence that he is a bad debater. Con talked about other things.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct given for Con's semantics argument, and claiming "dropped arguments" in a 1 round debate. Viper King is a terrible debater, and does his best to prove this. I think his "argument" is very convincing. All other points tied.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: pro offered evidence the win rate loss rate, and thats a valid source, but thett gets a point for being funny
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The concessions are why you should not make one round debates.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins conduct because Con clearly altered the intent of the debate. However, I believe semantics arguments are valid, as much as I don't like this one, and Viper-King doesn't respond to any arguments so he loses. Don't instigate one round debates. Period. thett, I'd recommend you not take this tactic again. I don't oppose semantics but they have to be reasonable.
Vote Placed by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave evidence for his case. He did not need to define the word bad in that he gave it in context with his vote record...I don't think a definition was even needed. The rest of Cons arguments were rediculous and had nothing to do with the debate...unanswered arguments are not concessions, especially when there isn't another round. One intersting thing though is that by agreeing with Pro you have gone against the point he is making...kind of a voting paradox...either way Pro won.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
Viper-Kingthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry Pro, I really wanted to vote for you, but after reading the debate, it would be dishonest if I did. I vote Con based on definition. Conduct goes to PRO because i didn't want to leave without giving him any point.