The Instigator
FlammableX
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

I am bad at debating

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 2 votes the winner is...
FlammableX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 86161
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

FlammableX

Con

The title of this debate is "I am bad at debating." The Pro will have to show that I am bad at debating. I, of course, will be refuting the Pro's claim.
AWSM0055

Pro

Your good at debating. :D
Debate Round No. 1
FlammableX

Con

Since the pro has stated that "[I am] good at debating. :D", he has made a concession that I, in fact, am indeed good at debating. Therefore, I do not need to make an argument until pro changes his argument.
Thank you pro, and vote con.
AWSM0055

Pro

The fact that you think I conceded the debate makes you a bad debater.

You should have adressed my undefined "your".

When I said "your", I meant the 2nd definition of the Oxford Dictionary which states that "your" could "[be] associated with any person in general".

I was not referring to you when I said "your". The fact that you assumed I did makes you a bad debater.

Furthermore, you have currently left the word "bad" undefined. Since you have left it undefined, I shall take the liberty of doing so myself:

Bad: "unfavourable".

In other words, your topic of debate is "I am unfavourable at debating".

You obviously are. A more favourable debater would have completed more debates.

Checkmate.
Debate Round No. 2
FlammableX

Con

My refutations are as follows. I pay due respects to my opponent's argument " it was very interesting indeed.

R #1 : The fact that you think I conceded the debate makes you a bad debater.

The Pro side failed to show why thinking that he conceded makes me a bad debater. I merely stated that he made a concession that I was good at debating. This is no respect would make me a "bad debater."

R #2 : You should have ad[d]ressed my undefined "your".

In debates, it is not up to someone to define the opponent's words. For example, If the pro uses a word, it is up to them to define it if they think it will cause confusion. In other words, the con does not have the burden to define the pro"s words. Therefore, the pro has incorrectly shifted the burden to me, the con side, to define words he/she used. On another note, it is incorrect grammar to state "Your good at debating." If you use your as you mean it, there must be a gerund after it. The correct version would in fact be "You"re."

R #3: Furthermore, you have currently left the word "bad" undefined.

Again, I don"t have to define your words. Otherwise, most debates would proceed with every side defining every single word. It is implied that both sides understand the proper definitions of each word used, or if they don"t, they ask the opposing side for clarification. This is how a debate proceeds in almost all circumstances.

R #4: In other words, your topic of debate is "I am unfavourable at debating".

This simply is not true. You cannot insert synonyms and expect the sentence to make sense. In the English Language, there exists grammar - in other words, words are used for clarity. It wouldn't make sense in any context to use unfavorable to describe my debating ability. Bad and unfavorable, although synonyms in some thesaurus, cannot be used interchangeably wherever, whenever. English is much more complex than that. Words are chosen extremely carefully in proper academic writing to represent what a person is trying to say. Just because "bad" might have another definition, it doesn't mean one can substitute those definitions for the opponent in order to attack their argument.

R #5: A more favourable debater would have completed more debates.

That isn"t true at all. All "favorable" debaters must start somewhere. Are you contending that it is impossible for someone to join debate.org and be a good debater, before having completed many debates? Completing more debates does not, in any respect, make someone a favorable debater.

In conclusion, my opponent has merely tried to show I am a bad debater because I didn't define the words he himself used - which were completely common English words. It is not necessary to define every single word in a debate - only those that may be confusing. If the opponent wants clarification, it is assumed he will ask the opposition for clarification, not use it to attack the opponent"s debating skills.

Sources:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://stevenpinker.com...
AWSM0055

Pro

R#1
Assuming what I meant makes you a bad debater. Good debaters should never assume what an opponent is saying.

R#2
I accept this refutation.

R#3
Your topic was "I am a bad debater", so YOU should have defined YOUR words in the beginning. The fact that you didn't left it open to semantics, which bad debaters usually do.

R#4
I accept this refutation

R#5
Rookies are usually bad at anything at first. The fact that your a rookie means that your probably a bad debater.

Ok, I'll be serious now (in other words, I'll use non-semantical arguments).

I'm assuming that when you say "bad", you are using the definition:

"Of poor quality or low standered"
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

I also assume "debating" is the following definition:

"Argue about (a subject) often in a formal matter"

"Bad" is very subjective (people have varying standards and opinions of the quality of something, including your debating skills). Thus, I'm arguing against something that is mostly subjective. Thus, I have to convince the voters (who ever they may be) that your debating skills are bad according to their own standards. Since I'm not a mind reader and can't know what their standards are, I'm taking a shot in the dark, but here goes:

Argument 1:

The key to be a good debater is debating. You have done only 5 debates, most of which you have only won by the opponent forfeiting or being a weaker arguer. Good debaters should debate better opponents and debate more. The reason you win your debates is because the other opponents don't argue. Not because your good at arguing. In fact, you have done more poll votes then debates on site about debating.

Arguments 2:

You should have defined your terms at the beginning of the debate. All good debaters do this. Only poor debaters ever leave key words undefined during a debate (especially formal debates).

Argument 3:

This ties in with argument 1. You almost always accept debates, and nearly every one of your opponents were worse debaters than you. The fact that you always debate with worse debaters than you shows that you yourself are a bad debater. Good debaters try to debate in a diverse range of opponents, not just those whom are worse then themselves.

Argument 4: Your debate "Healthcare is a right" (located here: http://www.debate.org...)

In that debate, you accepted the debate and then later complained about the character limit. A good debater always carefully inspects debate rules before accepting. Usually only inferior debaters accept a debate impulsively without regard to rules and character limit.

Argument 5: Every single one of your debates was voted by one of your friends. This allows for extra bias, meaning that many of your wins could have been based on biased voting (could have).

In conclusion, you don't debate often, you leave important words undefined, and when you do debate you debate people who are inadequate to the task. To top it off, every one of your debates is voted by one or more of your friends. One cannot possibly say that you are a good debater. In fact, one can safely deduce that your are a bad or poor debater.

P.S. You cannot accuse me of any Ad Hominems and such since this debate itself is solely about Con (the instigator).
Debate Round No. 3
FlammableX

Con

Thank you for the debate so far. Your style is very interesting, I must say.

R#1: You have done only 5 debates, most of which you have only won by the opponent forfeiting or being a weaker arguer. Good debaters should debate better opponents and debate more.

I recently joined DDO, and thus accepted any debate topic I found interesting so far. The Pro side cannot accuse me of solely choosing debates that have weaker arguers because one, there is simply no evidence for this accusation, and two, I didn"t know my opponent or his/her debating skills when I accepted the debate. Again, I accepted the debates because they were interesting.

The pro side also states that good debaters should "debate more." The statement is non sequitur - clearly I am accepting debate challenges, so I don"t see how the pro side is claiming I should debate more. If the pro side is judging solely based on the amount of debates I have done so far, then it doesn"t follow from this that I am necessarily a bad debater - even if someone only did one debate on this site, they could still be a good debater. Thus, this point is entirely invalid.

R#2: The reason you win your debates is because the other opponents don't argue. Not because your good at arguing. In fact, you have done more poll votes then debates on site about debating.

If my opponent"s do not argue, the onus is not on me to try to make them argue. It does not make me a bad debater if my opponent"s are bad at debating. The pro side states that I win my debates not because I"m good at arguing. Where is the evidence for such an assertion? Yes, I"ve done 7 poll votes than debates on this site - so? This simply doesn"t prove nor show anything useful to the subject of being bad at debating. I have also scratched my ear today more times than I have debated on this site. Voting on polls took my perhaps 1 minute when I was surfing the DDO site.

R#3: You should have defined your terms at the beginning of the debate. All good debaters do this. Only poor debaters ever leave key words undefined during a debate (especially formal debates).

In most debates, the topic requires terms to be defined in the beginning. However, this isn"t some rule that one must follow every debate like a robot. In fact, it is entirely up to the challenger to define the rules for the particular debate. Since I put up a challenge, if the pro side wanted to argue semantics, he/she could have asked for clarification in round 1. Since the pro side did not do so, and only posted the one-liner "your good at debating", I assumed, not hastily, that the pro side in fact understood the terms of the debate, and was ready to proceed.

Since the terms in the topic were fairly basic, I did not feel I had the necessity to define the terms. This does not constitute a bad debater - again, it was your job to ask exactly what I meant by the terms when you accepted the debate in round 1, instead of just posting a one line assertion. Usually in debates, if the topic is more complex, such as involving healthcare, key definitions are paramount to define in the beginning of the debate - however, in this debate, that simply isn"t the case due to the particular topic.

R#4: You almost always accept debates, and nearly every one of your opponents were worse debaters than you. The fact that you always debate with worse debaters than you shows that you yourself are a bad debater. Good debaters try to debate in a diverse range of opponents, not just those whom are worse then themselves.

Again, look at refutation #2. This invective simply does not tie into the subject of trying to show I am bad at debating. Many "good debaters" set up ELO requirements to join particular debates on this site, and therefore, I simply accepted debates with interesting topics, and ones I could actually accept. Just because my opponent is "worse than me", that doesn"t mean I"m a bad debater because I didn"t choose to debate someone better. It isn"t on me to filter out challenges for only the best of debaters - I debate any topic that piques my interest. It doesn"t follow that if I debate worse debaters than myself, that I myself am a bad debater.
Good debaters do not in fact have to debate a diverse range of opponents. You must define "diverse" rigorously. All of my opponents were different, and had different amounts of debates and skill level. Just because I won the debates, it doesn"t mean that in general my opponent"s were necessarily worse at debating than myself.

R#5: Your debate "Healthcare is a right" (located here: http://www.debate.org...;). In that debate, you accepted the debate and then later complained about the character limit. A good debater always carefully inspects debate rules before accepting. Usually only inferior debaters accept a debate impulsively without regard to rules and character limit.

I did in fact carefully inspect the debate rules for this particular debate before accepting. However, it is perfectly fine to imply to the opponent that a larger amount of characters allowed would have led to a more meaningful conversation. The Pro side have not shown that I in fact accepted the debate impulsively - in fact, I did quite the opposite. Healthcare is an issue I find very enticing, so I saw an open challenge about it, and accepted it. I stated "500 characters seriously" in parentheses at the end of one my arguments to imply to my opponent that it would"ve been better if he had increased the character limit. This in no way shows that I didn"t look at the rules to the particular debate.

R#6: In conclusion, you don't debate often, you leave important words undefined, and when you do debate you debate people who are inadequate to the task. To top it off, every one of your debates is voted by one or more of your friends.

See my previous refutations for this assertion. The pro side seems to have a logically fallacious argument. He or she argues that because I have only done 5 debates so far, I cannot be a good debater, which is non sequitur - the two are entirely independent. The pro also tries to look at my relationship with the voters, stating that every one of my debates was voted by one of my friends, and therefore there was probably bias. This accusation is invalid - I simply friend anyone that comments, votes, or friend requests me. In fact, I am a friend with the pro side him/herself! The votes would have been long removed if they were biased. This is the nature of the DDO site. The pro, in other words, is looking for every opportunity to defame me - which is fine, since it is the nature of this topic: however, many of the accusations do not have anything to do with showing I am bad at debating. Instead, they are accusations which make me look bad - but not necessarily a bad debater. Therefore, the pro"s accusations and assertions are invalid.
AWSM0055

Pro

"I recently joined DDO, and thus accepted any debate topic I found interesting so far. The Pro side cannot accuse me of solely choosing debates that have weaker arguers because one, there is simply no evidence for this accusation, and two, I didn"t know my opponent or his/her debating skills when I accepted the debate. Again, I accepted the debates because they were interesting."

There is evidence. People can simply look at the profile of people you have debated. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you knew or not, the fact is that you debate weaker debaters.

"The pro side also states that good debaters should "debate more." The statement is non sequitur - clearly I am accepting debate challenges, so I don"t see how the pro side is claiming I should debate more. If the pro side is judging solely based on the amount of debates I have done so far, then it doesn"t follow from this that I am necessarily a bad debater - even if someone only did one debate on this site, they could still be a good debater. Thus, this point is entirely invalid."

Not entirely non-sequitur. You can't say a "debater" is good at "debating" when they rarely even debate, and debate people who are less good at debating. That's like saying a fireman is good at putting out fires when he only successfully put out a small fire a couple times.

"If my opponent"s do not argue, the onus is not on me to try to make them argue. It does not make me a bad debater if my opponent"s are bad at debating. The pro side states that I win my debates not because I"m good at arguing. Where is the evidence for such an assertion? Yes, I"ve done 7 poll votes than debates on this site - so? This simply doesn"t prove nor show anything useful to the subject of being bad at debating. I have also scratched my ear today more times than I have debated on this site. Voting on polls took my perhaps 1 minute when I was surfing the DDO site."

I'll accept this refutation

"In most debates, the topic requires terms to be defined in the beginning. However, this isn"t some rule that one must follow every debate like a robot. In fact, it is entirely up to the challenger to define the rules for the particular debate. Since I put up a challenge, if the pro side wanted to argue semantics, he/she could have asked for clarification in round 1. Since the pro side did not do so, and only posted the one-liner "your good at debating", I assumed, not hastily, that the pro side in fact understood the terms of the debate, and was ready to proceed."

You're right, it isn't a "must". But I'm not saying it's a "must". Defining terms is a general rule to follow, and all good debaters follow this rule. Good debaters also don't use fallacious arguments, even though there is strictly no "rule" against fallacious arguments. Also, you're wrong assumption is no defence. You shouldn't assume what your opponent is thinking! You should make the rules and terms properly defined at the beginning of every debate. If you don't, you're an inferior debater! There's nothing more to it.

"Again, look at refutation #2. This invective simply does not tie into the subject of trying to show I am bad at debating. Many "good debaters" set up ELO requirements to join particular debates on this site, and therefore, I simply accepted debates with interesting topics, and ones I could actually accept. Just because my opponent is "worse than me", that doesn"t mean I"m a bad debater because I didn"t choose to debate someone better. It isn"t on me to filter out challenges for only the best of debaters - I debate any topic that piques my interest. It doesn"t follow that if I debate worse debaters than myself, that I myself am a bad debater.
Good debaters do not in fact have to debate a diverse range of opponents. You must define "diverse" rigorously. All of my opponents were different, and had different amounts of debates and skill level. Just because I won the debates, it doesn"t mean that in general my opponent"s were necessarily worse at debating than myself."

I accept this refutation.

"I did in fact carefully inspect the debate rules for this particular debate before accepting. However, it is perfectly fine to imply to the opponent that a larger amount of characters allowed would have led to a more meaningful conversation. The Pro side have not shown that I in fact accepted the debate impulsively - in fact, I did quite the opposite. Healthcare is an issue I find very enticing, so I saw an open challenge about it, and accepted it. I stated "500 characters seriously" in parentheses at the end of one my arguments to imply to my opponent that it would"ve been better if he had increased the character limit. This in no way shows that I didn"t look at the rules to the particular debate."

If you did look at the rules, you wouldn't have accepted. How do I know your lying? Because if you knew, you would request a character increase in the comments section instead of accepting and then complaining. Why? Because then the instigator would have been able to change the settings. But you didn't, you presumptuously accepted the debate and then complained afterwards.

"See my previous refutations for this assertion. The pro side seems to have a logically fallacious argument. He or she argues that because I have only done 5 debates so far, I cannot be a good debater, which is non sequitur - the two are entirely independent. The pro also tries to look at my relationship with the voters, stating that every one of my debates was voted by one of my friends, and therefore there was probably bias. This accusation is invalid - I simply friend anyone that comments, votes, or friend requests me. In fact, I am a friend with the pro side him/herself! The votes would have been long removed if they were biased. This is the nature of the DDO site. The pro, in other words, is looking for every opportunity to defame me - which is fine, since it is the nature of this topic: however, many of the accusations do not have anything to do with showing I am bad at debating. Instead, they are accusations which make me look bad - but not necessarily a bad debater. Therefore, the pro"s accusations and assertions are invalid."

You can't be good at something if you rarely even do it, and do it with inferior debaters! And how would you know if they were biased or not? You can't read minds!*

*BTW, after this debate, no hard feelings!
Debate Round No. 4
FlammableX

Con

R#1: There is evidence. People can simply look at the profile of people you have debated. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you knew or not, the fact is that you debate weaker debaters.

After 5 debates, one can hardly make the hasty generalization that I only debate weaker debaters. Just because I have not lost a debate so far, it doesn"t mean I only debate weaker debaters. Is the Pro saying he is a weaker debater then by his same logic?

R#2: Not entirely non-sequitur. You can't say a "debater" is good at "debating" when they rarely even debate, and debate people who are less good at debating. That's like saying a fireman is good at putting out fires when he only successfully put out a small fire a couple times.

The pro seems to have used a false analogy. Someone can be excellent at doing a particular thing even if they have only done it a few times. Also, debating doesn"t only exist only - if someone debated 10 years in real life competitively, and then joined DDO and only had a few debates, one can hardly say that they are a debater.

R#3: You"re right, it isn't a "must". But I'm not saying it's a "must". Defining terms is a general rule to follow, and all good debaters follow this rule. Good debaters also don't use fallacious arguments, even though there is strictly no "rule" against fallacious arguments. Also, you're wrong assumption is no defence. You shouldn't assume what your opponent is thinking! You should make the rules and terms properly defined at the beginning of every debate. If you don't, you're an inferior debater! There's nothing more to it.

Yes, defining terms is a good general rule to follow. However, my debate clearly said that the opposite side should try to show that I am bad at debating. Therefore, since they had the burden, it is valid to give them an understandable topic, so that if they wanted to use a definition, they would define it properly. Instead, the pro attempted to win by purposefully going against English grammar and normal definitions by using semantics. This is not what anyone would intend for the opposing side to do. The reason I left this debate unrestricted is because I wanted the opponent to be free to go about this topic however he/she wished. I would have hoped the Pro would"ve used the first argument space to clarify, define, etc., instead of just stating the substance-less "Your good at debating :D."

R#4: If you did look at the rules, you wouldn't have accepted. How do I know your lying? Because if you knew, you would request a character increase in the comments section instead of accepting and then complaining. Why? Because then the instigator would have been able to change the settings. But you didn't, you presumptuously accepted the debate and then complained afterwards.

No, I still wanted to accept because I was interested in the debate. It seems as if the Pro is trying to shift topics to my "lying." I am not very familiar with DDO, so I thought once a challenge was put up, it could not be edited by the perpetrator. This in no way shows that I am bad in debating however.

R#5: You can't be good at something if you rarely even do it, and do it with inferior debaters! And how would you know if they were biased or not? You can't read minds!*

In conclusion, the only argument the Pro side seems to have come up with is that I rarely debate, and I debate weaker arguers, therefore I myself am a bad debater. Again, saying I "rarely" debate is both erroneous, and does not show anything. I accept debates ever since I joined a few weeks ago - I simply do not see how this shows I am a bad debater. Again, just because I only have 5 debates on DDO, it doesn"t mean I am a bad debater - the president could join DDO and have 5 debates - would this make him a bad debater? Also, I don"t choose debaters based on who my opponent is - I debate based on interesting topics. If my opponent is worse than I am at debating, this doesn"t reflect on me at all as a quality of debater.

Thus, the Pro side failed to uphold the Burden of Proof to show I am a bad debater - therefore, vote con!

*Yes, no hard feelings.
AWSM0055

Pro

AWSM0055 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SocialDemocrat// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con not only failed to assign definitions in his own debate, but said what was not a concession was a concession, also trying to push voters into voting for him by telling them to, but pro forfeited a round do conduct is a tie. Con had some trouble with reading and lied about spelling and grammar in round 1, and pro had to define cons terms, so spelling and grammar to pro. Pro gave overwhelming reasons why con was a bad debater-his assuming what pro was saying, failure to define terms, lack of experience, uses bias to his advantages, so pro wins arguments overwhelmingly, making con look like a petulant child. Pro actually defined cons terms for him so those are sources, and resourcefully referenced one of cons debate, so sources to pro. Overall, pro eviscerated con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The reasoning provided for S&G is insufficient. Issues between the debaters with reading comprehension and definitions are applicable to the outcome of the arguments, but not to S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter fails to analyze specific points made by either side, instead generalizing problems with one side's arguments and making insulting statements about them.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: hidude45454// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. In addition, pro continued to use "your" when he meant "you're", which awards grammar to con. Both sides responded to the opposing arguments, but con did a better job of this, as he succeeded in proving that pro had a lack of evidence in asserting that he was a bad debater (ex: 5 debates doesn't mean much). Meanwhile, pro made several "No True Scotsman" fallacies (ex: no good debater does so and so) and hasty assumptions. Sources were used by both sides and both proved helpful to each side.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. Misspelling a single word repeatedly doesn't make the debater's argument difficult to read, and the voter has to show that that's the case before this point can be given.
************************************************************************
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I will vote on this as soon as I find time.
Posted by MasterBater69 1 year ago
MasterBater69
rekt
Posted by MasterBater69 1 year ago
MasterBater69
rekt
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
Mind blown. Heads up to such a topic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
FlammableXAWSM0055Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF!
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
FlammableXAWSM0055Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.