The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
NiamC
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Larztheloser Should be "Knighted" With the Official Title "Beast Slayer"

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 6 votes the winner is...
NiamC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,942 times Debate No: 56693
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (6)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Round one is for acceptance only. Most of the Burden of Proof is rested on me.
Larztheloser: http://www.debate.org...
Knighted: honorably given, possibly have the title right under his name. Using some kind of simple html-code.
Beast: an animal, especially a large or dangerous four-footed one. From https://www.google.com....
No semantics arguments.
NiamC

Con

I accept!

http://www.twinfinite.net...

For set standards of this debate,
LarzTheLoser lives in NewZealand
Newzealand is part of the commonwealth
The head of the commonwealth is Queen Elizabeth 2nd.

I wish my opponent good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

1. The Beast Slayer Theory
This is going to be my only argument throughout the whole debate, so if it's taken down, I lose. Sounds easy, eh? Well this argument woun't be easy to take down.

P1: If one is worthy of the title "Beast Slayer", then one should be knighted with the official title "Beast Slayer"
P2: Larz is worthy of the title "Beast Slayer"
C: larztheloser should be knighted with the official title "Beast Slayer"

DEFENSE OF p1: There is no reason to not give a title to someone who deserves it. This is reasonably easy to do, since the layout of user profiles and the DDO webpage is so complex, it should be easy to simply add "Beast Slayer" below larz's username.

DEFENSE OF P2: Larztheloser has "slain" many worthy beasts.
He is the only guy to ever defeat Whiteflame. [1]
He is the only guy to ever defeat ClassicRobert. [2]
These two guys are "beasts"--dangerous animals, since humans are considered to be in the kingdom of Animalia, [8] and they are so dangerous, both only losing once thank to our Beast Slayer, and one having over 3,000 elo, the other having over 4,400 elo, both impressive feats. [6][7]
He's one of the only four guys to ever defeat Raisor [3]. Keep in mind that Raisor is one of the most respected debaters on the website, even Mikal agrees. (The image belongs to thett3)


To demonstrate larz's awesomeness and beast-slaying even further, he was one of the only 10 people to ever defeat TUF, the Official DDO's 2cd-tournament's champion--TUF! [4]--to show that TUF is the champion [5]--to show he's been slain.


Thus, I have proven my point and fulfilled my BoP. Based on the definition, it is not an insult to such grand members and such any arguments that it is immoral to insult Whiteflame, ClassicRobert, or any other "Beast" slain is actually a compliment, since we show fear and admiration by putting the label dangerous or large upon these users.
Onto you, con.
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
NiamC

Con

Ok, let’s go!

My argument: Larztheloser should not be knighted with official title: Beast Slayer.

P1. Knighthood Titles- Larztheloser would not receive the title: Beast Slayer.

The act of somebody being knighted is called “knighting” or formally- a Knighthood. There is only one sovereign country that currently performs knighthoods- this is Great Britain. This doesn’t mean that people from other countries cannot receive these awards. Great Britain is the sovereign state in the Commonwealth- thus, the head of the Commonwealth is Queen Elizabeth 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://thecommonwealth.org...

http://thecommonwealth.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are two types of knighthood which Lars (Larztheloser) could receive:

1) Knight Bachelor - This award can be given to any citizen in the Commonwealth, but is usually awarded to British citizens. A British citizen who receives a knighthood will be dubbed (the sword thing) and would receive the title “sir”. For a citizen of any other commonwealth country, they would receive an “honorary Knighthood) meaning that that they will not be dubbed and won't receive any title.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.royal.gov.uk...

2) New Zealand Order Of Merit -This award is only given to citizens of New Zealand. Someone who receives this type of knighthood is called a “Knight Companion”. A recipient is dubbed and receives the title “sir”; this is the only title that they will receive.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, it would make more sense for Lars to receive a New Zealand Order of Merit. But nevertheless, it is not possible to be awarded the title “Beast Slayer” with any Knighthood award.

Therefore, Larztheloser should not be knighted with the title “Beast Slayer” because it would not be possible; "only sir."

This point alone would ruin my opponent’s whole resolution.

P2. The Title “Beast Slayer”- Larztheloser has not slain any Beasts.

Ok, let’s just bring up the definition of “beast”:

“An animal, especially a large or dangerous four-footed one.”

...Now, let’s have a look at the definition of “slay” -> “slaying” -> “slain”:

“Kill (a person or animal) in a violent way.”

I think that you have used the term “slain – slay “a bit oddly.

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

You bring up the irrelevant and odd point that Larztheloser has defeated many skilled and known debaters and then you say that has “slain” these people.

Here are some questions for my opponent to consider:

1) Has Larztheloser ever violently killed any of the debaters which you mentioned? (To slay is to violently kill).

2) Has Larztheloser ever violently killed any animal of any size to that of a beast (beast- large and dangerous animal)?

Answer 1) - No, all of these members are still alive (hence user activity) and they have never been physically harmed by Larztheloser.

Answer 2) –No. In fact, I asked him; he basically said no.

As you can see, putting down an animal is not to slay them. Also, a tree an animal.

http://www.treedictionary.com...

Reason 2:
As I have explained before, When being knighted (in this case for Lars, a NZ order of Merit) he would only receive the title "sir". This is the only title one could be awarded regardless of whether there is a special request.


C1: - Larztheloser should not be "knighted" with the official title "beast slayer"
1)"Beast Slayer" is not an official title given when a knighthood is awarded to anybody. Only the title of "sir"
2) Larz has not violently killed any of the mentioned debaters (whom were referred to as "beasts" by my opponent). Therefore he has not actually slain any "beasts".

Even if he had slain these debators, he still cannot be knighted with the title of "beast slayer" because this title is not an official one. Even if he had killed a real "beast" violently, the same situation still repeats.

- He should not be knighted

Conclusion:
My opponent has presented a flawed argument - with the assumption that "beast slayer" is an official knighthood title, he has used the word "slay" too figuratively; thus allowing me to negate all of his argument.
I have been able to negate my opponents arguments; thus he has not fulfilled the BOP and now has no valid arguments. I have provided strong, solid and unrefutable arguments against the resolution.
I have fulfilled my share of the BOP.

*quote CJKallstar

I urge the floor to side with me!

Ready to concede?

Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent is pretty funny. She's trying to troll the troll with a half-straw argument that isn't a straw man due to the fact that I never managed to limit this debate down to DDO. Excellent work trolling the troll.
My opponent's argument works like this:
P1. If larz is neither a citizen of another commonwealth country--not Britain, then he cannot be entitled "Beast Slayer"
P2. Larz is part of New Zealand, thus only qualified for "Sir"
C: Larz cannot be "Beat Slayer" Due to the limitations by law

However, this argument does not work to DDO or real life. Since I am certain Airmax and larz have met in real life, surely they could role-play out a "knighting", thus, my rebuttal argument works like this:
P1. If Airmax has more power over DDO than the Awarders of Knight Bachelors, they therefore cannot stop Airmax, and therefore Airmax can do whatever he wants, even if it violates the laws of Knight Bachelor.
P2. Airmax has more power over DDO than the Awarders of Knight Bachelors
C: Airmax can do whatever he wants and knight larztheloser while breaking the laws of Britain

There is no "security police" on DDO, and certainly none from Britain. Thus, Britain holds no power over Airmax, and since it is moral for one to be awarded "Beast Slayer", and Airmax is an honorable man, he'd definitely award/knight the title "Beast Slayer" to Larztheloser. Thus your argument goes down the drain.

Now, my opponent attempts to do a half-semantics argument that isn't really semantics (so I'll let it pass), which goes something like this:
P1. If larztheloser hasn't violently killed a large/dangerous animal, he isn't worthy of the "Beast Slayer" title
P2. Larz hasn't violently killed a large/dangerous animal
C: He ain't worthy of "Beast Slayer"

However, this is easily refuted. Since my opponent agrees that humans are animals, and she thinks that "larger than the size of a rabbit" is "large", and the average size of a human is MUCH larger than the size of an average rabbit...
HUMAN: The average of all countries is over 150 CM high [1]
BUNNY: At maximum, 45 CM high [2]
Thus, if I prove larz to have "violently killed" these debaters I listed above, therefore he has slain beasts.
You may wonder: how do I prove that these debaters are violently killed?
Well, I asked the infamous Airmax himself. (pasted conversation here)

hey >>
Between You and Airmax1227
Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:25:52 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking
Yo, what happens to the people who get beaten in debates?

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:32:08 AM
Posted by:
Profile Cardairmax1227
Don't you know? The words get thrown at your face and you die a violent death.

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:35:00 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking
Um, but, wouldn't every unbeaten person be inactive permanently? Besides, I'm still alive after 40-something violent deaths, right?

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:37:11 AM
Posted by:
Profile Cardairmax1227
9spaceking, you regenerate automatically. The debates are magical.

As you can see even Airmax the moderator knows that if you get beaten, you get killed violently. Luckily it's quick and you don't feel much pain, otherwise nobody would take their chances in debating.

As for "Beast Slayer" not being an official title, well, I said before, as long as Airmax likes it, he can use it, against the laws of the world, as long as they aren't more powerful than him. However, I know, my opponent might rebut "but Airmax isn't enough!"
Therefore I asked a bunch of important people to think of their opinion.

do you think>>
Between You, RoyLatham, Airmax1227, Ore_Ele, Larztheloser and SeventhProfessor
Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:42:25 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking
hey, do you think Larztheloser should be "knighted" (honorably given) the official title "Beast Slayer"?

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:44:50 AM
Posted by:
Profile Cardlarztheloser
Sure, I guess. Why not?

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:47:20AM
Posted by:
Profile Cardairmax1227
Easily manageable. It's just a simple code. I don't see how hard it could possibly be.

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:56:40AM
Posted by:
Profile CardseventhProfessor
I one-hundred-percent support this idea. Go larz!

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:55:33AM
Posted by:
Profile Cardore_ele
Hmmm...interesting idea. I'll try to think about it.

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 3:56:25 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card9spaceking
What do you think RoyLatham?

Wednesday, July 22, 2014 @ 4:07:46AM
Posted by:
Profile CardroyLatham
I can clearly see that this is not subjective opinion, but rather an objective conclusion based upon logical reasoning. After examining larz's profile carefully, I agree that he should be knighted with the title "Beast Slayer".

As seen, I have fulfilled my BoP and rebuilt my contention.
No, I won't concede.
Back to you, con.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wiki.answers.com...
NiamC

Con

Ok, I would like to some things before I begin:

1) Throughout your argument, you have been referring to me as “she”; I don’t like this, I don’t know if you were doing this intentionally but either way, you should know to stop now.

2) I was not trying to troll this debate. I am not a troll; you said that this would be a serious debate, so I stuck to this.

Rebuttals:

“Excellent work trolling the troll.”

I did not troll this debate; I set my arguments out to be serious, nothing else; it is obvious that you are trying to undermine me and my arguments in front of the voters.

“A half-straw argument that isn't a straw manWait... so you are saying that I used a “straw” argument..... That isn’t a Straw man... Ok....

Attn: Voters,

This is my opponent’s adaptation of the syllogism which I had presented:

P1. If Larz is neither a citizen of another commonwealth country--not Britain, then he cannot be entitled "Beast Slayer"
P2. Larz is part of New Zealand, thus only qualified for "Sir"
C: Larz cannot be "Beat Slayer" Due to the limitations by law.

This is a more accurate account (I should know, it was my argument after all):

P1: Larztheloser can’t be knighted with the title “Beast Slayer” due to “beast slayer” not being an official Knighthood title.

P2: He can’t receive the title “Beast Slayer” due to the fact that he hasn't violently killed (slain) any “beasts”.

P3: Larztheloser therefore can’t be knighted with the title “beast slayer”.

Things wrong with my opponents account of my argument:

1) I said that Lars is a member of the commonwealth. The reason why he cannot receive the title of “beast slayer” is because it is not an official title; regardless of whether Lars is a citizen of a Commonwealth country.

2) I don’t know what you are trying to do here, but my opponent said that the 2nd premise was that “he can only receive “sir” because he is from New Zealand”. This is wrong; the 2nd premise is that he hasn't slain any “beasts” and therefore shouldn't receive the title “beast slayer”. What Pro said about my 2nd premise was actually part of my 1st premise; but then again, you had adapted my 1st premise as well.

3) for my contention, I never mentioned that there were limitations by law. Although, now that you brought it up, there are laws:

Possible reasons why my opponent adapted my premises and contentions:

1) To undermine my main argument in front of the viewers and audience- by changing the structure of my premise so that it would be less effective to read and use in an argument; also by actually adapting one of the premises so that my argument would make less sense. Nice work, Pro.

2) My opponent didn't read all of my argument. If you did all of my argument, why would you change my premise argument?

Either way, both are bad.

“Since I am certain Airmax and larz have met in real life, surely they could role-play out a "knighting", thus, my rebuttal argument works like this:Once again, only a figure of highest authority can give knighthoods + titles; ergo what Airmax would be doing, is not a real knighting and Larz would not receive any official title. Airmax therefore has no authority of giving knighthoods or titles of any sort.

*Please note that the debate says: “..with the official title of ...”

Here’s a syllogism to debunk your argument:

P1: Two people could do a role-play of a killing

P2: The other person would pretend to be dead

C: The person would have the status of being dead.

To my opponent, my syllogism is logical but would not make sense; the syllogism has the same context as yours so ergo, yours wouldn't make sense. Furthermore, when you do a role-play of knighting, the person wouldn’t actually receive a knighthood or a title.

Pro next attempts to prove that Larz supposedly had killed the mention debater after winning a debate against them, by apparently asking high skilled debaters about what happens when you lose a debate.

My opponent has pasted messages between him and others about this matter but hasn't provided proof that these chats had actually occurred.

Why we can assume these “message pastings” as fake:

1) My opponent has pasted the message in text format. How do we know that he didn’t just write them out?

2) We don’t have confirmation from any of these hoaxed debaters that these messages ever happened. Vice versa

3) If these were legit, why not just do a screen paste to make them seem legit.

NO.3 still wouldn’t work due to the fact it is easy to modify text on a page temporarily and screenshot it. Here’s an example of one that I did- this proves my point

* this screenshot is 100 % fake.
 photo 21934603-6628-4d2d-bcfb-9c72e8add15c_zps3218a314.png

We can see that there's no proof of authenticity of any of the messages shown by Pro. Ergo, we assume that these are fake and that his argument is once again refuted. Even worse, there is the possibility that 9spaceking has lied in order to garner favour in voting.

Summary:

My opponent hasn't fulfilled the BOP.

My opponent adapted parts of my argument.

My opponent has possibly lied to garner a win in his favour

My arguments remain unrefuted.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Excellent job NiamC. I am impressed with your arguing skills. No wonder you have over 3,000 elo.
And yes, I was aware you weren't trying to troll. You accidentally trolled. Somehow. :P
Keep in mind that my opponent cannot include too much new arguments within the final round, as it is common to conclude without new points within debates, I will include minimal new points within this final round. Or at least, try to.

FINAL REBUTTALS
1. Larz slain beasts?
My opponent merely repeats her points but makes no effort to rebut my arguments over why larz has in fact slain beasts. Based on her definition of beast and her previous round's question over whether or not Larz has killed something larger than a bunny, I have fulfilled my BoP. As for my opponent's accusation of posting these messages, one, I don't know how to screen paste, two, I have yet to lie within a serious debate or anything of this sort. Sure, I have resorted to using troll arguments in a serious debates, but never have I used somebody's non-quotes to prove any of my points. Nothing suggests that I have lied. In addition, my opponent hasn't proved that you don't die a violent quick death with minimal pain if you lose a debate--you just regenerate uber-quickly, as Airmax1227 says within my previous round.

2. Airmax has authority?
I already proved within round 2 that Airmax has more authority on DDO than any royal person, as far as we know. Therefore Airmax is free to do whatever he likes on DDO, even if it breaks the rules of logic--"there is no such official title as 'beast slayer'", as long as he likes it. Airmax can in fact create this new "official title" which people can strive to achieve, and thus "Beast Slayer" will be an official title. As proven above, larz is definitely worthy of such title and is therefore legible for this "Beast Slayer" title. Furthermore, because of my arguments, Airmax can therefore actually give Larz the official title and Larz would officially receive it, and it would be on his profile for the whole world to see.

3. My adaption?
I nearly forgot to rebut this argument at first, so I'm putting this at the end of my argument. I was only trying to clear things up. Thank you for clearing things up for me.

As for your role-playing, indeed, somebody role-playing dead would be supposed to have the status of being dead. At least, in that particular role-playing environment. That particular "Dead" person could still be wandering around the underworld or revive via magic potion while in a 99% hibernative state.

CONCLUSION
--My opponent needs to prove that I did lie, not merely possibly lied.
--My opponent has yet to rebut my Beast Slayer Theory, which still 101% works
--I have fulfilled my part of the BoP, while my opponent couldn't really hold onto her part and still manage to rebut my arguments

And so, without further ado, vote me.
And Larz--cheers to you. You may not have yet meen knighted with the official title of "Beast Slayer" by Airmax as a result of debate, and you could possibly never be knighted, but I still have enough power to hereby dub thee the UNofficial title of "Beast Slayer", which the readers of this debate will know you as from now on!



And no, NiamC, that is not a concession. Seriously, I said "may not", which means there is a tiny possibility in which Airmax isn't convinced of my arguments. I never said "he will not". Well yes I just said it but it's not part of my arguments and therefore it doesn't count.
This was a fun debate and the kind of debate I wanted to take my mind on a break away from the World Cup while still teasing it with some arguments.
THE END
I hope you liked this debate and put this in your favorites! :D
NiamC

Con

Ok firstly, I told you stop referring to me as “Her” & and “she”; I indicated that I didn’t like this, but you still continued on multiple counts to do so. It has to stop!

1. 9spaceking’s B.S. Theory- this was made up and fallacious.
So, in the last round, my opponent had provided a “message pasting” which he deemed would be seen as the evidence which would show that you die a horrible death from losing a debate and that you quickly regenerates afterwards- to justify that Larztheloser has slain many beasts.

This is completely a lie! My opponent says that I have made a baseless accusation against him in which I said that those message that he pasted, were fake. Well my friends, I can confirm that my opponent’s pastings were indeed 100% fake after speaking to a number of people of relevant to this matter. They all confirmed that they never had such a conversation with my opponent * coughs (Airmax). This is substantial evidence that my opponent is lying and therefore his argument is invalid. Unfortunately, a certain person said that I cannot paste the conversations that I had with the people at hand, or I would get in trouble. You think that I am lying? If I am lying about what I have said, may he smite me where I stand?

I decided to pray to God, and then all of a sudden, he appeared on DDO, so I messaged him:

As you can see, he says that you don’t die after losing a debate and that you would regenerate anyway. This is proof that debunks the B.S. Theory thus rendering my opponents argument useless.

2.
Airmax does not have the authority to knight anyone
Airmax has power over DDO. But regardless, He does not have power to give a knighthood nor any title. As I have said before, only that of a royal status etc could be able to give a knighthood and title. If Airmax role-played out a knighthood with Larz, this would not be a real knighthood and Larz would not receive any title either; Larz would not be able to receive any title.

Please note that the title says ... “Official title of Beast Slayer”. Larz could not receive this title due to the fact that one cannot be knighted with the title “beast slayer” because it is not an official title for ay eligible knighthood.

Conclusion= Larz cannot be knighted by Airmax and he would not be able to receive the title of “beast slayer” from anyone.

3. 9spaceking’s adaption of my argument
In round four of this debate, my opponent raised the issue of him adapting my argument but did not address this matter. The matter still lies at hand that my opponent had adapted my main argument intentionally but does not deny or accept this. In round 3, my opponent had presented his adaptation of my argument in which he presented a syllogism which had a different structure and was different in wording – this in effect, would make my argument seem less effective and strong. My opponent said that he was “trying to clear things up”. If you were only trying to clear up my argument, why not just declare so in that same round and just condense the wording? Not change the arguments syllogisms.

Why Larz the loser cannot be knighted with the title of “beast slayer”

In Lars’s lifetime, he would only be eligible for two types of knighthood- neither of which would give the title of “beast slayer”. There is also the matter the he shouldn’t receive any title of “beast slayer” due to the fact that he has not violently killed any beasts; or in this case, the aforementioned debaters (as debunked above). A figure such as Airmax wouldn’t be able to give a title or knighthood (as shown above). Therefore, in no such circumstance should Larztheloser be knighted with the title of “beast slayer”.

The resolution is negated.

Conclusion:

  • I have shown that my opponent did in fact in lie and produced fake evidence to support his arguments. With this, his argument would be made baseless. If he wasn’t lying, I have provided proof to negate it anyway.
  • My opponent had indeed presented and changed my argument intentionally.
  • My opponent has not refuted the fact that only certain bodies of highest power can give knighthoods/titles.
  • My opponent has not negated the fact that “beast slayer” is not an official knighthood title.
  • I have shown that a figure such as Airmax would not be able to give any knighthood; therefore, Lars would not be able to be knighted by Airmax etc.
  • I have negated my opponent’s argument that Larz has slain many “beasts” (my opponent went with beasts being “high-skilled debaters”).
  • I have negated my opponent’s B.S. theory (Beast slayer theory). The B.S theory does not work.
  • I have rebutted all of my opponent’s arguments.
  • My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP
  • I have fulfilled the small amount of BOP which my opponent said I had.

I have met the criteria to win this debate. This debate has been very interesting indeed... I need to go lie down now...

Vote Me!

To Lars, you were the star.

Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
"Since I am certain Airmax and larz have met in real life"

I'm pretty certain I've never met anybody from DDO in real life.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
@claps hands
excellent final rebuttal. For a moment I thought you were going to forfeit there.
Well, it seems you have this debate won. Good job.
Posted by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
B.s Theory means "beast slayer" theory
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
I think I've got this debate in the bag. You can't defeat me without a load of new arguments.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
ah, stuck on your final argument I see. Tough job you have there. Even you think you're screwed. XD
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
also, I dropped a bunch of arguments...you have to read and examine my argument very closely to notice though. :P
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
wupsies. Well, it was only once. I tried to avoid naming your gender altogether becuz I was lazy. :P
Posted by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
I told you to STOP CALLING ME "HER". Did you not read the beginning of my argument where it tells you to stop doing that?
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
good luck on your final round, NiamC. You'll need it.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Bwahaha. Thett uses a Mac?!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by kinsky 3 years ago
kinsky
9spacekingNiamCTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't really decide on sources... technically con provided actual sources to support his aguments, pros only sources were links to the ddo... Cons sources were actually linked to external matters and not just to other members of DDO 1)Pro implied tha con is a troll and that he was trolling. Pro actually atrtempted to use false evidence to try to win. I will give con conduct pointds for this and for him saying that his is pretty funny and also for falseness in arguments. This could seem a little offensive to some. Arguments go to con. I feel that pro was being as serious as he could have been in this debate. round 1 was pretty good and was well structured as well. I might change my vote later.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
9spacekingNiamCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: First that stuck me as a win was sources, as pro put together very good support for his case using them, whereas con source bombed (free floating sources, not assured to be tied to said arguments... if not true, please name what New Zealand's wiki page has to do with the queen bit?), she quoted Larz mentioning that the queen can give knight ranks and that he had slayed something, finally that her pictures were "100 % fake." Conduct, something of a pet peeve, con complaining over not being called "it," but instead "she" as indicated by her profile picture (calling pro an it would be appropriate as he/it seems to suffer mutations), in addition to falsifying claims, like that in R1 pro claimed this would be a "serious debate." While I disagree with pro, as knighthoods and titles here would be a waste, con tried sementics of how one country would not do it (which has little to do with this website, not international politics. Larztheloser isn't even his 'real' name...)
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
9spacekingNiamCTied
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: DDO knighting =/= British knighting. Airmax can do as he pleases. Beasts defeated merit the title.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
9spacekingNiamCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con in this debate as he provided more of them. He also get's conduct due to Pro stating that he cheated and calling him a troll.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
9spacekingNiamCTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: falseness from pro
Vote Placed by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
9spacekingNiamCTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were talking about two different things, and the division came so apparent in the end that I am unable to give out any points in terms of arguments. In terms of conduct, con was attacked with ad homs such as: "My opponent is pretty funny."