Minimum debate should be of 3 rounds
Debate Rounds (3)
debate- a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
Without conflicting opinions, it won't be a debate.
Most 1 round debates will be like " Megatron is real" "Megatron isn't real because...." The one accepting the debate gets an unfair advantage due to rebuttal points.
2 round debates too don't have much scope, especially if the argument of the instigator doesn't start in the first round. There is often a rule of 1 round for acceptance, which is not possible in a one round debate.
According to my opinion, the best debate is the one where both sides can present all points of their argument and possible rebuttals. The more enriching a debate about its topic, the better. Anyways, con hasn't rebutted many of my arguments, so vote for pro.
You're not that bad a dictator, I mean...debater.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The brief analysis of the problem, utterly rules out single-round debates from deserving to exist here, and con tried to troll with an assertion that "one round or less" is best as their entire case to refuture pro's logic. Going by pro's logic, the frequency of acceptance rounds confirms that to rule out the single round debates (which he showed to be a negative) three should be the minimum.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.