Most debaters on here resort to absurd semantics to win
Debate Rounds (3)
"Most!!!? you are telling me that MOST DEBATERS on here resort to absurd semantics to win? MOST? you cant be serious!!! only 49% of debaters do that, and that is not MOST. so you are WRONG, and I WIN HAHAHAHAHA"
This is exactly what I am talking about people.
This place used to be halfway decent but it has devolved into ridiculous word games where people nit pick small phrases their opponent used instead of focusing on the main topic at hand. Usually when people say most in the negative they mean "far more than I would expect from the general public" but its far easier to just say most, and you know what they meant in the first place, so get off it. you are just using BS semantics to try and make yourself seem intelligent.
I also see a lot of people using the first round to cripple their opponent with constraints.
(these are for example and are not actual rules for this debate (sad but needs to be said))
RULE 1: Burden of Proof is on my opponent! (basically showing they don't have to prove anything and if they are asked to do so act as if this is an instant forfeit.)
RULE 2: Opponent can not use X to support their claim. (usually something insane like a Christian cannot use the bible to support their argument. it takes the oppositions main source of evidence and argument and outlaws it right off the bat)
RULE 3: This debate can only be accepted by "blah blah blah blah blah" (usually some extremely rare thing like a Muslim American Female with one leg and exactly 4 dogs. quit trying to pick your opponent and take all comers, you are just showing how pathetic your debate skills are)
RULE 4: (not actually listed but implied over and over) If you disagree with me you are RACIST/SEXIST and I will continue to point that out over and over regardless of any evidence you submit to the contrary. This is the most chickenshit tactic of all.
I see these things on here all the time people.
Can we admit things have gone too far?
I accept Pro's debating challenge.
What I can say, is this. Yes, I can see things have gone too far with (so-called) "most" of the DDO community. I see your issues with the word "most". Though, when debating, debaters tend to be very "exact" and "specific" with what they mean. They tend to pick out small phrases from an argument and argue on that. It is not such a big problem. When people say the word "most" and mean "far more than I would expect from the general public", it does not match the real definition of the word, and therefore the opponents must point it out. Well, according to most people, the word "most" means the majority, basically.
So "most" of the debates' first rounds "cripple their opponent with constraints"? Well, I've looked through MANY debates on DDO, and so far I have not seen any of these constraints in any of those debates. Sure, it is unfair and pointless, and stupid even, but it is not the majority that is doing it. Well actually, most of the people on here play fairly. Besides, there's no saying that the opponent can't question the rules. Sure, they might be ignored, but the voters should actually realise how unfair the rules are, and not just worry about if the people are actually following the rules. Both debaters have equal rights to a debate!
To be honest, I never really thought of the word "most" meaning anything other than "the majority". So if I point these small phrases out, I am not just pointing these small phrases out for the sake of it.
SITR forfeited this round.
As I was saying, most of the debaters do NOT use absurb semantics to win. Besides, the reason why people pick out small phrases from the text and explain them, especially the word "most" in this debate, is that it is important. The word "most" is pretty much the whole focus here. To debate, one must know theirs and others' definitions of key words. In our case, it is the word most. Your definition of the word is "far more than expected from the general public". But is it the correct definition? That, you have to think about. When debating it is much more powerful to use the correct definitions, or something rather close to it. The word "most" means "the majority". It does not mean "far more than expected from the general public". And besides, who is "most people"? In debating, there are no shortcuts. Debaters must specifically state their arguments, and if what they meant is "far more than expected from the general public", then they should say so. Just because it's "easier" to say "most", does not mean shortcuts are to be used. Because word definitions are important in our case, with the word "most", people need to point that out. It is an IMPORTANT keyword in our case. This debate pretty much revolves around the word "most". Because whether or not those semantics are absurd, whether or not they are unfair, whether or not they should be used - is not important. What's important is what "most" is. What's important is the amount of people doing it in general. This isn't a word game where people nit pick small phrases their opponent used instead of focusing on the main topic at hand. This IS the main topic at hand. And for you to say we should "get off it", you are basically saying "Opponent can not use X to support their claim", which is semantic number 2. Now I don't know if, when you said "most people", you meant yourself too. But clearly, the majority of people are not doing this.
SITR forfeited this round.
To prove that most people are not the ones using absurd semantics to win debates, I suggest you look through at least the debates still in the challenge period. Most people don't use absurd semantics to win, because most people play fairly. And challenging certain people and not all people to debates is not cowardly. Not everyone does that all the time. If they do, they do it once in a while. How often do you come to a debate in the challenge period and find it closed to certain people or a certain person? It's not cowardly, because if people do that once in a while, they want to test the skills of certain people. Other debates, they test the skills of all people. It's not fair to judge people's reasons as to why they offer closed debates.
Since my opponent has got nothing more to say, I hereby rest my case for now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.