The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
115 Points
The Contender
kbub
Con (against)
Losing
71 Points

My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-8
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 30 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,317 times Debate No: 48901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (168)
Votes (30)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them.

Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent

*Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance

*Rule 4: In every round, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters, starting with a lower case letter (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). This rule must be applied to each line individually.

Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted

Have fun, and good luck! I don't why I decided to do this but it should be entertaining ha

kbub

Con

My opponent clearly is looking to noob snipe or to garner an easy, almost forced victory using an unfair resolution and an equally unfair set of "rules." Rather than giving my opponent what he wants--that is, my desperately attempting to win an already-lost argument whilst dEbAtInG iN aN uNdIgNiFiEd MaNnEr--I will use my rounds to re-think the role of the debater, the debate space, the voter, the ballot, and the rules. I will justify the use of this debate space to operate outside of the norms set up by my opponent and also DDO in general, and will further justify a ballot in my name.

Although you, Rational_Thinker, are obviously able to use the normative tools at your disposal (e.g. reporting content or demanding of a moderator the a priori sovereignty of rules) to easily force a win in your name, in doing so you would miss a thought-provoking, maybe even life-changing meta-debate. So with that I say f.uck the normative artificial sovereignty of these so-called "rules." Let the debate begin.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

First of all, I am not sure how this is supposed to be an "almost forced" victory. All my opponent had to do was just use the first round for acceptance, type like tHiS, and not contest the rules to avoid a definite loss. Yes, the rules were essentially just for my opponent to follow, but this was supposed to be more of a challenge to my opponent than a "fair" debate. Also, nobody put a gun to his head. If this debate was so "unfair" then why accept just to complain?

Well, it is clear that my opponent will lose this debate based on the rules outlined. This is because basically broke every rule...He didn't just use the first round just for acceptance, didn't type like tHis, and contested the rules by talking about how unfair it was.

Therefore, as per rules, this will be an automatic loss. I thank my opponent for the debate.
kbub

Con

I will make my arguments in this round brief and to the point so readers will be able to read them quickly and thoroughly before the more thorough analysis next round.

Firstly, I want to point out that my opponent and I completely agree that I am braking all five rules that he set up. My opponent could have gone farther. In addition to breaking the rules my opponent has set up, I am also disregarding the site rules that demand no profanities when I wrote "f.uck." I also agree with my opponent that the rules that he set up demand that breaking the rules carries a penalty of a 7 point forfeit.

My opponent assumes that I will therefore lose the debate. However, my opponent has ignored something that I think is central not only to this debate, but all debates on DDO--that is, the Role of the Ballot. The Role of the Ballot is basically how a voter should evaluate a debate. My opponent seems to take for granted that debate is a "game," wherein debaters follow a set of rules and then "win" or "lose," regardless of consequences outside this round.

My opponent has in fact labeled this debate under "funny." He admits in the comment that this debate is "stupid," and that that is the "point."

If debate is all a game--if debate has no consequences outside of the debate round--then my opponent would be absolutely right that the rules should be followed with no question. However, if debate were all a game, I would be playing chess instead.

***

In fact, debate can be far more than a game. Debate is an opportunity for us to seriously consider important issue in the world. Debate, rather than being a contest, is a way for us to re-evaluate the way we think. I have learned much from debating. Through debate I have become a vegetarian, a feminist, and someone who is critical of capitalism and authoritarian government. Other people have experienced different kinds of changes. However, the point of a debate is not to most effectively follow a set of rules and strategies, but actually effecting real change. The people on this debate site, especially my experienced opponent, may become policy-makers or voters, and many already are. This debate site is not a bubble--the way we debate has a real effect on the world. Making that real change is what debate is all about.

Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points.

I chose not to write "I accept the terms and conditions" because I did not accept them. I am not content with the way the debate has been framed here, or in general. By challenging the way we debate through a debate, I am allowing us to re-conseptualize rules.

Were people to assume the authority of rules, I would not have the freedom to be on this website. Were it not for individuals challenging the way we think and the rules society makes, no change would actually occur. My advocacy will to bring real change by rethinking the role of the ballot and the debater and rules. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

As per the rules of the debate, my opponent loses, as he broke rules. Therefore, a full 7 point score on the ballet is deserved for me. Now, the voters might decide to troll and vote against me, but that could be the case for ANY debate. I take it on good faith that the voters will do the right thing, as I do on any debate (just because this is supposed to be a funny debate, doesn't mean the rules don't have to be followed).

I gave a very simply set of rules. My opponent broke them, therefore, as rule 1 states, the debate is over (my opponent can write as long as of round as he wants, and argue whatever he wants, that won't change the fact that he lost the debate necessarily as he broke the rules, so his last round is useless with all due respect).

I gracefully ask the voters for the full 7 points deserved. Thank you.
kbub

Con

Rebuttals:

"As per the rules of the debate, my opponent loses, as he broke rules."

My opponent is correct--this is what the rules say.

"Therefore, a full 7 point score on the ballet is deserved for me."

Here there is a logic leap, one that I find to be problematic. My opponent gave NOT ONE ARGUMENT for WHY voters should obey the rules.

"Now, the voters might decide to troll and vote against me, but that could be the case for ANY debate."

Here is a problem. Constructive critics are not "trolls"--one's debate should be catered to the voters, and not the voters to the debater.

"I take it on good faith that the voters will do the right thing, as I do on any debate (just because this is supposed to be a funny debate, doesn't mean the rules don't have to be followed)."

Pro gave no analysis of what the "right thing to do" is. Why should voters follow the rules? Pro fails to give any support of this statement, but assumes that this is obvious. However, I will show not only that one need not obey rules as a matter-of-fact (a priori), but also that this assumption is a reason in itself to vote my opponent down.

"...my opponent can write as long as of round as he wants, and argue whatever he wants, that won't change the fact that he lost the debate necessarily as he broke the rules, so his last round is useless with all due respect."

My opponent suggests that all argumentation, no matter what its content, should be dismissed if a rule is broken. This is a very problematic assertion. For my opponent, rules are more important than critical thinking, and in fact should be ignored if rules are broken.

Rules
My opponent doesn't want your vote because his arguments are good, or insightful, or wise, or even true; instead, he wants your vote simply because he followed the "rules" whereas I did not. In contrast, I suggest that we take a critical look at what "rules" represent.

"Rules" in themselves are instances of artificial sovereignty that give the illusion of powerlessness. Certain social authorities utilize rules in such a way as to instill widespread authority. However, a well-kept secret is that there is no power in rules in themselves.

Nelson Mandela was a criminal. In order to fight for justice, Nelson Mandela broke not only the rules but the laws of the government. Nelson Mandela gave a famous speech at one of his trials:

"I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Nelson Mandela was shortly thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment. Nelson Mandela willingly suffered at the hands of authorities in order to bring about justice [1]. He wasn't alone either. The great leaders we admire today suffered persecution so that they could have just the opportunity to defy the unjust authorities--such as Gandhi [2], Dr. King [3], and even Jesus Christ. The rights of black persons came through resistance to the "rules." The rights of females came through illegal resistance. The Underground Railroad was an illegal movement.

By suggesting that no argument, no matter what that argument is or its quality, will change the "fact" that the voters and I "must" defer to the rules dishonors the memories of the memories of these brave persons who sought change through resistance to the artificial sovereignty of "rules."

The Debate Space
If debate is not about effectively following a set of rules in order to win, what is its purpose? What possible reason could there be to defy the rules?

As I have stated before, debate is about education, change, and morality. Through debate we can foster critical thinking so it can guide us in a better course of action. Through education, we are able to equip persons with information so that they will be able to make informed decision. Through the critical thinking that debate fosters, we are able to foster a more moral mentality, which will foster more moral actions in the future. Debate has changed my life, more so than any class or job. Through critical engagement with others' points of view, I have changed by methods for making the world better dramatically. Debate not only fosters knowledge, but wisdom.

It was this wisdom that the great leaders above advocated for. They could not through their bodies change an unjust world; instead, they sought, through their symbolic actions and words, to change people's minds and hearts. They sacrificed their safety in order to bring about such rethinking, and they were successful.

Thus, what is far more important in debate is not following rules, but bringing about a change in mentality.

Voters:
In prison, Nelson was inspired by this poem [3]:

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
William Ernest Henley

Let us meditate on the meaning of this poem, and it's significance for Nelson Mandela. Both Mandela and the author of the poem recognized that the power of external authorities are only superficial. One need not follow authorities--the only true captain of behavior is the self.

My opponent's argument is one that is based on the idea that the rules are both sovereign over the debater and the voter. Capitalizing on this assumption, my opponent has set up a situation in which his opponent would have a very slim chance of winning. He has two rules set up specifically to apply to his opponent and not to himself. One of these rules demands that every other character be capitalized. My opponent could easily wait for the other debater to make a mistake and then he would theoretically win by seven points in every vote (according to another rule). Even if his opponent manages to capitalize every other letter, his opponent would look utterly ridiculous. As if that's not enough, my opponent made sure to solidify his victory by making a rule that specifically forbids the challenging of rules.

I believe in free speech, and I especially believe in the challenging of rules, even rules from sovereigns with much more enforcing ability that my opponent and his "stupid" debate. Whereas my opponent would like to humiliate his opponent and cut off his opponent's free speech, I would like to use this space to proclaim to my opponent, voters, and all of this online community that neither my opponent, Debate.org, nor my government are the captain of my soul. I want to use this space to remind the world that they may do what they believe, not what any authority figure tells them. By braking the rules of Debate.org and my opponent, I am performing an active resistance to the idea of mindless obedience.

Voters: You also have the ability to join in on the resistance. You have a choice--you are not limited by the "rules." Your actions should your own ideas of wisdom. My opponent has so far dismissed by arguments as not mattering, and suggested that no evaluation or argument can compete with the authority of the rules. He challenges your sovereignty, but are not you also "the captain of [your] soul?"

[1]http://www.nelsonmandela.org...
[2]http://www.biography.com...
[3]http://www.biography.com...
[4]http://www.poemhunter.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I don't think my opponent knows how debates on DDO work. When a person accepts a debate with a certain set of rules, then those rules are to be followed. If my opponent did not like the rules, he did not have to accept the debate. Also, my opponent has his own set of rules he wants you to follow. He says whoever has the better arguments should win, not whoever has follows the rules. Ironically, that is a rule in itself. In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules. Why is it like that for the debate? Because the rules specifically state that a full 7 point concession is what occurs if a rule is broken. My opponent can spend all the time he wants on long rounds, it is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he already lost the debate after the rules were broken.

My opponent said that I put rules over critical thinking. That is clearly nonsense, because it is not using critical thinking to accept a debate structure, only to try to refute it afterwards. It would be like playing a game of chess, only to argue that a knight shouldn't be able to be move in a L shape to win the game. It is a rather sketchy move indeed. My opponent fills his rounds with useless poems and statements about freedom and what not, but the debate is already over. He broke the rules. Now, I will say one more thing, my opponent says I set this debate up with slim chance for my opponent to win. That is clearly false. How hard is is to tYpE lIkE tHiS, not contest a rule, and just use the first round for acceptance? Not only does my opponent lose argument points anyway (as the rules state), but he blatantly engaged in misconduct by not using the first round for acceptance. Any reasonable voter would dock my opponent for that, and any reasonable voter would give me the full 7 points.

Again it is utterly bizarre to state that I set this up with a "slim chance" for my opponent to win, considering how simple the rules were to follow. You wouldn't accept a game of chess just to contest the rules after, so why do the same with a debate? This is a clear loss for my opponent, and no amount of long winded rounds can change that unfortunately.

Conclusion

The reason my opponent lost this debate is because the debate was set up like a game. The rules of the game state that my opponent must do certain things. He did not do them. Therefore, he loses the game, and the debate. That is a knock down argument for why I should win this debate, since argumentation and critical thinking is important, as my opponent points out.

Thank you.
kbub

Con

Rebuttals:
PRO: "I don't think my opponent knows how debates on DDO work."

Personal insult aside, I have been a highly active and successful member of this website for months.

PRO: "When a person accepts a debate with a certain set of rules, then those rules are to be followed. If my opponent did not like the rules, he did not have to accept the debate."

In my other rounds I've already explained why I chose to accept this debate challenge (but not Pro's framework); however, my opponent ignores my arguments. I accepted the debate in order to point out injustices inherent in the way he and others conceptualize rules, debate, and morality. My opponent’s arguments demonstrate that such a re-thinking is highly necessary: My opponent believes that rules should be accepted by default, and also calls debate a "game” (tell that to Nelson Mandela) and his own challenge "stupid." In reality, debate is our expresses ideas in a critical manner--through debate we learn, we think, and we work together. My opponent gave no reason for why the rules helps accomplish the true goals of debate; he even admits in round 1: "I don't why I decided to do this." Therefore, voters should advocate my arguments that more effectively meet the goals of debate.

Furthermore, my opponent drops my argument showing why one should work to solve injustice regardless of rules. In my opponent’s logical format, Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King follow the rules instead of make change.

PRO: "Also, my opponent has his own set of rules he wants you to follow. He says whoever has the better arguments should win, not whoever has follows the rules. Ironically, that is a rule in itself."

There is nothing “ironic” in my claim. I did not propose an a priori "rule," but instead a fully-developed argument which is consistent with my statement that arguments should be held in higher esteem than rules. Debate does not take place a vacuum: what we say in this debate has impact. All of the great civil rights movements have come about through debate. As the saying goes: "the pen is mightier than the sword." My opponent needs an education on weapon safety. By suggesting that even unfair rules ought to be followed, my opponent makes an argument that has a negative impact on the world, which is counter to the very purpose of debating in the first place.

PRO: "In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules. Why is it like that for the debate? Because the rules specifically state that a full 7 point concession is what occurs if a rule is broken."

My opponent's argument here is a textbook example of circular logic. I do mean to belittle my opponent in pointing this flaw out but only educate. My opponent claims that rules are more important than arguments. His justification? According to pro, because the rules say so. My opponent uses the authority of rules to justify the authority of rules, which is circular logic (a type of fallacy).

PRO: "My opponent can spend all the time he wants on long rounds, it is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he already lost the debate after the rules were broken."

As in all his other rounds, pro has insisted that rules are more important than anything else in debate. My opponent has failed to consider why we even debate in the first place. Such a debate-about-debate is called a "meta debate," and is a very important component of debate. My opponent ignored my arguments on why debate is not a game, and nor should it ever be considered a game.

PRO: "My opponent said that I put rules over critical thinking. That is clearly nonsense, because it is not using critical thinking to accept a debate structure, only to try to refute it afterwards."

1. My opponent contradicts himself. He states just before: "In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules."
2. I never accepted my opponent's rules. Instead, I accepted the challenge that my opponent presented in order to bring about critical thinking, in order to change people minds, and in order to foster intelligent thinking and education, which is the whole purpose of debate.

PRO: "It would be like playing a game of chess, only to argue that a knight shouldn't be able to be move in a L shape to win the game."

The reason that Knight movements are followed in chess is that doing so is helpful for gameplay. My opponent gave no reasons why rules are useful to debate, and definitely no justifications backing up his claim that rules are more important than usefulness itself.

Additionally, my opponent makes a mistake. Classic chess practitioners changed the rules of chess many years ago to form what we now call "chess." The "castling," "en passant," the pawn moving forward two spaces, and pawn promotion are all relatively recent inventions [1, 2, 3]. The rules of chess DO change in order to promote usefulness, effectiveness, and fun.

PRO: "My opponent fills his rounds with useless poems and statements about freedom..."

My opponent called "Invictus," one of the greatest and most famous poems of all time, "useless." My opponent likewise calls Nelson Mandela's amazing speech facing his execution "useless." However, my opponent calls the RuLe ThAt EvErY oThEr LeTtEr Be CaPiTaLiZeD so important that breaking it merits an automatic loss.

PRO: "Now, I will say one more thing, my opponent says I set this debate up with slim chance for my opponent to win. That is clearly false. How hard is is to tYpE lIkE tHiS, not contest a rule, and just use the first round for acceptance?"

(IMPORTANT) My opponent has made a new argument that typing with every other letter capitalized is easy. My response:

1. If this rule is so easy to follow, THEN WHY DID PRO MAKE IT ONLY APPLY TO CON!? This is clearly unfair.
2. In this debate con completes 3 rounds with 8000 characters each (7500 without spaces), for a total of *22,500 letters.* There is no program to automatically capitalize a letter. Therefore, my opponent would have me manually capitalize 11,250 letters individually. IF EVERY EDIT TOOK 1 SECOND, THE EDITS WOULD TAKE OVER 3 HOURS! Additionally, if I make ONE ERROR, I would be breaking the rules and lose the debate. Are the rules fair? No. Hard to follow? Absolutely.
3. The unfairness of my opponent’s rules incited me to accept the challenge (but not pro's framework) in the first place. This rule is a prime example of why one should not follow the rules mindlessly or automatically.

PRO: "The reason my opponent lost this debate is because the debate was set up like a game."

My opponent completely ignored my arguments on why debate should never be considered a game.

***
Pro says the same thing over and over again. Pro never says why following the rules means there should be an automatic loss. My opponent also ignores my section on voters. I have shown how voters are free to choose what arguments they think ought to win based on their ideas of fairness and morality. My opponent does not respond to this argument. My opponent does not give a single reason for why breaking the unfair rules forces voters to vote a certain way.

My opponent never justifies his assertion that rules are more important than arguments, ethics, morality, and even debate within this so-called "game." I, in contrast, point out that no rules are above reproach, and that sometimes breaking the rules better fulfills debate's very purpose.

The "rules" of this debate are impossible to follow and unfair (11,250 individual edits).

I assert that debate is about changing the world for the better, not following rules. I show that votes for me will change the debate culture for the better and make the world more ethical.

My opponent ignores all of my arguments.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess)#History
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess)#History_of_the_rule
Debate Round No. 4
168 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by butterflyprincess3 2 years ago
butterflyprincess3
kbub was pretty close to beating down RT in this...possibly even closer than ER.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I can't say I'm surprised, though with 30 votes, it's obvious that support for your win in this debate was warranted. Well done, Rational_Thinker, and congratulations.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
This debate boils down to whether or not you think accepting the debate means accepting the rules by default. Those who don't will vote for you because you had actual arguments as to why you shouldn't have to follow the rules, but those who do will vote for me because you broke the rules, which means you will lose the debate according to the rules. It's interesting to see different people's mind sets lol
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well you have came the closest out of everyone I have debated, so, good job. Not long ago I had 79 votes and you had 71 votes, very close.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Thanks for the debate! Glad I got the opportunity to put those arguments out there!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well, it looks like I'm going to win this debate after all, which means I'm 5 - 0 with debates with this resolution I've created. I'll do this debate again at a later time, and see if someone can finally win..
Posted by mrsatan 2 years ago
mrsatan
Well, looks like I'm not gonna get a challenge, so here's what I would have posted for round 2 (minus any rebuttals, of course). To avoid issues with lines starting with a capital letter, I only used words with an even number of letters (excepting some at the very end of a paragraph), so that every word starts lowercased.

mY aRgUmEnTs:

iT iS pRoS bUrDeN tO sHoW tHaT tHiS dEbAtE sHoUlD bE lOsT bY mE. sO, iF iT eNdS iN aNyWaY eLsE, sUcH aS tIeD, tHeN pRoS bUrDeN iSn'T uPhElD. aS sUcH, iF tHeRe'S nO rEaSoN tO gIvE pOiNtS tO mY oPpOnEnT, tHaT iTsElF iS rEaSoN tO gIvE mE pOiNtS, aS tO bE tIeD iN tHiS dEbAtE iS pArAdOxIcAl.

tHeRe'S nO rEsOlUtIoN tO dEbAtE, sO pRoS oNlY aVeNuE tO gAiN pOiNtS iS tHaT oF mE bReAkInG rUlEs.

hEnCeFoRtH, iF nO rUlE iS bRoKeN bY mE, tHiS dEbAtE sHoUlD rEsUlT aS tIeD. aS pReViOuSlY oBsErVeD, iF tHiS dEbAtE eNdS aS tIeD, tHeN iT iS rEaLlY eNdInG wItH mY oPpOnEnT lOsInG, hEnCeFoRtH mAkInG mE vIcToRiOuS.

nO rUlE iS bRoKeN bY mE aS iT sTaNdS, sO tHiS dEbAtE sHoUlD rEsUlT iN mE wInNiNg.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
I hate this debate, I hate the idea that someone can start a "debate" like this that has nothing to do . I would vote Con, but I remember a debate at a tournament that was important to me, I had set up the voting philosophy, the Affirmative team agreed, the judge agreed, we won "on the flow" but he still voted for the other team. I was devastated because that loss meant I couldn't continue on to finals . Now I know this is absolutely not the same, and it doesn't really affect anything except his elo, but when you accept a debate, clicking "I will debate this with Rational_Thinker9119" you are accepting the debate. To contest the rules you should do it in the comments.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Nevermind. Wrong debate.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
So... Con was right... Huh
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lordgrae 2 years ago
Lordgrae
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Broke the rules.
Vote Placed by BananaPhilosopher 2 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The category was "funny". It wasn't meant to be a serious debate. Con loses because they broke literally every rule prescribed in the resolution.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 2 years ago
Matt_L
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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: Con dropped all the rules set forth for this debate and thus conduct to Pro. On the secondary note, It wasn't impossible to win this debate by following all the rules set forth.
Vote Placed by tulle 2 years ago
tulle
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules, Pro gets all 7 points. I appreciate Con's effort to make this debate more than it is, but the first round does say "Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted". The debate was accepted the moment Con became Con, regardless of whether she explicitly accepted in round 1 or not. As Pro points out, no one had to accept the debate at all. I don't really see the connection with Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or Dr. King. These rules have no actual bearing on anyone's life, and would have zero effect whether the debate was completed or not, won by pro or not. I don't agree that Pro should have to demonstrate why the rules ought to be followed, and Con did not convince me of that. Con's argument would have been better suited had she started a new debate challenge altogether.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con admittedly broke the rules of the debate, the first of which grants Pro a 7 point ballot. Concession of that point negates all other arguments, abstract or no.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Broke Rules #3 and #4. I only vote conduct. CON did not have to accept this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Rule 1: If a rule is broken = 7 point forfeit. Rule 3: First round for acceptance. Rule 4: every other letter must be a capital letter Because con broke rule 3 and 4 the punishment equals a 7 point forfeit. I'm sorry, but following the voting outline agreed when accepting a debate (Clicking I will debate this) is important to me. If a debater knows what's expected but doesn't follow it he or she knows she will also lose.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 2 years ago
johnnyvbassist
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Entertaining read. For following rules and not using the word "f.uck", Pro gets conduct. S/he also had better spelling and grammar. However, Con flipped the debate and argued well. If Con had not debated well his argument would have been stupid. However, the arguments were both convincing and impressive. Sources to Con because Con used sources...
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Rational_Thinker9119kbubTied
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: Even though this debate was in the funny section, I feel it needs to get promoted site wide. The proposition is ridiculous as it forces the voters to vote in one way even when there should be a choice. Debates are decided by voters and this is of critical importance. Frankly yes there was a rule, but these rules are in my opinion only relevant during forfeits and plagiarism. We are not here to bump our win ratio by making silly debates or unacceptable debates. I will give argument points to Con, as I believe that this debate should be tied at the absolute minimum. Even though I am going against the rules, the rules were on a bizarre level to begin with.