The Instigator
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

No lynching is the best course of action on the first day of mafia games like the one described

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,110 times Debate No: 9633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

Logical-Master

Con

I disagree. I believe no lynching to be quite foolish.

Parameters (or rather the one described): To define what is meant by mafia games in general, lets use a vanilla mafia game as the ideal game. In this ideal game which I am describing, lets say there are 2 mafia goons, a mafia godfather( who is immune to investigations and nightkills), a mafia prostitute, 13 normal townies, a cop and a doctor. Let us also say that the game starts during the day phase

Since I don't feel like typing out an argument right now, I'll go with it as the greeting round and welcome my opponent to begin argumentation in his/her second round of the debate. Good luck. :)
philosphical

Pro

Thankyou, I will be honored to debate this topic with you. I am sure that it will be fun, clean, and respectful.
-philosophical
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Con

Lets do this.

I'll keep argumentation for this round simple.

===================
Lynching provokes discussion |
===================

We have to keep in mind that a constant flow of discussion is the key to the town's success. Discussion allows plenty of opportunity for potential mafia players to slip up and reveal their affiliation. When lynching players, this is most likely to happen on the basis that there will likely be players offering reasons for why player x should be lynched and players offering reasons for why player x shouldn't be lynched. This isn't the same for no lynching as no one is at risk of getting lynched, hence little to no motivation for certain players to be defending certain other players.

In addition, when a player is lynched off, other players know said player's affiliation, hence can look back at the thread and gather clues concerning who defended said player who was in favor of lynching him/her. This is useful in determining who is/isn't mafia.

On the other hand, in no lynching, players are essentially right back where they started on day 1 during day, with one town killed off and almost nothing to go off of.

And that'll do it for now.
philosphical

Pro

===========================
successful lynching is relevant to screw ups
===========================
I have to agree that lynching is a good idea on the first day, but I think under certain circumstances, A no-lynch can be acceptable.
It has been noted in previous mafia games, and even in the one currently going on, where there becomes alot of randomly construed lynching.
For example:
There is a total of 23 players, let's say.

5 of these players will vote for one person, another 8 will vote for another individual, 3 people vote for the third person, and the remaining 8 players vote for a fourth person. This drags on a day phase forever, while people are constantly changing votes, and being un-decisive. This problem carries out even worse in larger games, such as the SSB game we are currently participating in.
Even if the majority of the players are narrowing down their votes to two main people, there will always be a bunch of people voting other random people who drop things suspicious to them. Virtually, people have differing opinions on what's suspicious or not, and it is because of this that the forum gets so cluttered with so many off lynches. Most of these off lynches are due to fake role claims, that conflict with each other. If the player faking the role claim, is good enough at it, like they usually are, it just prolongs a constant debate between a bunch players deciding which one is true or false.

In essence, the only real way to have absolute sure evidence is for someone to screw up. Usually this, is the case. However, it is all relevant to the players who cause an accident in their posting. Other wise it just leads to more random cluttering. So basically, the only way to lynch somebody, is to wait for the mess up from someone, or have really good persuasive skills, and be able to convince the townies to go after the person you are suspicious of. Although usually the first happens, the second is what is attempted more often. And most of the time it fails, as such with the current game.
Games such as the SSB game, with so many players, we basically have to rely on screwing up, to confirm someone to be mafia.
On most other average games, we usually rely on both screwing up, and convincing leader votes.
A no-lynch Is the best option in my scenario, because, (using this game as an example) this game is prolonged. There's an absolute guarantee that there is probably going to be no huge convincing going on, at least enough for the acceptable vote, and we are now vulnerable to-
1. The lynching someone (a townie) innacurately.
2. A most probable innacurate random lynch so as to get the game started, which just puts the townies behind one and the mafia up one.

Like I said, it is all relevant to people screwing up.
No lynching when it is apparent that nobody is going any where (as is the case with the game now), just means that one less townie dies. All the while still waiting for the screw up, or the REALLY supportive evidence.

Logical master is correct when he says that lynching provokes discussion. But what about in the cases where discussion goes absolutely no where, as it so often does? This is what causes people to random lynch on the first phase, and also kills an extra townie, that didn't need to be killed. This is very un-beneficial to the town, and results in an increase that push towards most mafia wins.

LM- "On the other hand, in no lynching, players are essentially right back where they started on day 1 during day, with one town killed off and almost nothing to go off of"

True, however, in association with the the situation I have provided where the game doesn't go any where, 1 townie dead, is better than having 2 dead.

I am not advocating that a no-lynch should be used; I believe that it should be used when it seems the best option at the time.
I find the evidence i have supported, sufficient due to previous game-play, and current game-play.
I thank Logical master, my opponent, for offering up such an interesting topic of debate.

Thankyou,
-Philosophical
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

RE:"For example: There is a total of 23 players, let's say."

No, lets not say that. I defined the parameters in this debate to concern a vanilla mafia set up ("like the one described). To reiterate:

"Parameters (or rather the one described): To define what is meant by mafia games in general, lets use a vanilla mafia game as the ideal game. In this ideal game which I am describing, lets say there are 2 mafia goons, a mafia godfather( who is immune to investigations and nightkills), a mafia prostitute, 13 normal townies, a cop and a doctor. Let us also say that the game starts during the day phase."

Noting that, my opponents whole case is a red herring as it has nothing to do with what I defined as "mafia games like the one described."

That said, to pacify my opponent . . .

RE: "5 of these players will vote for one person, another 8 will vote for another individual, 3 people vote for the third person, and the remaining 8 players vote for a fourth person. This drags on a day phase forever, while people are constantly changing votes, and being un-decisive. This problem carries out even worse in larger games, such as the SSB game we are currently participating in."

Generally, mafia games easily get around the problem of "dragging things on forever" by instituting a time limit. For instance, in the game my opponent is describing, there is a 5 day time limit on day phases. If a majority of the town fails to lynch, the person with the most votes will be lynched off. Basically, simple mod interventions can assure that the problems my opponent suggest don't occur. Not to mention that the same can very well apply to no lynching, giving that there will likely be some people wanting to utilize the entire day and some people who wish to get things over with as quickly as possible.

RE: "In essence, the only real way to have absolute sure evidence is for someone to screw up"

As I've already insinuated, absolute evidence isn't necessary. The point of lynching on the first day isn't necessarily to find a mafia member, but to get a good feeling on players' allegiances, gather evidence about players and even (though to a lesser extent) lower the amount of players to choose from when it comes to determining who is/isn't mafia.

RE: "And most of the time it fails, as such with the current game."

Oh? As I recall, the first day of the current game resulted in the serial killer dying and the mafia usurper being exposed. All through insisting on getting someone lynched rather than abruptly ending the day without lynching anyone.

RE: "A no-lynch Is the best option in my scenario, because, (using this game as an example) this game is prolonged. There's an absolute guarantee that there is probably going to be no huge convincing going on, at least enough for the acceptable vote, and we are now vulnerable to-
1. The lynching someone (a townie) innacurately.
2. A most probable innacurate random lynch so as to get the game started, which just puts the townies behind one and the mafia up one.

Quite the contrary. This game (the SSB game) is the worst game to be no lynching in given the sheer amount of players. Not taking the opportunity to lynch someone (hence gather information) is only going to make the game EVEN longer, hence cause a lot of inactivity. Once again, if a townie is lynched, it doesn't matter there are benefits to lynching a townie,as I've already described. These benefits are what help the town learn allegiances. In addition, we must keep in mind that the mafia are drastically in the minority, hence the town can afford to lose two members since they will likely still have a large amount of numbers afterwords.

Not to mention that there's always the possibility that the town can succeed and kill a mafia member on the first day, hence putting lowering the amount of informed minority player. It's far worse for the mafia to lose a single member than it is for the town.

RE: "Logical master is correct when he says that lynching provokes discussion. But what about in the cases where discussion goes absolutely no where, as it so often does? This is what causes people to random lynch on the first phase, and also kills an extra townie, that didn't need to be killed. This is very un-beneficial to the town, and results in an increase that push towards most mafia wins."

That's simple. One merely needs to keep a close eye on the people who are causing the discussion to go nowhere. Through pressing and interrogation, such players have no choice but to talk, less they become suspected and perhaps even lynched. And again, as I've already pointed out, random lynching can work to the town's advantage, thus I see no need to reiterate what has already been said.

I believe I have addressed everything. I believe anything which I haven't quoted can be found in my response. If my opponent suspects otherwise, he is free to point out anything which I've failed to mention.

That said, we must keep in mind that my opponent's whole case relies on a situation that is clearly not the situation I listed in my parameters. That alone should constitute as victory on my part.

And that'll do it for now.
philosphical

Pro

First, I would like to say that changing the scenario of the story does abosolutely nothing. Every single argument i have made still applies to the scenario you have provided. I was using that as evidence to further show you how no-lynching could be the best option.

That said, i will now argue the 'pacificitions'.

"Generally, mafia games easily get around the problem of "dragging things on forever" by instituting a time limit. For instance, in the game my opponent is describing, there is a 5 day time limit on day phases. If a majority of the town fails to lynch, the person with the most votes will be lynched off. Basically, simple mod interventions can assure that the problems my opponent suggest don't occur. Not to mention that the same can very well apply to no lynching, giving that there will likely be some people wanting to utilize the entire day and some people who wish to get things over with as quickly as possible."

This is true that there is a time limit. However, the time limit that 'solves this problem, really doesn't solve this problem at all. The time limit is to keep the game from going on forever. If there is all this un-decisiveness, then the chances of killing a townie over a mafia are probably going to be rather huge. For a succesful lynch, we need to have a strong majority of players vote for the same person. If we only have a couple or a few more votes on one person, our chances of a mafia hit are greatly lowered. However, more than 60% (calculated from the last two mafia games) of lynches that reach the maximum, actually hit a mafia perfectly. If we cannot reach this probable succesful limit, the best idea would be to pass the day phase, so as not to kill a townie. Mafia have the advantage of being undercover. We cannot just kill a player who we can't decide on, and chance killing a townie, thus raising mafia advantage.

"Oh? As I recall, the first day of the current game resulted in the serial killer dying and the mafia usurper being exposed. All through insisting on getting someone lynched rather than abruptly ending the day without lynching anyone."

If you were not aware, i had posted my argument well before this happened. And still, getting wjm lynched was just a hunch. Nobody was sure whether or not he was guilty or not at that point. The argument against him was that he was a bulletproof townie. WonderWoman also claimed this role. We had no sure way of knowing that either of them was the actual threat, (or even if the whole bulletproof dilema actually meant a threat). People at that point were just anxious to get the day phase over, and voting for the majority vote. We could have easily lost a townie in that situation. Luck was on our side. However we cannot just rely on luck to provide a townie win. That is very dangerous. In that case, it would've been more safe to just go with a no-lynch, or wait for the screw-up.

"This game is the worst game to be no lynching in given the sheer amount of players. Not taking the opportunity to lynch someone (hence gather information) is only going to make the game EVEN longer, hence cause a lot of inactivity. Once again, if a townie is lynched, it doesn't matter there are benefits to lynching a townie,as I've already described. These benefits are what help the town learn allegiances. In addition, we must keep in mind that the mafia are drastically in the minority, hence the town can afford to lose two members since they will likely still have a large amount of numbers afterwords"

Finding allegiances hasn't worked out so far. So far all we have found were a few mis-lead leads. No-lynching in a game our size is perfectly okay due the fact that we are saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role to the town. We hardly consider that when we lynch, which also leads to a most likely townie loss. What matter is it if we find the town's alliances? If we've killed another townie, just to later find out the player who was allied to the other player, is innocent, or just stupid, the whole point was just flushed down the toilet. Instant town dis-adantage!

"Not to mention that there's always the possibility that the town can succeed and kill a mafia member on the first day, hence putting lowering the amount of informed minority player. It's far worse for the mafia to lose a single member than it is for the town"

Thats absurd. The chances of hitting a mafia are alot lower than hitting a townie. Its never safe to play the "IF" factor.

"That's simple. One merely needs to keep a close eye on the people who are causing the discussion to go nowhere. Through pressing and interrogation, such players have no choice but to talk, less they become suspected and perhaps even lynched. And again, as I've already pointed out, random lynching can work to the town's advantage, thus I see no need to reiterate what has already been said."

Keep a close eye on who's making the discussion go no where? That doesn't work. People have their own opinions, some of them are very strong. If people are in a clash of dis-agreement and post-poning the game through long persecution, that is not reason enough to suspect them as mafia. Anyone is going to get desperate to protect themselves, whether they are innocent or mafia/cult.

Again, the perimeter on which i have based my case on, in no way changes what would happen in my opponents scenario. It works the same either way, so saying my point are invalid, doesn't hold anything.

I urge you to vote pro for all you townies who have been wrongly lynched for
1. Random lynching
2. lack of evidence lynching.

These both rely heavy on giving mafia win adavantages.

thankyou
-philosophical
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "First, I would like to say that changing the scenario of the story does abosolutely nothing. Every single argument i have made still applies to the scenario you have provided. I was using that as evidence to further show you how no-lynching could be the best option."

I beg to differ and I suspect that even my opponent is aware of the fact that this is false.

Ladies and gentleman, please feast your eyes on the following statement made by my opponent is his previous round:

QUOTE 1: "I have to agree that lynching is a good idea on the first day, but I think under certain circumstances, A no-lynch can be acceptable."

QUOTE 2: "True, however, in association with the the situation I have provided where the game doesn't go any where, 1 townie dead, is better than having 2 dead."

QUOTE 3: "For example: There is a total of 23 players, let's say"

Also, I address the differences entirely later on in the debate, so keep reading. :)

RE: "This is true that there is a time limit. However, the time limit that 'solves this problem, really doesn't solve this problem at all. The time limit is to keep the game from going on forever."

Correct, and as PRO stated in his previous round: :This drags on a day phase forever, while people are constantly changing votes, and being un-decisive."

The problem was that the day would go on based on presuming that people wouldn't be decisive. Quick moderator execution easily solves this problem.

RE: "If there is all this un-decisiveness, then the chances of killing a townie over a mafia are probably going to be rather huge."

Not a problem. As I've already insisted, the purpose of the first day isn't necessarily to weed out a mafia member. It's to get a good feel of each player's behavior as well as to compare said behavior to the results of someone getting lynched. Based on probability alone, the chances of lynching a townie are greater than the chances of lynching a mafia member EVEN without PRO's concerns.

RE: "However, more than 60% (calculated from the last two mafia games) of lynches that reach the maximum, actually hit a mafia perfectly. If we cannot reach this probable succesful limit, the best idea would be to pass the day phase, so as not to kill a townie. Mafia have the advantage of being undercover. We cannot just kill a player who we can't decide on, and chance killing a townie, thus raising mafia advantage."

What my opponent fails to consider is the situations where a strong majority of the players vote for the same person. If you'll take notice of the previous games, these situations have arised due to successful investigation of mafia, stupd mafia slip ups, etc. When it's very obvious who is mafia, it's natural that a strong majority of the players are going to vote for the same person without situation. Essentially, what my opponent is telling you is that it would be best for the town to wait for people with investigative power roles to succeed or wait for mafia members to slip up and reveal themselves accidentally. However, as he himself has already admitted in this debate, the chances of that are low. Thus, the town would simply be sitting back on each day letting the mafia mow them down one by one while the town learns little to nothing.

RE: "If you were not aware, i had posted my argument well before this happened. And still, getting wjm lynched was just a hunch. Nobody was sure whether or not he was guilty or not at that point. The argument against him was that he was a bulletproof townie. WonderWoman also claimed this role. We had no sure way of knowing that either of them was the actual threat, (or even if the whole bulletproof dilema actually meant a threat). People at that point were just anxious to get the day phase over, and voting for the majority vote."

Being "sure" that someone is mafia isn't what the game is about (assuming that by sure, 'proof" is the meaning). If the town waited for CERTAINTY on each day phase and adhered to my opponent's ideals, the it'd be at the mercy of people with investigative night actions (people whom the mafia can easily kill) and/or people who slip up (which is less likely to happen if there is no disussion on who to lynch).

The fact of the matter was that there was reason to suspect WJM. This reasoning came from none other than the discussion of WHO TO LYNCH as well as wjm's behavior in this matter.

RE: "Finding allegiances hasn't worked out so far. So far all we have found were a few mis-lead leads. No-lynching in a game our size is perfectly okay due the fact that we are saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role to the town. We hardly consider that when we lynch, which also leads to a most likely townie loss. What matter is it if we find the town's alliances? If we've killed another townie, just to later find out the player who was allied to the other player, is innocent, or just stupid, the whole point was just flushed down the toilet. Instant town dis-adantage!"

Sure it has. It was successfully deduced that wjmelements had no allegiances on the first day of the smash bros game.

As for saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role, that risk is taken every day. In fact, the mafia can very well kill the player with a beneficial role at night. We must keep in mind that the game isn't about roles as much as it is about deception as well as determining who is being deceitful.

And yes, it is possible that players may end up dealing with someone who is just a dumb townie, but it's most fortunate that such players are in the minority and that reading up on such players' backgrounds can indicicate as to whether or not they are just vastly inexperiened when it comes to mafia games.

RE: "Thats absurd. The chances of hitting a mafia are alot lower than hitting a townie. Its never safe to play the "IF" factor."

Nonsense. I said it was possible to hit a mafia player; I said nothing about the chances being high. Based on the scenario I provided in my parameters, 4/19 to be precise.

RE: "Keep a close eye on who's making the discussion go no where?"

Of course. If such players (and I presume you're referring to lurkers) are focused on and threatened to be lynched, they have no choice but to talk, hence continue the discussion. :)

RE: "If people are in a clash of dis-agreement and post-poning the game through long persecution, that is not reason enough to suspect them as mafia. Anyone is going to get desperate to protect themselves, whether they are innocent or mafia/cult."

Alright, I apparently misunderstood what was meant by making the discussion go nowhere. Fortunately, this is an issue which can easily be resolved. As I've mentioned earlier, the mod can easily execute a time limit, hence forcing players to "wrap it up" (per se) when comes to the overly long winded debates.

RE: "Again, the perimeter on which i have based my case on, in no way changes what would happen in my opponents scenario. It works the same either way, so saying my point are invalid, doesn't hold anything."

On the contrary, it does. For the setup mentioned in my parameters, there are less players (hence less inactivity), is vastly different from the Super Smash Bros Brawl game (which my opponent bases most of his argument on) and has far less important roles (hence making the odds of hitting someone with an important town role to be 2/19 ---even LOWER than hitting a mafia member). Using this setup rather than the setups my opponent is talking about hurts his argument considerably.

Thanks for the debate. Vote CON!
philosphical

Pro

QUOTE 1: "I have to agree that lynching is a good idea on the first day, but I think under certain circumstances, A no-lynch can be acceptable."

Yes? Point? My goal is to advocate that lynching can be permissable. Unless i read the topic wrong, your goal is to porve that is would be wrong in all cases, and un-helpful to the town.

QUOTE 2: "True, however, in association with the the situation I have provided where the game doesn't go any where, 1 townie dead, is better than having 2 dead."

Works the same in your scenario. No-lynching according to my cased should only be used when there is an over-extended day phase going absolutley no where, and there isn't enough info sustainable to get a lynch. Like i said, 1 townie dead, is strategically better than 2.

QUOTE 3: "For example: There is a total of 23 players, let's say"

Again x3 THIS IS THE SAME FOR LM'S SCENARIO!! Really what's the difference? I used that as an example to prove that people will have mixed votes.

RE:"Correct, and as PRO stated in his previous round: :This drags on a day phase forever, while people are constantly changing votes, and being un-decisive.

The problem was that the day would go on based on presuming that people wouldn't be decisive. Quick moderator execution easily solves this problem."

And then results in another un-needed town death, placing the town one behind :)

RE:"Not a problem. As I've already insisted, the purpose of the first day isn't necessarily to weed out a mafia member. It's to get a good feel of each player's behavior as well as to compare said behavior to the results of someone getting lynched. Based on probability alone, the chances of lynching a townie are greater than the chances of lynching a mafia member EVEN without PRO's concerns"

Because people generally seem to be im-patient with their lynches. IF they had done a no-lynch in these scenarios, the town might have one more person on their side.

RE:
"When it's very obvious who is mafia, it's natural that a strong majority of the players are going to vote for the same person without situation. Essentially, what my opponent is telling you is that it would be best for the town to wait for people with investigative power roles to succeed or wait for mafia members to slip up and reveal themselves accidentally. However, as he himself has already admitted in this debate, the chances of that are low. Thus, the town would simply be sitting back on each day letting the mafia mow them down one by one while the town learns little to nothing"

Actually i would never advocate that at all. The simple point, is to not lynch when there is SO many suspicions out on the table. It sends the town into confusion, which ends up leading to a succesful lynch of one their own. We shouldn't of course just 'sit there and let wait' for the mafia to slip up. We should just make sure we don't vote unless we have a consistent decision.

RE: "Being "sure" that someone is mafia isn't what the game is about (assuming that by sure, 'proof" is the meaning). If the town waited for CERTAINTY on each day phase and adhered to my opponent's ideals, the it'd be at the mercy of people with investigative night actions (people whom the mafia can easily kill) and/or people who slip up (which is less likely to happen if there is no disussion on who to lynch).

The fact of the matter was that there was reason to suspect WJM. This reasoning came from none other than the discussion of WHO TO LYNCH as well as wjm's behavior in this matter."

I find this totally absurd. Of course we should be SURE that we are going to lynch the correct person. Us killing Wjm would have been harmful to the town. The town was lucky in that incident. But how often do we usually get lucky? It's not worth playing chances. And the town discussing who to lynch, had their suspicion just as easily on WonderWoman.
Again, this was pure luck kicking in.

RE: "As for saving someone who could possibly have a beneficial role, that risk is taken every day. In fact, the mafia can very well kill the player with a beneficial role at night. We must keep in mind that the game isn't about roles as much as it is about deception as well as determining who is being deceitful."

What happens with risks too much, is that we fail them. Alot of people fail to understand that. This is why cultist and mafia can win so much.

RE: "Nonsense. I said it was possible to hit a mafia player; I said nothing about the chances being high. Based on the scenario I provided in my parameters, 4/19 to be precise"

Note that the chances of killing a townie in that situation, is 15/19. Playing with this strategy, a town could very easily submit itself to suicide.

RE: "Of course. If such players (and I presume you're referring to lurkers) are focused on and threatened to be lynched, they have no choice but to talk, hence continue the discussion."

And what do we determine from this? I made a point on this in round one, and i will again refer to it. We investigate that player so harshly, and basically force them to show their role. Assuming their not mafia (or cult) they have just revealed their role for the mafia (or cult) to see as well as the towns. Then people play the belief factor, on whether or not that person is lying or telling the truth, and half the time end up killing a townie for no reason. Beneficial? I think not.

RE: "Alright, I apparently misunderstood what was meant by making the discussion go nowhere. Fortunately, this is an issue which can easily be resolved. As I've mentioned earlier, the mod can easily execute a time limit, hence forcing players to "wrap it up" (per se) when comes to the overly long winded debates."

Again resulting in a un-needed town death, and helps promote mafia and cult, WHICH IS GREAT.... If your mafia or cult...

I would like to thank my opponent for offering up such a fun and challenging debate.

It was fun.
Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Thanks. I'll try. :)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Do well on your exams tomorrow, L_M ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
A little rushed, but I pretty much said all I wanted to say.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
okay thats perfect then.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I don't intend to respond until the last minute, so it's fine.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
maybe. But whatever. ah wtf i'll take it. I will probably not be able to respond frequently and quickly, but i should have all my arguements in before due time.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
You don't have a mental illness, it's called lack of self control.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
yeah, but i have a habit too get really defensive. It's just in my blood. There's no stopping it. Then five seconds later, its all gone. Maybe i have a mental illness?
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Then don't. Do what I do and stop feeling obligation to respond to things you don't feel like responding to. You come here for your own recreation and no one else's.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Tempting, but I don't have an opinion.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Logical-MasterphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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