The Instigator
Jabuticaba
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Jabuticaba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 49685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Jabuticaba

Pro

Hello. For this debate, you (con) will be debating that something can be completly beneficial. I will be arguing that nothing can ever be completly beneficial. For something to be completly beneficial is for it to have only good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever.

RULES

1. In this debate, you must at least include 1 example of something that can be completly beneficial.

2. You may not use any semantics.

3. 10, 000 characters, 72 hours.

4. You must follow this rule: This round is your opening statements, and the last round you must write "thanks for the debate".

Accepting this debate, you are accepting the rules established. Failure to comply to such rules will result in a 7 point loss.

GOOD LUCK! :D
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept this debate and your definiton of "completely beneficial."
Debate Round No. 1
Jabuticaba

Pro

You were supposed to begin the debate, this round was not for acceptance. However I will give you another chance. This round explain your opening case, and on the last round write "thanks for the debate".
CJKAllstar

Con

Well, then I will start.t my points.

1. Benefit is completely subjective.
"For something to be completly beneficial is for it to have only good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever."
First of all, I do not need to go into detail about how good and bad are subjective. As long as people have different perceptual sets, as long as different things affect my perception to yours, which they do, then the way in which things are percieved is subjective. So effectively, this debate is, "For something to be completely beneficial is for it to only have good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever, dependant on the person." This means that if benefit is the good thing according to you, then benefits are subjective. They have to be, they affect the person. Even if we take the definiton, "Resulting in good; favourable or advantageous", then we have established that good is subjective. And an advantage from a situation can only affect those involved, as an advantage is "a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position". And a favourable position, is again, a subjective matter.

2. Example
I am sitting at home, and I am doing an enjoyable piece of work which I have no bouts against, it causes me great pleasure. It is coursework, so due for almost 5 months time, in which we will proceed to get a similar task, but is estimated to finish within a month. Doing this task is also going to raise my work level to the maximum, as it counts as a majority of my mark for which ever exam I am sitting next year. I am also someone who doesn't fear death, and this matters. I realise I could die any moment and take life qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.

3. So why is this beneficial?
For this to be completely beneficial, there must not be a downside. Possible downsides could be that it is a waste of time, he could be doing something more enjoyable, and I'll take any you have to give me. However he doesn't fear death, so time isn't a problem, and he did this at his own discretion. At this point, I cannot see a negative to this from his perspective. Maybe from someone else's, but those aren't connected as benefit is subjective. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Jabuticaba

Pro

Thanks for the response. I hope we continue this great, respectful debate.

Rebuttals

"First of all, I do not need to go into detail about how good and bad are subjective. As long as people have different perceptual sets, as long as different things affect my perception to yours, which they do, then the way in which things are percieved is subjective. So effectively, this debate is, "For something to be completely beneficial is for it to only have good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever, dependant on the person." This means that if benefit is the good thing according to you, then benefits are subjective. They have to be, they affect the person. Even if we take the definiton, "Resulting in good; favourable or advantageous", then we have established that good is subjective. And an advantage from a situation can only affect those involved, as an advantage is "a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position". And a favourable position, is again, a subjective matter."

Yes this is true, however irrelevant. If someone were to think something was completely beneficial, they can have an opinion, however this does not make it completly beneficial. Let us say a boy wanted to eat ice cream. Though he may think it is completly beneficial because it tastes good, or it gives him pleasure, this is not true. He chose to ignore the fact that it is unhealthy. Now if he ate it in moderation, it would be neutral, not beneficial.

What I am basically trying to explain is that even if we believe their is no down side, there always will be, so nothing can ever be completly beneficial.

"I am sitting at home, and I am doing an enjoyable piece of work which I have no bouts against, it causes me great pleasure. It is coursework, so due for almost 5 months time, in which we will proceed to get a similar task, but is estimated to finish within a month. Doing this task is also going to raise my work level to the maximum, as it counts as a majority of my mark for which ever exam I am sitting next year. I am also someone who doesn't fear death, and this matters. I realise I could die any moment and take life qualitatively, rather than quantitatively. "

There are down sides to this, regardless if you care to consider them or not. Here are some, you can get a bad grade, possibly making a huge difference in your life. Another thing is that it can cause stress, and anxiety. Though it may not occur to you, it is possible. So as you can see, even though in your example you ignore the down/ neutral sides, they're still there.

"For this to be completely beneficial, there must not be a downside."

And there must not be a neutral side either. If something were to have a neutral side, it would not be completly beneficial either, even though I didn't mention it in the definition. If there is a neutral side, then it is not completly beneficial, because there are parts that don't effect you, or benefit you.

"Possible downsides could be that it is a waste of time, he could be doing something more enjoyable, and I'll take any you have to give me. However he doesn't fear death, so time isn't a problem, and he did this at his own discretion. At this point, I cannot see a negative to this from his perspective. Maybe from someone else's, but those aren't connected as benefit is subjective. Thank you."

You exaplined how there are "possible" downsides. But even though they are possible, they are downsides to the scenario, because of such, this scenario is not completly beneficial. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. No matter what, there is a negative or neutral response to any scenario. Your welcome.

Sorry for the short argument, I am tight on time right now.
CJKAllstar

Con

"Rebuttals

"First of all, I do not need to go into detail about how good and bad are subjective. As long as people have different perceptual sets, as long as different things affect my perception to yours, which they do, then the way in which things are percieved is subjective. So effectively, this debate is, "For something to be completely beneficial is for it to only have good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever, dependant on the person." This means that if benefit is the good thing according to you, then benefits are subjective. They have to be, they affect the person. Even if we take the definiton, "Resulting in good; favourable or advantageous", then we have established that good is subjective. And an advantage from a situation can only affect those involved, as an advantage is "a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position". And a favourable position, is again, a subjective matter."

Yes this is true, however irrelevant. If someone were to think something was completely beneficial, they can have an opinion, however this does not make it completly beneficial. Let us say a boy wanted to eat ice cream. Though he may think it is completly beneficial because it tastes good, or it gives him pleasure, this is not true. He chose to ignore the fact that it is unhealthy. Now if he ate it in moderation, it would be neutral, not beneficial.

What I am basically trying to explain is that even if we believe their is no down side, there always will be, so nothing can ever be completly beneficial.

"I am sitting at home, and I am doing an enjoyable piece of work which I have no bouts against, it causes me great pleasure. It is coursework, so due for almost 5 months time, in which we will proceed to get a similar task, but is estimated to finish within a month. Doing this task is also going to raise my work level to the maximum, as it counts as a majority of my mark for which ever exam I am sitting next year. I am also someone who doesn't fear death, and this matters. I realise I could die any moment and take life qualitatively, rather than quantitatively. "

There are down sides to this, regardless if you care to consider them or not. Here are some, you can get a bad grade, possibly making a huge difference in your life. Another thing is that it can cause stress, and anxiety. Though it may not occur to you, it is possible. So as you can see, even though in your example you ignore the down/ neutral sides, they're still there.

"For this to be completely beneficial, there must not be a downside."

And there must not be a neutral side either. If something were to have a neutral side, it would not be completly beneficial either, even though I didn't mention it in the definition. If there is a neutral side, then it is not completly beneficial, because there are parts that don't effect you, or benefit you.

"Possible downsides could be that it is a waste of time, he could be doing something more enjoyable, and I'll take any you have to give me. However he doesn't fear death, so time isn't a problem, and he did this at his own discretion. At this point, I cannot see a negative to this from his perspective. Maybe from someone else's, but those aren't connected as benefit is subjective. Thank you."

You exaplined how there are "possible" downsides. But even though they are possible, they are downsides to the scenario, because of such, this scenario is not completly beneficial. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. No matter what, there is a negative or neutral response to any scenario. Your welcome.

Sorry for the short argument, I am tight on time right now."

With the ice-cream issue, here is another interesting point. Why is ice-cream bad? It is unhealthy. Why? Lot's of fat ad sugar. Why is that bad you ask? It damages the body. What is wrong with that? You can be ill, die or face painful retribution. What is wrong with that? In itself, nothing. The only reason it is viewed that way is the popular mentality. If the boy did not worry or care about death, falling ill or receiving painful retribution. Then whether it is healthy or not does not matter. I do not want to go into this philosophical debate, but when I said it was subjective, I meant it. Because nothing is really objective. I would not eat ice-cream absurdly, simply because I accept the popular mentality that it is bad for you, but the popular mentality is generated by strings of subjectivity. It is in the interests of mankind, but implying the interests are all the same, is implying we all have the same perceptual set, which isn't true. If the boy loved healthy, and to him dying and pain and the punishment with ice-cream wasn't bad, then there is nothing but benefit for him. To someone else, there might be a downside, but as I argued, benefit is only a subjective matter and must be placed on such a threshold. So from the boy's perspective, he has nothing but benefit. He dies, and what?

"There are down sides to this, regardless if you care to consider them or not. Here are some, you can get a bad grade, possibly making a huge difference in your life. Another thing is that it can cause stress, and anxiety. Though it may not occur to you, it is possible. So as you can see, even though in your example you ignore the down/ neutral sides, they're still there."

I do admit faults in my example, but let me modify it to someone who simply does not care. He is the ultimate nihilist and does not give a single care into whether he is anxious, stressed, whether he fails or not. He does enjoy things, but does not care till the point where he is never anxious or stressed. He could fail, but so what? Failure has negative connotations bought on by the popular mentality, but it isn't neccesarily an objective truth that failure is wrong. His life might be messed up from the perspective of another, but to him it isn't what is true is that he is having fun doing this task. Thus, only benefit.

And there must not be a neutral side either. If something were to have a neutral side, it would not be completly beneficial either, even though I didn't mention it in the definition. If there is a neutral side, then it is not completly beneficial, because there are parts that don't effect you, or benefit you

Look, I accepted your definition before, but this is just being downright meticulous. You have stated that nothing can be nothing but benefit if there is neutrality of some sort. Well then nothing can be nothing but X by that logic. No one can feel nothing but happiness, sadness, anger or love because they would be standing on a floor which they don't have these feelings to. You must have benefit in EVERYTHING for one particular thing to have benefit then, which is absurd. I will now take the Oxford Dictonaries definition, before it gets out of hand.

Complete - "Entire; full"
Benefit - "An advantage or profit gained from something"

The definition is then an entire profit/advantage gained from something. You did not doubt that the advantage isn't subjective, and enitre simply means, "With no part left out; whole:"

So everything about something must gain profit, which is subjective. So in the case of the nihilist, the situation was the homework and the small bubble around it. As the fact that he did not care meant that any possible failure wasn't bad, it only coincided with his beliefs, so that is a positive. As any possible failures, which he did not view as bad, weren't then even failures, he is simply left with the enjoyment from that work. Nothing but enjoyment. Yes, anything could have suddenly went wrong and killed him, but excusing the fact that he doesn't mind, that isn't relating to the homework, so is not part of his fulfillment, of complete happiness. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
Jabuticaba

Pro

Rebuttals

"With the ice-cream issue, here is another interesting point. Why is ice-cream bad? It is unhealthy. Why? Lot's of fat ad sugar. Why is that bad you ask? It damages the body. What is wrong with that? You can be ill, die or face painful retribution. What is wrong with that? In itself, nothing. The only reason it is viewed that way is the popular mentality. If the boy did not worry or care about death, falling ill or receiving painful retribution. Then whether it is healthy or not does not matter. I do not want to go into this philosophical debate, but when I said it was subjective, I meant it. Because nothing is really objective. I would not eat ice-cream absurdly, simply because I accept the popular mentality that it is bad for you, but the popular mentality is generated by strings of subjectivity. It is in the interests of mankind, but implying the interests are all the same, is implying we all have the same perceptual set, which isn't true. If the boy loved healthy, and to him dying and pain and the punishment with ice-cream wasn't bad, then there is nothing but benefit for him. To someone else, there might be a downside, but as I argued, benefit is only a subjective matter and must be placed on such a threshold. So from the boy's perspective, he has nothing but benefit. He dies, and what? "

There is wrong in that. Unhealthiness can lead to illness as we explained, and lot's of sugar and possibly death etc. Because of such, it is bad. This cannot be subjective. The human body strives for survival. "And most importantly, survival is a state of mind." [1] So in such a case, it is fact that a human want's to survive. It is not, and never will be a subjective manner. Though someone may think death is nothing, it is human nature to think otherwise. Since everything can lead to death, and the desperation for survival is not subjective, nothing is ever completly beneficial.

"I do admit faults in my example, but let me modify it to someone who simply does not care. He is the ultimate nihilist and does not give a single care into whether he is anxious, stressed, whether he fails or not. He does enjoy things, but does not care till the point where he is never anxious or stressed. He could fail, but so what? Failure has negative connotations bought on by the popular mentality, but it isn't neccesarily an objective truth that failure is wrong. His life might be messed up from the perspective of another, but to him it isn't what is true is that he is having fun doing this task. Thus, only benefit."

First of all, failure can lead to depression. Depression can lead to illeness, and death, which I have already proved is not good by fact to humans. Having the risk of depression is in itself already a bad side. Since there is now a downside established, and much more unmentioned, such a case is not completly beneficial, nor is any other case.

"The definition is then an entire profit/advantage gained from something. You did not doubt that the advantage isn't subjective, and enitre simply means, "With no part left out; whole"

Exatcly no part left out. So for it to be completly beneficial, it would have to have nothing but a good side. So if there was some how a neutral side to it, it would be unable to be comepletly beneficial.

"So everything about something must gain profit, which is subjective. So in the case of the nihilist, the situation was the homework and the small bubble around it. As the fact that he did not care meant that any possible failure wasn't bad, it only coincided with his beliefs, so that is a positive. As any possible failures, which he did not view as bad, weren't then even failures, he is simply left with the enjoyment from that work. Nothing but enjoyment. Yes, anything could have suddenly went wrong and killed him, but excusing the fact that he doesn't mind, that isn't relating to the homework, so is not part of his fulfillment, of complete happiness. Thank you."

In the case of the nihilist, he is having too much fun. Having too much fun can lead to ignorance of all the down sides we need to change in life, which is a down side. Also having too much fun can lead to death, which is bad objectively, as I have proven.

In conclusion, nothing is ever completly beneficial as I have proven. Since anything can lead to death, and death is objectively wrong, or bad, nothing can have complete good sides. Your welcom.

Source(s):
1.http://www.backcountryattitude.com...

CJKAllstar

Con

"With the ice-cream issue, here is another interesting point. Why is ice-cream bad? It is unhealthy. Why? Lot's of fat ad sugar. Why is that bad you ask? It damages the body. What is wrong with that? You can be ill, die or face painful retribution. What is wrong with that? In itself, nothing. The only reason it is viewed that way is the popular mentality. If the boy did not worry or care about death, falling ill or receiving painful retribution. Then whether it is healthy or not does not matter. I do not want to go into this philosophical debate, but when I said it was subjective, I meant it. Because nothing is really objective. I would not eat ice-cream absurdly, simply because I accept the popular mentality that it is bad for you, but the popular mentality is generated by strings of subjectivity. It is in the interests of mankind, but implying the interests are all the same, is implying we all have the same perceptual set, which isn't true. If the boy loved healthy, and to him dying and pain and the punishment with ice-cream wasn't bad, then there is nothing but benefit for him. To someone else, there might be a downside, but as I argued, benefit is only a subjective matter and must be placed on such a threshold. So from the boy's perspective, he has nothing but benefit. He dies, and what? "

There is wrong in that. Unhealthiness can lead to illness as we explained, and lot's of sugar and possibly death etc. Because of such, it is bad. This cannot be subjective. The human body strives for survival. "And most importantly, survival is a state of mind." [1] So in such a case, it is fact that a human want's to survive. It is not, and never will be a subjective manner. Though someone may think death is nothing, it is human nature to think otherwise. Since everything can lead to death, and the desperation for survival is not subjective, nothing is ever completly beneficial.

But not all people want to survive. If survival was such a set-in-stone issue, then suicide wouldn't exist. Sure, from an evolutionary perspective, yes, but people can want to end their life. People can have no regard for anything and nihilism is something people conform to. Suicides happen, some people go out of their ways to save others simply because the value of life is subjective. The value of anything is subjective. So for someone who does not worry about death, for a value to be placed on death, the desperation of survival is subjective. So death can happen, that can still not hinder anything depending on who you are.

"I do admit faults in my example, but let me modify it to someone who simply does not care. He is the ultimate nihilist and does not give a single care into whether he is anxious, stressed, whether he fails or not. He does enjoy things, but does not care till the point where he is never anxious or stressed. He could fail, but so what? Failure has negative connotations bought on by the popular mentality, but it isn't neccesarily an objective truth that failure is wrong. His life might be messed up from the perspective of another, but to him it isn't what is true is that he is having fun doing this task. Thus, only benefit."

First of all, failure can lead to depression. Depression can lead to illeness, and death, which I have already proved is not good by fact to humans. Having the risk of depression is in itself already a bad side. Since there is now a downside established, and much more unmentioned, such a case is not completly beneficial, nor is any other case.

I extend my previous argument. Depression, illness and death are only bad if death is seen as bad. People who do not value life do not value death, so depression isn't something which can hinder a benefit.

"The definition is then an entire profit/advantage gained from something. You did not doubt that the advantage isn't subjective, and enitre simply means, "With no part left out; whole"

Exatcly no part left out. So for it to be completly beneficial, it would have to have nothing but a good side. So if there was some how a neutral side to it, it would be unable to be comepletly beneficial.

Again, I don't find this logical, and I see where you are coming from but it depends on how much you look at in the first place. So if I absolutely love a particular object, I get full benefit from it. The colour, texture, its uses how it affects others, as long as I do not value life then what it can do to me or others doesn't matter, it doesn't hinder the fact that what I receive particularly from that object is benefit. We can go deeper and say I am only looking at the colour, which I enjoy. The colour brings to me nothing but benefit. Maybe the actual device could kill me, and even if I do have an evolutionary fear of death, the colour of that object brings me nothing but benefit. Yes, a meteor could come and kill me, but the colour is what we're looking at. Outside there is no set line between related and not related, so we can only look at the colour.

"So everything about something must gain profit, which is subjective. So in the case of the nihilist, the situation was the homework and the small bubble around it. As the fact that he did not care meant that any possible failure wasn't bad, it only coincided with his beliefs, so that is a positive. As any possible failures, which he did not view as bad, weren't then even failures, he is simply left with the enjoyment from that work. Nothing but enjoyment. Yes, anything could have suddenly went wrong and killed him, but excusing the fact that he doesn't mind, that isn't relating to the homework, so is not part of his fulfillment, of complete happiness. Thank you."

In the case of the nihilist, he is having too much fun. Having too much fun can lead to ignorance of all the down sides we need to change in life, which is a down side. Also having too much fun can lead to death, which is bad objectively, as I have proven.

Your whole argument has been what I have disproven. If he does not care for life whatsoever, which happens to people, then the ignorance is not of any importance. Viewing in closer, from the actual doing of the work he is getting nothing but benefit.

In conclusion, nothing is ever completly beneficial as I have proven. Since anything can lead to death, and death is objectively wrong, or bad, nothing can have complete good sides. Your welcom.

If death was objectively wrong as I said before, suicides would not exist. Death is not evolutionary beneficial, but neither is sexual monogamy. And all values of things are subjective, so is the value of death, so is anything which follows on. And things cannot objectively have benefit, but they can to someone or something, which is where the issue lies. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
Jabuticaba

Pro

I forgot to mention that my opponent did not follow the rules established. The rule established was that they would use the first round as their opening statements, and that in the last round they wrote nothing but "thanks for the debate". Because he did not follow the rules established, I urge voters to keep in mind the 7 point deduction al established.

REBUTTALS

"But not all people want to survive. If survival was such a set-in-stone issue, then suicide wouldn't exist. Sure, from an evolutionary perspective, yes, but people can want to end their life. People can have no regard for anything and nihilism is something people conform to. Suicides happen, some people go out of their ways to save others simply because the value of life is subjective. The value of anything is subjective. So for someone who does not worry about death, for a value to be placed on death, the desperation of survival is subjective. So death can happen, that can still not hinder anything depending on who you are."

All people want to survive. It is human instinct. The urge for suicide is more of a failure in the brain. It is usually dealt from depression, or mental issues. Though they think they no longer want to live, they're instincts want them to. So death according to a human is bad.

Now let's go with your "subjective" comments even though they are irrelevant. Even if such were true, someone else might think the situation is wrong. Since they see there is a bad side, there is one according to their opinion. Since there is one according to them, there is one in the end. Since there will always be 1 person thinking something is wrong, everything has bad sides, if we were to use subjectivity as our main model, making your argument invalid.


"Again, I don't find this logical, and I see where you are coming from but it depends on how much you look at in the first place. So if I absolutely love a particular object, I get full benefit from it."

You possibly get full benefit, however someone else may get negative things from it. Perhaps they will experience jealousy, which people don't like. Because of such, the situation would not give full benefit, considering there is a bad side to it.

" The colour, texture, its uses how it affects others, as long as I do not value life then what it can do to me or others doesn't matter, it doesn't hinder the fact that what I receive particularly from that object is benefit. "

Every human instinct values life however, as I have proved.

"We can go deeper and say I am only looking at the colour, which I enjoy. The colour brings to me nothing but benefit. Maybe the actual device could kill me, and even if I do have an evolutionary fear of death, the colour of that object brings me nothing but benefit. "

But it brings someone else bad sides, making the colour not completely beneficial, since there are bad sides.

"Your whole argument has been what I have disproved. If he does not care for life whatsoever, which happens to people, then the ignorance is not of any importance. Viewing in closer, from the actual doing of the work he is getting nothing but benefit."

He does care for his life, as I have mentioned. At certain moments, he may go through depression, and want to end his life, but during that moment he has plenty if doubts. The reason? Because human instincts seek survival, and life. All people want life according to their instincts. And his work can give someone else negativity. For example, if someone couldn't make it into the same university because his work was too good, and didn't leave a space open for another student, it gave that uneducated student a bad side. Since a bad side was created, that boy doing his work does not completely benefit everyone, or anything.

"If death was objectively wrong as I said before, suicides would not exist. Death is not evolutionary beneficial, but neither is sexual monogamy. And all values of things are subjective, so is the value of death, so is anything which follows on. And things cannot objectively have benefit, but they can to someone or something, which is where the issue lies. Thank you. "

Death is objectively wrong, and suicides are only the subject mind trying to force himself into thinking life is useless. However because of human instinct, he is incapable of truly believing such. Deep inside, he is aware death is wrong, as I have already proved. Not everything is subjective, saying that is subjective. Everything can always have bad sides. If you are completely happy, and you get full benefit, someone may be jealous, and hating himself for being jealous, creating a bad side. Everything has bad sides, even though they may not effect the main person in the situation, it may effect other people around negatively, making nothing possibly being able to be completely beneficial.
Your welcome.

Please voters remember the obliged 7 point deduction.
CJKAllstar

Con

"Thanks for the debate."
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Wow, this is tight.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
I am very sorry, it seems I'm not paying attention these days. Please ignore the 7 point deduction. Thanks for the debate, it was very fun.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
I am very sorry, it seems I'm not paying attention these days. Please ignore the 7 point deduction. Thanks for the debate, it was very fun.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
I am very sorry, it seems I'm not paying attention these days. Please ignore the 7 point deduction. Thanks for the debate, it was very fun.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
I was?
k nvm please ignore the point loss. I apologize, this is my error.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Well, Jabuticaba, is that not just plain sleazy. I did miss the rules, yes, but you said explicitly, "however I will give you another chance. This round explain your opening case, and on the last round write "thanks for the debate"."

Now you proceed to say that I did violate the rules after you put in all your arguments simply to boost your chance of winning. Please, the floor, I request you vote on who had the better arguments, do not fall into Jabuticaba's sleazy trap to get me to lose.
Posted by MrDelaney 3 years ago
MrDelaney
Jabuticaba - In Round 2 you said you were giving your opponent another chance.
Now you're saying you 'forgot to mention' the rules were violated and you're asking for an automatic 7 point deduction.

Seems odd timing to give him another chance before the debate, but after the arguments are done going back on that and trying to enforce the rule you already said you'd be willing to let go.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
JabuticabaCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Issues- Pro did not posit his Burden of Proof, He only refuted CON's arguments. And that is poor conduct. In addition to the attempt to get 7 points. It is strange that Pro attempts to argue against subjectivity, then uses it to establish ill effects of an action. The entirety of Pro's argument relied on subjectivity to assert his position (the idea that death/ice cream is bad is subjective; some cultures appreciate death, ice cream is fine in moderation. Pro then attempted to shift the goal posts for Con, by stating that "completely beneficial" implies no neutrality. Again, subjective. I personally did not appreciate the copy and paste method used by either debater, but at least both of them did it. Pro's source doesn't seem relevant to this debate at all. The idea of survival in no way suggests that death is bad. The reality is that everyone will have their opinions on something, whether it is good or bad. Spelling and grammar was fine, though pro had a few errors more than con
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
JabuticabaCJKAllstarTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was great debate, however I believe pro won. He had better arguments. He spoke about how everything has bad sides, and if someone thinks something is perfect, and someone else see's how its bad, there is a bad side. Con only focused on subjectivity, which pro was able to refute, rendering all of con's points invalid. For grammar, pro had a few less errors than con. I decided to start checking spelling, so that I could cote properly. Pro was the only one with a source, so he get's points for reliable sources. I didn't give anyone conduct though. Con didn't follow the rules, even though pro let him go. But in the end, pro tried to win 7 points. Since neither displayed good conduct, neither received the point.