The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/18/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,089 times Debate No: 665
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

bsergent

Pro

According to... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore

"Prostitution describes the act of sexual intercourse in exchange for money. However, its definition may be extended loosely to include any sexual act for any type of compensation; depending on the location where the act occurs."

So, if attention is compensation, which we know it is because people pay for advertising, and that compensation is acquired in this case by posting pictures of others or yourself that are of interest for primarily sexual reasons, then technically speaking, what other term fits better?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of what Encyclopedia Dramatica would call "s*** nobody cares about," especially on a debate site. As such, further classification into "attention whore" is wholly unnecessary, especially considering how any attention whore with a brain would not restrict attention to those willing to sign up for a pointless website.

I am against your proposition not because it is false, but because it is utterly pointless, establishing nothing of any value to anyone in the slightest way.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of what Encyclopedia Dramatica would call "s*** nobody cares about," especially on a debate site."

What, this isn't a fair subject to debate? I saw someone debating who batman could beat up, so I kinda thought I could debate whatever I like. If this topic isn't stuffy enough for you, go look at my other ones. Besides this wasn't aimed at you, I was hoping she'd answer. If you think I'm silly for debating something so ‘pointless' what does it say about you for volunteering to be involved?

"As such, further classification into "attention whore" is wholly unnecessary, especially considering how any attention whore with a brain would not restrict attention to those willing to sign up for a pointless website."

Pointless website? Would that be debate.org or stumbleupon.com? I'm confused because I like Debate.org and I would never call it pointless, and Stumbleupon.com has over 4 million users and is growing faster than MySpace did.

"I am against your proposition not because it is false, but because it is utterly pointless, establishing nothing of any value to anyone in the slightest way."

But obviously it at least has value to you, sufficient to speak on it publicly. I'm always amused by people screaming at the top of their lungs (figuratively speaking) about how little they care despite their willful participation. But in reality when a person doesn't care, they don't do anything. :)

So for the record, let me just restate what you've done here, and you can tell me if you agree or disagree.

You've joined a debate that you have/had no interest in (which is weird, I mean why join in the first place), that you have no intention of following through on in order to express an opinion about the pointlessness of its nature which could have easily gone in the comments section.
Yea it's obvious you don't care, I mean most people when they see debates they think are pointless they do something really crazy, they just ignored them.

But then again they're not starved for attention. :)

Perhaps since you've ruined this debate we should take the opportunity to explore your status with respect to attention whoredom?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

If your goal was to get the novinha in question to respond, you would have been guilty of violating the rules had you succeeded, because outright calling someone a "whore" once they have established membership would have made you guilty of a personal attack against a member. So it doesn't help you much to speak of what "should be" in the rules.

Besides, what are the odds she'd answer? Did you inform the person in question that a debate regarding her status had been raised?

I did not say the debate itself was pointless, I said the proposition was, there is a difference. I joined the debate because I wanted to dig out precisely what premise could lead you to make such a pointless proposition.

Is it because you find being a whore to be a bad thing? If so this debate will travel a lot further.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"If your goal was to get the novinha in question to respond, you would have been guilty of violating the rules had you succeeded, because outright calling someone a "whore" once they have established membership would have made you guilty of a personal attack against a member. " "So it doesn't help you much to speak of what "should be" in the rules. "

Not if I could prove it was a fact and not an attack. By your logic anything I say about a person they don't like is against the rules. Like "you're wrong about Iraq". "He said I was wrong, that's an attack!"

The phrase "attention whore" is not like "poopie head". For one its provable, for two it is not a metaphor for "I think you're a foul person", in fact I don't know the person. But I do know the behaviors she engages in, and establishing whether or not they classify her blog as an attention whore's blog was the whole point of the debate. So if I'm insulting anything it's a web page, not a person.

However, if your position is that she isn't engaging in these behaviors, and thus I'm just making a personal attack, then maybe we actually have a debate now. How about we get to it, to make up for all the time you've wasted.

"Besides, what are the odds she'd answer? "

Zero, now that some ****** crashed my debate. (Maybe the asterisks hide the word "genius".)

"Did you inform the person in question that a debate regarding her status had been raised?"

Indeed I did, but again since you crashed my debate before she even had a chance to respond to the msg containing the link, who's at fault here?

"I did not say the debate itself was pointless, I said the proposition was, there is a difference. I joined the debate because I wanted to dig out precisely what premise could lead you to make such a pointless proposition."

No you didn't, you saw an opportunity to wreck something and could not resist. You did not present a shred of evidence for any position you simply stated it.

"Is it because you find being a whore to be a bad thing? If so this debate will travel a lot further."

No I don't, actually I think prostitution should be legal and I have a deep respect for all sex workers as both needed and honest. Her dishonesty is my problem not the nature of her actions. She conceals her underhanded sales pitch using "art". Which harms both art and porn, which in my view need to be seperate like church and state, or commerce and education.

But that is not the subject of this debate. You're trying to divert attention away from your impulsive action. To be specific, crashing a debate you had no intention of participating in and simultaneously making sure no one else could participate in either.

The extent of your expression of my position's pointlessness should have been limited to a comment or non participation. Anything else is underhanded, and if not already against the rules, will be as this site matures.

But I guess I'm just being insulting aren't I.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

There is a difference between "you are wrong about Iraq" and "you are a whore" (attention or otherwise). Whether you can establish it or not does not alter its nature as an insult. I could prove from the evidence in your profile that you are something else that is also an insult (I won't mention it) but it would still be a personal attack if I did so.

You have no business determining what my motives were, so stop.

I am waiting for you to present evidence that there is a reason to engage in a debate about stumbleupon.com. or one user thereof (4 million users do not change whether it is a pointless website).

I saw nothing in there indicating it was labelled as "art." However, dishonesty, while bad in an ideal climate, is not necessarily bad when regarding someone's status as a whore. Various forms of pornography, etc, are or have been outlawed, and could be at any point. Labelling it as art protects the business from governmental whim sometimes. If someone passed a law indicating that all wood would be confiscated, would you regard someone falsely labelling their home as made of stone to prevent confiscation by predatory officials as immoral?
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Having looked up the various definitions of the word insult it appears that my intention is key. And in this case my intention was to draw attention to a given lame behavior, not to make a person feel bad.

And despite all that it was non of your business.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
An insult is generally defined by the effect it has. I didn't say you intended it as an insult, I said you insulted someone, there is a difference.

and yes, even if you can prove I'm a pedophile (which you can't) it's still an insult.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"Whether you can establish it or not does not alter its nature as an insult. "

lol ok pal, so if i call you a pedophile proof would have no bearing on that being an insult or not? Please.

"I am waiting for you to present evidence.."

It's the end of the debate.

"You have no business determining what my motives were, so stop."

But you can tell me what I'm thinking and if its an insult or a mere statement of fact? The rules are different for you I guess, noted.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
This site does not allow me to send a debate to a given target without their email address. I was kind of banking on people not getting involved unless they actually gave a s**t.

The point of this debate is lost on you unless you know stumbleupon. SU does not have a forum like this for a public debate.

The point of this debate was supposed to be her defending her behavior or changing it and making the SU community better. Not all debate has to be earth shattering. But I admit this is a little out of place. But as of now this is the ONLY debate site.

If you want me to take trivial debates elsewhere, go make a place for me to take them, or else just stay out of it. Trashing my debate was and is childish and should be against the rules.

I mean really, is it too much to ask that people joining a debate actually be required to participate?

*sigh*
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
Whats the point of this debate? Is being a whore's blog a bad thing? Why? What business is it of yours and how do you know about it?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by chadn2n 9 years ago
chadn2n
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by joehoevah 9 years ago
joehoevah
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by james94 9 years ago
james94
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
bsergentRagnar_RahlTied
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