The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

People on debate.org need to get their resolutions/arguments straight.

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: 1/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,631 times Debate No: 1429
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (19)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

A lot of people on debate.org make their arguments things such as double-negatives. It gets very confusing. For instance, consider this: "Income tax is not unconstitutional." The person who accepted this round thought he was debating that it was constitutional and 'Conceded' the round.
Also, take a more simple one: The big bang theroy is not true. People, they give you a choice to be pro or con. On the description of 'Con' here, it says I am against the topic. So are you against the big bang or against the against big bang? What? It's just way to confusing.

My advocacy: Members should not create topics that have grammatical errors, double-negatives, or that just don't make sense. Be open to taking Con on your own debate.
beem0r

Con

Greetings.

The way people make their arguments on debate.org is their choice, and it's fine how it is.

There are a few assertions my opponent has made; he was kind enough to list them at the bottom of his opening argument.

The first on the list is that "Members should not create topics that have grammatical errors." However, my opponent has completely failed to mention any reason for this. as far as I'm concerned, a naked assertion is not a valid argument. I ask my opponent to please back it up in round two.

Next on the list, my opponent asserts that "[Members should not create topics that have] double-negatives" In his first paragraph, this is pretty much the point he attempts to make. However, it is the duty of the "Contender" to fully understand what position their acceptance of a challenge places them in. If you don't want to have to be against "Income tax is not unconstitutional," don't accept the challenge.

Not only that, but consider the following: at least from some people's perspectives, there is almost always a point in the middle. For example... Tedddy bears. While they're surely not unconstitutional, many people would not see them as 'constitutional' either, since they have nothing to do with the constitution. Therefore, "Teddy bears are not unconstitutional" would have very different implications than "Teddy bears are constitutional."

Another problem you bring up is people including 'not' in their topics. Apparently this is too confusing for you. However, while it may take a few extra seconds to understand the position, the confusion ends there. I think you and hopefully all of us here are smart enough to figure out what a double negative means. Also, in some cases, it completely changes the meaning of the debate. Take, for instance, the recent debate between my opponent and myself: "PS3 is a bad system to own." As con, I only had to show that it was at least mediocre. However, if the topic was "PS3 is not a good system to own," I would have had to show that the PS3 was in fact good. Using or not using not determines which side of the fence the middle ground is located. The "neither constitutional nor unconstitutional," the "neither good nor bad."

To wrap it up, I'd like to say that my opponent is placing an unnecessary burden on debate-makers. If you, as potential contenders, do not want to take a certain topic, you don't have to. While some might prefer not having the confusion, some others might enjoy it. What an instigator should and should not do in his/her topics rests solely in the hands of the instigator. Whether or not they will get a challenger rests solely in the hands of potential contenders.

If a topic doesn't make sense to you, don't contend in it.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

Hey Beem0r! Nice debating with you in the last round. Hopefully the same this time.

Answers-
1. "my opponent has completely failed to mention any reason for this. as far as I'm concerned, a naked assertion is not a valid argument. "

I sure did say why that is bad: Confusion. And entering debates you don't want to be in. This can't be argued, I clearly said 'confusion' in my first speech. Another thing is annoyance. I personally get annoyed with these topics because I have to think about them for a little while, before I even understand it. Another (new) impact is grammar. Language has power. What world would we live in where anyone could say anything and make sense of it later? Couldn't they just say what they believed in right there? We don't take English classes from 1st to 12th grade for no reason.

2. "it is the duty of the "Contender" to fully understand what position their acceptance of a challenge places them in."

That is true, but my point was that people pass it up, don't read the question over 10 times, and end up misinterpreting this. Beem0rs argument is pretty much that they shouldn't make mistakes. But the fact is, When the words 'Uncostitiutional' and 'taxes' are mentioned in the same sentence, most people think of one thing (the wrong thing). What Beem0rs argument on advocacy is not reasonable because everyone makes mistakes. You can't expect every person to read over the resolution 15 times, because if you accepted the challenge, you obviously THOUGHT you knew what the resolution said. (sorry that was kinda run-on.)

3. "While they're surely not unconstitutional, many people would not see them as 'constitutional' either, since they have nothing to do with the constitution. Therefore, "Teddy bears are not unconstitutional" would have very different implications than "Teddy bears are constitutional."

Teddy Bears are not income tax. There are big debates about income tax being unconstitutional or, the opposite, constitutional. The constution doesn't talk about teddy bears, but it does talk about taxes.
Also, the 'very different implications' are not that different. Unconstitutional is the opposite of constitutional. If you said they were Un... then the other person in the debate would say they were constitional. Sure, if you brought out of nowhere in everyday consveration that Teddy Bears are constitutional, then they would agree, but in a debate where the two sides are of complete opposense (is that a word), there would not be different implications.

4. "I think you and hopefully all of us here are smart enough to figure out what a double negative means. Also, in some cases, it completely changes the meaning of the debate. Take, for instance, the recent debate between my opponent and myself: "PS3 is a bad system to own."

While this may be a good argument, I don't get how this argument applies to my case. My argument was on double-negatives. 'PS3 is a bad system to own' is certainly not a double negative. Also, if you are just saying 'words in the resolution shape the debate', I agree. Language in a debate does have power, I agree, that is the basis of my pro side. You say, "IT completly changes the debate". If you mean using 'not', I did not use that in PS3, so the analogy can't apply to the argument.

OFFENSE-
1. creating topics with grammatical errors, such as double-negatives are just stupid. They are
confusing- as per not unconstitutional, many debaters lose debates because they didn't know what they are getting into, and people simply viewing the debate have to think about the topic for a while.
annoying- as I'm sure most of you agree, I get annoyed because I have to think about it. I find myself asking, Why don't you just make it clear WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. And,
Grammar- Debate is combat, fought with words, not fists. Debate is one of the only places where we can use our rhetoric skills while also serving a greater cause. When we start to break away to poor grammar, the essence of debate is taken away, right from our hands.

2. Also I'd like to bring up a new argument. In one debate, a debate said the resoulution "Freedom of Speech". While that is not even a real topic, you would think the con is against freedom of speech. But no, the argument was that freedom of speech should not allowed for groups like the KKK, but for the general public. Topics like this also link to my 3 impacts, because they don't even say what the pro or con should actually beileve in. Take a challenge I recieved. "To help or not to help: Nietzsche and stuff." I had to send back a debate with a clear resolution. If it were an open challenge that I did not know about, I would have to read the WHOLE THING before I decided if I wanted to debate this. If it were 'We can help others by not helping at all', It would provide clear ground for what the pro is saying and what I should say.

Confusing Resolutions should be curtailed on debate.org. I mean really, c'mon.
beem0r

Con

You say that people need to not use bad grammar in a topic because it's confusing. If you're confused, don't take the debate. We're not all college students here, and I'm sure some of us don't even know English as our first language. If it's to much trouble to waste a little more time reading sentences to understand them, don't take a debate with someone who uses bad grammar. Consider this:

I start a debate with a topic in Klingon.
You don't understand what it means (hopefully).
You can either A> take it or B> leave it.

If you chose A, you're either too much of a geek for me to talk to, or you're a foolish knave (knave's just the noun I like to attach to foolish). To be clearer - you have to be a fool to take a debate when you can't understand what you're supposed to be debating.

You said that my argument is based largely on telling would-be contenders not to make mistakes. You fail to see the intense irony here. Either that, or you felt like making a rather ironicly self-defeating statement just for the heck of it. I'll let you reflect on that now. (I'll give you a hint... you're telling the Instigators the same thing... and you're also blaming them when the contenders make a mistake).

>>But the fact is, When the words 'Uncostitiutional' and 'taxes' are mentioned in the same sentence, most people think of one thing (the wrong thing).<<
So you're saying that Instigators need to make sure to use proper grammar, no double negatives (just because you don't like them?), and no other confusing language... but would-be contenders just need to GLANCE at the topic before taking the debate. I hadn't previously considered the art of skimming a single sentence, but that seems to be what you're advocating as responsible action. And if your skimming leads you to a wrong conclusion, it's definitely the other guy's fault, right?

Not to mention, and here's where it gets real funny, you have a whole paragraph+ on the guy's stance. There should be NO confusion about what the stance is, he has his opening statements laying there in plain sight.

>>You can't expect every person to read over the resolution 15 times, because if you accepted the challenge, you obviously THOUGHT you knew what the resolution said. (sorry that was kinda run-on.)<<
You CAN expect people to at least read the entire topic, not just glance at two words, and you CAN expect people to read the opening statements. You CAN'T, however, expect the blame to be placed elsewhere if you failed to actually read the topic or the opening statements.

Also, in regards to the PS3 topic, what I meant was the following:
"PS3 is a bad system to own" - Pro
and
"PS3 is not a good system to own" - Pro

Are not the same thing. While good and bad are in fact opposites, there is a middle ground. In the first case, con would only have to show that the PS3 is mediocre, since that's better than bad. however, mediocre would be on Pro's side in the second case, since mediocre is not good. An example of double negatives actually meaning something, that's all.

Now, responding to your offense...
>>creating topics with grammatical errors, such as double-negatives are just stupid. They are confusing- as per not unconstitutional, many debaters lose debates because they didn't know what they are getting into, and people simply viewing the debate have to think about the topic for a while.<<
First, double negatives are _not_ grammatically _in_correct (I hope that statement didn't confuse you). They might be something to avoid in essays or something, but this is a casual community. If you can't understand what they mean, don't take a debate when they use one in the title.
Second, 'not unconstitutional' is not confusing. Whoever took that debate clearly did not see the word 'not'... it's not like he saw it and thought it didn't mean anything. He wasn't confused by the words, he just didn't read the title as well as he perhaps should have. And it cost him the debate, I'm sure. But to blame this on the instigator... as if he was the one not doing his duty? That, if anything, is confusing.

>>annoying- as I'm sure most of you agree, I get annoyed because I have to think about it. I find myself asking, Why don't you just make it clear WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.<<
It may annoy you, but I'm sure a great deal of things would.
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam
See, that probably did it. However, neither I nor other members have some duty to avoid your annoyance. In fact, we have no way of knowing what's going to annoy you. "Not unconstitutional" doesn't annoy me in the slightest, but it seems to get you worked up, for whatever reason. We're not mind-readers, we shouldn't have to know what's going to annoy you, neither should we have to avoid it if we did know.

>>Grammar- Debate is combat, fought with words, not fists. Debate is one of the only places where we can use our rhetoric skills while also serving a greater cause. When we start to break away to poor grammar, the essence of debate is taken away, right from our hands.<<
bad sentence still pack strong punch. big hurt on enemy still mean big win. words no, but yes to the ideas! they make side.

>>2. Also I'd like to bring up a new argument. In one debate, a debate said the resoulution "Freedom of Speech". While that is not even a real topic, you would think the con is against freedom of speech. But no, the argument was that freedom of speech should not allowed for groups like the KKK, but for the general public. Topics like this also link to my 3 impacts, because they don't even say what the pro or con should actually beileve in. Take a challenge I recieved. "To help or not to help: Nietzsche and stuff." I had to send back a debate with a clear resolution. If it were an open challenge that I did not know about, I would have to read the WHOLE THING before I decided if I wanted to debate this. If it were 'We can help others by not helping at all', It would provide clear ground for what the pro is saying and what I should say.<<

While I'll admit that I'm even annoyed at things like that, I just don't take the challenge. If it's something I have very strong feelings on, I might even bother to read the opening statement enough to see what his stance was, just out of curiosity, but I probably still wouldn't take if. If you don't like the 'topic of debate,' don't debate it. It's not someone else's fault if you do and don't know what you're getting yourself into.

Confusing Resolutions should be ignored by would-be contenders on debate.org. I mean really, c'mon.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

Answering-
1. "If you're confused, don't take the debate. We're not all college students here, and I'm sure some of us don't even know English as our first language."

First of all, that only applies to the argument that they don't know what it says. It does not apply to the 'Unconstitutional' argument because he thought he knew what he was doing, accepted the debate, got confused about what he was debating, and realized he did not want to debate it. Providing a crisp, clean tag of what the topic is about would allow people to glance at it and decide whether or not to take it.

2. "You said that my argument is based largely on telling would-be contenders not to make mistakes. You fail to see the intense irony here."

My argument was not the same. Instigators have the duty to make a clear resolution. Having poor worded topics discourages voters and contenders. Also, the 'mistakes' that the instigators make are not the same. Most of the topic flaws are major grammatical errors that don't make sense, aren't clear, or aren't a resolution at all. The mistakes that you say not to make are human mistakes that result from the fact that they think they understand the topic from the key words. To ask what your asking, is have every contender read the resolution and the arguments 10 times, even if they get it. I seriously doubt people would be up for that.

3. "would-be contenders just need to GLANCE at the topic before taking the debate. I hadn't previously considered the art of skimming a single sentence, but that seems to be what you're advocating as responsible action."

I do not advocate glancing, I'm saying that is HUMAN NATURE and that's what people are going to do. As I said, you can't expect people to read over the resolution 10 times, and that is what your saying. Sure, you have the choice of debating, but what if you want to take the debate? Raisor wanted to debate that income tax is constitutional, but later found out that that was not the topic. Most of the opening arguments are fine, and would be perfectly fine to debate, but the resolution throws many people off and discourages contenders to debate.

4. "There should be NO confusion about what the stance is, he has his opening statements laying there in plain sight."

See #1, that only applies to one argument, and #2+#3, you can't expect readers to read over it 10 times, it throws people off on stances, and it discourages voters.

5. "While good and bad are in fact opposites, there is a middle ground. In the first case, con would only have to show that the PS3 is mediocre, since that's better than bad. however, mediocre would be on Pro's side in the second case, since mediocre is not good. An example of double negatives actually meaning something"

First of all, not a good system to own is not a double-negative, so you can't use that for an example. Responding back to me with a another debate, "PS3 is NOT not a bad system' is a double negative. Good and bad are adjectives.
Second, there is no 'middle team' on debate.org. By your definition, the Resolution should read 'The Playstation 3 is not a terrible system to own, nor mediocre, nor good, nor great, nor spectaclar, nor (insert adjective), but in fact is a bad system to own'. You can't expect that. The basis of the debate was, I say bad, you say good, not proving wrong little grammatical technicalities.

responding to your defense on my Offense-
1. "First, double negatives are _not_ grammatically _in_correct (I hope that statement didn't confuse you). They might be something to avoid in essays or something, but this is a casual community."

First, that is a double-negative. I think that's what your getting at, but it is grammatically incorrect, and you give no warrant behind this. My argument is factual, while your's is an empty statment.
Second, So, the rules of the english language don't apply in causual communities? Using 'casual' language spills over into other parts of our lives. If we use incorrect grammar all of the time, don't you think that'll become a habit? Wouldn't you be better on those 'essays' you take? That also links to all of the 3 impx.

2. "Second, 'not unconstitutional' is not confusing. Whoever took that debate clearly did not see the word 'not'... it's not like he saw it and thought it didn't mean anything... But to blame this on the instigator... as if he was the one not doing his duty?"

How can we be sure he didn't? My guess is he saw the key words 'taxes' and 'unconstitutional' and did not pick apart every word in the resolution. You can't expect him to read it over a thousand times and realize that. He's only human.
Also it is the instigator's fault. It is their burden to make a clear, crisp, contextual topic so you don't have to spend ten minutes reading their opening argument and decide that you don't know anything about it.

3. "Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam
See, that probably did it. "

That actually made me laugh... haha.

4. "We're not mind-readers, we shouldn't have to know what's going to annoy you, neither should we have to avoid it if we did know."
no, you can't read minds, but I'm sure a lot of people agree with me. There is not a real big reason behind this, but I personally can't stand having to read a million opening arguments when I could read a few topic titles, and I'm SURE that people don't like to waste their time either.

5. "bad sentence still pack strong punch. big hurt on enemy still mean big win. words no, but yes to the ideas! they make side."
A. Capatalize 'B'.
B. its 'packs'.
C. Capatilize 'B'.
D. You sound like Tarzan in that second sentence. It's 'means'
E. Start second sentence with A.
F. still means A big win, not 'still means big win'.
G. Capatilize 'W'.
H. 'words no' is inconclusive. There is no verb.
I. 'yes to the ideas'. Of what?
J. Capatalize 'T'.
K. 'they make side'. Wow. Ok. Wow. What?

These grammatical errors aren't convincing anyone. Placing grammatical correct sentences help people UNDERSTAND it better. How are they supposed to know what your ideas ARE? The point of debate is persuasion, and I'm sure no ones going to be pursuaded you talk like Tarzan.

5. "While I'll admit that I'm even annoyed at things like that, I just don't take the challenge. "

HA! YOU'RE ANNOYED! Thanks for taking out your own argument.
Also, not taking the debate still takes away our education. It went uncontested that it linked to the impacts. Our rhetoric skills should be put to good use and not ignored for a fixable reason. None of us talk that poorly in normal convesation. You should not have to use poor grammatical skills that you obviously have. Using proper grammar takes more education from the round.

Offense-
1. Anyway, Resolutions should be perfectly clear so none of us are confused or annoyed. People lose debates based on humanly mistakes that everyone has. This site is about education, and should be treated with respect.

2. Non-resolutional resolutions should provide clear ground for both sides and not lead to confusion.

3. Why should we degrade ourselves to poor rhetoric skills? Debate is one place we can seperate ourselves from socicety and put our knowledge to good use. Using poor grammar does not help ANYONE.

4. It is the instigators duty to give a clear resolution. Every debate that has been proposed, execpt the ones in challenge now, have been accepted. Yet, people are confused about topics. Most people accept challenges because they think they believe what it says, but are confusing and have double-negatives.

I just have one question, How would having poor grammar help anyone? I mean really, c'mon.

Pro 4 prez.
beem0r

Con

First numbered list:

1.
It does apply. He should have actually READ the topic, and at least skimmed the opening argument. HE made a mistake. Don't try and blame it on the guy who made the topic.

2.
If they don't make sense, aren't clear, or aren't a resolution, then it only hurts the instigator. He will likely not get a contender very soon, and lose when he does. It cannot hurt the contender, because the contender knows beforehand. You need not take any part in a debate if the bad grammar disgusts you so.
Also, if you need to read a title 10 times to understand your position, you shouldn't be here. Read it ONCE, but read it CAREFULLY. Know what you're getting into beforehand, or you'll only have yourself to blame.

3.
You don't advocate glancing? An excerpt from your #1:
"Providing a crisp, clean tag of what the topic is about would allow people to glance at it and decide whether or not to take it."
Why must we write our topic titles to cater to glancers? We shouldn't. If you want to glance at an argument or a position, that's your deal. don't blame it on the writer when glancing just wasn't enough on your part.

4.
I'm confused as to what you mean. I was simply saying that if the topic is unclear, there's the whole opening argument too. If you can't figure out the instigator's position from that, you're either clueless or he had no argument.

5.
With 'not a good system' I was only attempting to show the power of using not and an opposite adjective. I wasn't claiming that it was a double negative.
Also, contenders don't need to assert the opposite claim, they just have to not support the first claim. If you say the PS3 is bad, I just have to show that it's not. It doesn't have to be good. Also, consider this debate.
You're asserting that people NEED to change their resolutions.
Do you expect me to argue that they NEED to continue using bad grammar or whatever else? No. Well, hopefully not. I just have to show that they don't need to change.

Second numbered list:

1.
There is a critical difference between the types of double negatives you refer to and the ones commonly known as grammar mistakes.
To be a grammar mistake, one has to actually mean the opposite of what is literally written: "I don't want nothing" is an example.
However, you're talking about a whole 'nother type of double negative - one where the meaning is clear:
"Income tax is not unconstitutional"
"Don't leave the castle walls unprotected"
"The man was not without his merits"
"I can't disagree with that"
These are all grammatically correct. You hopefully understand these sentences, as does anyone else who understands English. Double negatives are fine, as long as you meant what you said, rather than the single-negative version.

2.
But you can expect him to read it, not just assume based on the presence of a few words.
And it's not the instigator's burden. It's the instigator's burden to make the topic reflect what they want to debate. Not unconstitutional IS what that instigator meant, so it is not his fault in any way.

3.
4.
See that? You understood my sentence without me using bad grammar. Whatever "confusion" you had was likely contrived. Like you not knowing what I meant by the ideas - it's obvious I meant the ideas behind the words.
"It's not the words that count, but rather the ideas."
That's no more clear about what I meant by the ideas.
And "they make side" meant the same as "They are what make the side." I probably should have used a different word, like argument, but that's not a grammar problem.

You say no one will be persuaded by bad grammar in arguments. Do you also think people should have to only use premium-quality arguments? No one will be persuaded by pathetic ramblings, right? It's their choice to use bad grammar, since it only hurts them.

5.
I am annoyed, but people need not bow to my whims. Some people are annoyed by disagreement, do you intend to eliminate that as well? Of course not. the fact that you're annoying someone should not control what you do, especially not on the internet. If you're annoyed, deal with it. I do.
Neither are they obligated to change things up just because _you_ think it'll be more educational if they do. Let them make incoherent statements. They'll learn from their own mistakes, and eventually they might learn how to properly communicate ideas. Until then, deal with it.

Last numbered list:
1.
This site is not about education. To different people, it's about different things. Some want to spread their intellectual seed. Some want to prove they can deal some pwnage, some want to learn more about other people's viewpoints, some want to simply improve their debating skills.
In any case, it does not detract from the education of the site, since you don't have to participate in those debates. It can be to you exactly as if they hadn't made a debate at all.

2.
What if the author wants to confuse you? What if he doesn't care if people understand his argument or not.

3.
There is no reason, not for you or I at least. This is why we don't make non-resolutional resolutions. To each his own though, perhaps someone else who does has their own reasons (which could include stupidity. Stupidity isn't outlawed on debate.org, nor should it be).

4.
It is not the instigators duty to address all your wants. He can make his debate however he wants to. Just as you can accept whatever open challenges you want to.

I'm not saying poor grammar helps anyone. I'm saying we don't need to force correct grammar on people. Let them learn themselves, just as many of us did.

To sum it all up, there's no reason instigators need to cater to your every whim. If you don't like their writing style, their grammar skills, their word choice, or whatever else, don't take the debate. And if you do, don't blame your opponent for you taking his debate.

Con 4 emperor.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Krad 9 years ago
Krad
Beem0r, if its not too much to ask, i wanted to know your reason for joining the site. Is it dealing pwnage? I think its dealing pwnage. amirite?
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
all tied up, inform your friends
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
good debate, Beem0r

The comment is now over 25 characters.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
yeah 1 round debates are kinda stupid. A lot of people don't even put that much stuff for their opening argument.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
You're completely right, Pluto. My bad.

Hmm, now you make me wonder why people make 1 round debates?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Bad habit of mine. Sorry if that may have seemed insulting. Anyway, your argument has gotten better, so my opinion concerning who will win is not as decisive. Guess we'll have to see how beemer responds. :D
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
why are people voting on arguments from one round?? I could'nt even rebuttal! How can you say his are better, without hearing mine?!
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
From what we've seen so far, beemer has demolished the aff side's case, although I believe that the AFF can easily come back. Hint: Another argument concerning this website policies and needed edits to them would do. That is, assuming that the rules allow people to formulate new arguments after round one. Then again, I've said too much. As for now beemer gets my vote.

PS: Beemer, I challenge you to debate concerning "opposite attraction" which I had recently set up.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Thank you for affirming, but how can you vote on one round? And how can you say he's winning? I could'nt even answer his arguments!

and Napoleon, he could say what he already said. It didn't seem to hard for him.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
If I had written the AFF, you probably couldn't have made a lot of those arguments, beem0r :P

I agree with the PRO on a basic level but CON is currently doing the better debating. I affirm on the basis that people on debate.org should only write resolutions as a positive statement.

hmm maybe i should make a challenge lol.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 JUDGE 9 years ago
JUDGE
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Krad 9 years ago
Krad
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 dxpilot 9 years ago
dxpilot
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Pluto2493beem0rTied
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