The Instigator
TheOrator
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Meatros
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

People shouldn't use troll debates to get to their quota sooner

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 3 votes the winner is...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,216 times Debate No: 23942
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

TheOrator

Pro

I think it's absolutely disgusting that some people would like to post joking, or "trolling", debate topics simply to get to their 3 completed debates requirement to vote. I mean sure, anyone could walk up and make a 1 round, 500 character debate with a 1 week voting period, but that completely ruins the integrity of the site! Because this is an absolutely wrong style, please vote pro in this debate.
Meatros

Con

Pro has expressed disgust with trolling debates. A trolling debate topic is a 1 round, 500 character debate with a short voting period. By Pro's definition, this is a troll debate. The resolution is that people shouldn’t engage in such debates, that includes him. To vote Pro is to legitimize his behavior and undermine the resolution. Pro is responsible for creating a ‘fun’ atmosphere and not a ‘disgusting’ one (1). Vote CON.

  1. http://www.debate.org..., point 9.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mark.marrocco 4 years ago
mark.marrocco
I agree, but this happened/is happening to me unintentionally.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
Technically Con, the resolution isn't "troll debates are bad", but that troll debates to up your debate count needed to vote are bad. So technically speaking, Con is arguing against something Pro never tried to affirm.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Haha, at the time I created it I had only one debate under my belt and another one on the way. The guy who originally accepted it timed out, then you accepted it. So at the time I decided to troll and post this to meet my quota.
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
What's interesting is that neither of us need this debate - we both can vote.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I hate troll debates too, but if I voted, I would have to vote Con because I believe it is always wrong to take away a person's right to do something. Even though it can be annoying (and the only reason they do it is because they're too dumb to actually argue in a real debate) it is still their right to do that if they want.
So I am not going to vote. :)
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
The round isn't over yet so i don't knwo
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
Did he do it?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
That's nothing, a friend of mine has to disprove determinism under a 500 character restriction :P
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
Crap that 500 word restriction was difficult!

But this interesting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
TheOratorMeatrosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: crap arguments both sides. Also whoever does not give sources to con is blind.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
TheOratorMeatrosTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not argue against the resolution, but against Pro himself for making this debate. The resolution was that people shouldn't, it said nothing about Pro initiating one, etc. I vote Pro. Conduct for the win. Args. because it was funny.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
TheOratorMeatrosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The definition included using it to get to the quota sooner, which Pro did not do. Actually, hypocrisy is not a criteria for judging in any case. Pro's case was pure assertion, but Con didn't counter the argument. A weak counter like "anything that fully obeys the rules is not contrary to the site" would have won the debate, since there is no rebuttal in a one round debate.