The Instigator
weather
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

People take debate.org way to seriously

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 11 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 7572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

weather

Pro

This is just a 3 round debate, you will be arguing con on the topic (duh) There will be a 1 month voting period and you will have 72 hours to reply.

This is from the site itself on the confirm your ID page "In order to keep Debate.org clean and fun, we require members to confirm their identity before using several features." This from deamonomic "i honestly thought this was a serious site. but it appears i was wrong." This from Xie-Xijivuli "I not so sure HeedMyFeed, or anyone, should be using Wikipedia as a source" There are many more, but I will save them for later.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro made no definition of "to [too] seriously," so our first task is to figure out what he was taking about. A "debate" is "A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." http://www.answers.com... "Formal" means "Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations" http://www.answers.com...

Pro's objection appears to be that many people on the site want to have debates that meet the definition of "debate." That is to say that they want the rules and conventions of debate to be obeyed. Moreover, Pro complains, the people who want to debate on debate.org are so bold as to cite the rules and conventions of debate in comments and, apparently, in judging debates.

By analogy, if Pro were playing baseball, he could object if an umpire called him out after three strikes, saying "That's no fun. You are taking the game too seriously. Let me just swing away as I choose." This is apparently the same meaning of "too seriously" that Pro applies to debates on this site. Pro objects that the "too serious" debaters who want to debate according to the definition of "debate" are ruining the fun of those who do not want to debate according to the definition.

Just as serious baseball players believe the game is more fun when played according to the rules of baseball, serious debaters think debate is more fun when they debate according to the rules of debate. Pro thinks otherwise and takes offense at serious debaters. Because the meaning of debate is clear and the meaning is clearly reinforced by the rules of debate.org, Pro has voluntarily put himself in a place for serious debate. Therefore he has no grounds for complaint. People are not taking debate.org too seriously, they are taking it for exactly the level of seriousness implied by the definitions and rules.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
weather

Pro

To further drive home my point, see the argument above, and probably bellow.

This site is just for fun, there is no reason to be "formal" because I'm just chillin' on the couch with a laptop in shorts and a t-shirt, just watch my opponent will say "wrong type of formal." Online debating on debate.org is not the same thing as baseball (which is boring if you ask me, and people do take it to seriously.) as one of the comments from rangersfootballclub says "... I have particpated in 25 debates only one or two because of strong belives , the others for fun , i am constantly hated for not refering to sources or using facts and spelling over and over again , i do it for the fun of it , my arguemnts are always legitmate ( except the odd rant everybody has ! ) and make sense , however people refuse to read it because i donot do it "the correct way " by refering to this and that , get lost i hate you knit pickers lol!"

If you want to debate formally, go join a formal debate club. Here Are more quotes proving my point.
brewmaster-"Question: Did you seriously post this topic as a legitimate debate, or were you just trying to have fun? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this was just for amusement (look at some of the crap I argue), but if this was just to start a flame war then it is irresponsible and childish."
here is a debate where people take this to seriously between zippo and Maikuru "People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org."

brian_eggleston-"I can't believe that debate! The response was so outrageous that I suspect Con must be a troll.
Either way, it's a great shame, as the theory is imaginative and well-worth exploring further - a proper debate on the idea might even prove to be the basis for a future academic paper, if not for Pro, for someone else (they could even pinch Pro's excellent diagram from R1!)
It's a real pity Con didn't engage in the discussion properly and it is most regrettable that he felt the need to be so discourteous. If Con is a typical representative of the Christian faith, I am happy to remain an "unenlightened" atheist!"
TFranklin62-"that is really stupid and inappropreate for a site like this"
Zeratul-"Guys this is a stupid debate and a complete waste of time, unless you are really trying to learn something from it, which i highly doubt.
"Why?" is all I have to say."
this is the argument of NJDebater- "Since this is the only open debate, i might as well debate it.
I must concede to the resolution, since it has nothing to do with me, and I know nothing of the opposite debater's relationship with this Tiffany Meade. Since all information provided by the opponent must be used against him, i can not trust the information he gives, utterly destroying the whole resolution. That is why i am forced to concede. Therefore, the resolution is faulty. And thus, you must vote for con.
However, that is only my last resort. Please apply this in the final round. I will debate the best i can.
So, my opponent annoys her. All the more reason to punch him. Telling at teacher won't stop my opponent from annoying her, as by analyzing the typical human psyche.
Now, please note the contradiction in my opponent's case. "I can't hit her because any guy who hits a girl is a douche unless she attacks the guy." Well, she did attack him, so he is justified in hitting her back. Thus, turn the impacts of this argument my opponent provides against him. He lists the solution to his problem in his own case. Therefore, you must vote con.
Thank you."

All these people are taking this way to seriously.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro offered no definition of "too seriously," so I assume he accepts my analysis.

I argued that one way to have fun is to play according to rules. That applies to baseball, chess, quiz shows, and virtually every organized competitive activity one can think of. Pro verifies, by citing examples and claiming even more, that most people on debate.org believe that fun derives from arguing according to the rules of debate. Moreover, the rules and conventions of the site demonstrate that the site is intended for people who want to have fun debating according to the standard definition of debate.

Pro offered no rebuttal. He never claimed that people do not have fun playing according to rules or that debate.org is not intended for such people. Through most of his quotations he verifies that people on the site want to have fun in exactly the way intended. When people ask a debater if he is just trying to have fun, they are really pointing out that he only has fun when he gets to make up his own rules. They are clearly disagreeing with his concept of fun. The same "just having fun" comment would be made of baseball player who ran the bases in the wrong direction or did some other loopy thing. The comment is really an elliptical reference to "having fun at our expense."

The analogy I made to baseball is appropriate. Pro claimed it was inappropriate, but his only support is from a few people who share his idea that "no rules" equates to "fun." I'm sure there are a few people who would also agree that baseball would be more fun if strikes weren't counted ... or whatever. We know that those people are a small minority, because the organized sport from Little League on up, has no venue for "no rules" players. It's the same with debate. People are perfectly free to have whatever discussions they want, but once it is called "debate" and is organized, there are rules at every level.

Pro invites people who want to debate according to rules to find some other venue, so that his concepts can take over this site. That is not logical, because there are already many venues available for his style of "no rules" interchange. For example, he can text message or e-mail or argue in the hallways, and do anything he wants to his heart's content. A debate site is only needed for serious debate. The provides the fixed number of rounds, character limits, scoring mechanisms, and so forth needed for debates.

I'm not suggesting that there ought to rules prohibiting dopey topics or arguments. I am arguing that it is perfectly legitimate to call such debates "dopey" ... or whatever they are called. Doing so is not taking debate.org too seriously.
Debate Round No. 2
weather

Pro

con dude, I thought it would be understood, that if you are from America "too seriously" means to be not a joke or not to be taken seriously, and if you don't know what seriously means try looking in this awesome thing called a dictionary (that goes for all you readers too) and if you don't know how to use it the words are in alphabetical order, and once you find "seriously" it will have a definition and my definition is that only slightly tweaked to the lower extreme. Yea people don't have fun according to the rules online and in person, there are not actual written rules of online debating just stuff like no pornography ect. and take Second life for example, the most boring game on the web, what did I do? I got my hands on sum illegal weapons built a iron man suit that shot bananas, and became a terrorist, I was able to crash a server. I got kicked out, but it was fun. And note that we are DEBATING THAT PEOPLE TAHE DEBATE.ORG TOO SERIOUSLY, NOT EVERYONE, NOT ALL THE PEOPLE, NOT NONE OF THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE, AND MY OPPONENT IS POINTING OUT THAT SOME DON'T, WHICH IS POINTLESS THUS YOU MUST VOTE PRO. take example, all the dudes and dudetts who get extremely POed when you mess up in a debate. If you are wondering why my argument has little to do with yours it is because I only read the first and last paragraph cause those are the most important.

Now just to annoy the formal debaters I will say Thank you, vote pro over and over again. Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote pro Thank you, vote4me
RoyLatham

Con

Pro says, "I thought it would be understood, that if you are from America "too seriously" means to be not a joke or not to be taken seriously, and if you don't know what seriously means try looking in this awesome thing called a dictionary." So according to Pro, "too seriously" means

1. not a joke
2. not to be taken seriously

His second definition is self-contradictory, so we'll look at "not a joke." That's a definition of "seriously." "Too seriously" implies something done to excess. So the best we suppose is that doing anything that is not a joke is "too serious." That's obvious nonsense.

Pro invites me to look in a dictionary to find the meaning of "too seriously." In the first place it's Pro's job to define what he is talking about. In the absence of that, I proposed a definition to which Pro had no objection. The phrase "too seriously" is not in any dictionary of which I'm aware. The meaning I ascribed was in accord with common understand. Pro's definition, not introduced until the last round, of "not a joke" is weird and nonsensical. There is no error of excess in believing that debate is not a joke.

Pro takes great pride in telling us how he managed to have fun by sabotaging a web game and ruining everyone else's fun. That is, of course, immature and unethical, but it does tell us what his idea of fun is. His idea of fun is sabotaging everyone else's game. That concept only works if most people do not agree with it. It requires that most people have fun playing by the rules, so that Pro can have fun by ruining that. Thus Pro implicitly concedes that vanishing few people on the site agree with the resolution.

Pro attempts in the last round to define "people" as meaning "at least a few people." That is not a logical meaning to ascribe to the resolution. If one makes the generality "Basketball players are tall." One is not claiming merely that at least two basketball players are tall, one is claiming that enough are tall to make it reasonable generality. If Pro wanted a weird definition, he had to do that in his opening argument, so that everyone considering the challenge would know he had loaded the resolution with an unreasonable definition.

Moreover, we have learned that Pro's concept of "fun" requires spoiling the game for most players. He revealed that in the pride he took in ruining a web game. From that we also learn that Pro believes that most people on debate.org take the site too seriously. If it were just a small number, he wouldn't be complaining that his antics were generally the target of objections.

I have not made any objection to having fun topics on debate.org. People can debate fun topics within the general debate format. Nonetheless, it remains a debate site with rounds, character limits, judging, and so forth. Treating a debate site as a debate site, within the meaning of "debate," is not taking debate.org too seriously.

Pro has made no coherent case and concedes that he did not even read, let alone rebut, counter arguments. In last round he tried to adopt unreasonable definitions. His conduct was poor, as he felt it necessary to be in order to gain attention. He paid no attention to spell or grammar, making a spelling error in the resolution just for starters, and was largely incoherent.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
If you want fun and immaturity, go to 4chan or Newgrounds. This website is a place where political idea's are exchanged and debated.
Posted by Brewmaster 7 years ago
Brewmaster
In response to McBain I can only say: Hello Fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you. Thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot! what? Taxes. They'll be lower, son. The democratic vote for me is right thing to do Philadelphia. So do.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
This debate is too serious. Debate.org is pretty obviously NOT a serious debate site meaning, it is an INFORMAL formal debate site. There are too many debates that have extremely poor grammar and punctuation on this site. Not to mention the frequent amount of incoherent sentences people write.
Posted by weather 7 years ago
weather
Jp, Aren't we required tell the truth?
Posted by JP 7 years ago
JP
You're one to talk weather. I seem to recall a debate that wasn't even a serious issue, that you completely blew up and talked about your opponent going to Hell. Now maybe you've changed your way. I don't know.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
A record amount of the word "serious" in one round.
Posted by weather 7 years ago
weather
There you guy go it is now a 3 round.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
I think they do and dont , for instance i have particpated in 25 debates only one or two because of strong belives , the others for fun , i am constantly hated for not refering to sources or using facts and spelling over and over again , i do it for the fun of it , my arguemnts are always legitmate ( except the odd rant everybody has ! ) and make sense , however people refuse to read it because i donot do it "the correct way " by refering to this and that , get lost i hate you knit pickers lol !
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Seems like a fairly straightforward debate but I need to ease my way up to 5 rounds.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
I'd take it if there weren't so many rounds..
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Diebold 7 years ago
Diebold
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 bookwormbill111 7 years ago
bookwormbill111
weatherRoyLathamTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Yuanti 7 years ago
Yuanti
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
weatherRoyLathamTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
weatherRoyLathamTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
weatherRoyLathamTied
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