The Instigator
Donderpants
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Harrythemasterdebator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

People under the age of 13 should not be allowed on Youtube.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 76554
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Donderpants

Pro

Hello, I will be affirming the moot.
Youtube is great in many regards- but members of it's community are not. People get insulted, they "learn" new colorful language. Even on notably child friendly channels, (Stampylonghead, for instance) the discussion and comments are disgustingly vulgar.
As well as this, some of the people themselves shift and change- and suddenly, what was child friendly is targeting a new audience, and the original audience suddenly gets a video that is not so appropriate.
Harrythemasterdebator

Con

YouTube may not be perfect, but overall it is a great resource for sharing educational educational and entertaining videos with peers and others in the community. First of all I would like to point our that the YouTube moderators have community guidelines that must be followed or else your account will be banned. One of the rules is to respect the YouTube Community, and punishment for failing to do so is an automatic account ban.
Debate Round No. 1
Donderpants

Pro

You rebutted a side argument, with no examples, not large portion of my argument. You only rebutted a side argument- so the main argument, that people commenting and talking on the discussion can be cruel and be an influence, is a strong one.
At least you accept that Youtube is not perfect- but I think you overvalue the educational usage of Youtube. In fact, its videos can be a distraction from school work.
Yes, Youtube monitors videos- but they can't be everywhere. A few get through- too many.
Harrythemasterdebator

Con

Harrythemasterdebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Donderpants

Pro

Me and Harry have agreed to quit this debate due to an issue with 500 character limit. All further rounds are forfeit.
Just so you know.
Harrythemasterdebator

Con

Harrythemasterdebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Donderpants

Pro

Donderpants forfeited this round.
Harrythemasterdebator

Con

Harrythemasterdebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Donderpants

Pro

Donderpants forfeited this round.
Harrythemasterdebator

Con

Harrythemasterdebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
That's actually a very good idea, I'll ask Harry if he's okay with that tomorrow. Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by GIDHIR 1 year ago
GIDHIR
If I may suggest something, and this is not an insult, you can just end the debate. You can start a new one, maximizing your character limit, and just take time while constructing your point. Don't get caught up in small details, lest the debate go off topic, and just keep focus on the main points to be had.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
I'm just going to respond to these in order that I see them.

Sorry, that was cutting one too many corners. I acknowledge that what you say at the start is a reasonable misinterpretation of what I meant. What I meant was
"You rebutted one of my side arguments, which is clearly a side argument because it has no examples, whereas my other point did"
I really, really did have to cut corners. The end result was roughly a third the size of the original one. I had several more polite, grammatically correct bits that just had to be cut to fit the character limit.

Yes, the numbering did get a bit off.

I like this debate in that it's better than no debate. But I prefer real life debates. So I prioritize them over these ones.

The word count was my own fault (although Harry was the one who encouraged me to set it at school) I set the character limit low, normally it's significantly higher, around 10,000 limit, which basically meant we could write as long as we wanted. I pay the price for it now.

Yes, again, it was just letting him know that he was on a side argument.
Posted by GIDHIR 1 year ago
GIDHIR
"You rebutted a side argument, with no examples, not large portion of my argument." To me, that is you saying he didn't have actual examples. So yes, you did criticize his lack of examples. Also your numbering in your last comment is incredibly convoluted. "#4 what you said in point three" all that nonsense. You also don't seem to have much of a liking for this debate. You don't like the word count, it's not as important as your real life debating, why even continue if you hold such disdain for it? Finally, yes, you had one whole reference to a YouTube channel. I did not mention that in my criticism. That doesn't change the fact that he basically stated his version of what your round one statement was and you decided to stick to the triviality of the opening round instead of moving on with the debate. Even now, you say you are getting tired of arguing with me, yet you just listed six point rebuttal in a comment.
P.S. I'll buy that the 500 character limit has impacted your writing capabilities. That doesn't nullify my critique because by that logic you have no right to condemn him for operating under the same constraints.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
.... This is getting old very fast GIDHIR. I told you already-
1. I said he was arguing against one of my side points, which was clearly a side point because it lacked any references to statistics. I was not insulting his points at all. We had a 500 character limit- so we couldn't really post statistics, which is why I didn't post statistics either.
2. In response to "First of all, you yourself didn't state one fact or reference at a all, so you criticizing his shortcomings only exemplifies your own" I didn't at any point insult his lack of references. Maybe I had to cut corners to make it fit the 500 character budget. But I think the grammar is still correct enough that the point I wanted to bring across came across.
3. First and foremost to me is our real life debate team. So pointing out better ways to recognize side arguments was well worth losing some characters in which I could argue further my point.
4. In response to what you say is your third point, again, it's more important to me that we're strong in actual debates in real life than to continue with the debate.
5. In response to your last point, agreeing with part of an argument and then using their own point to strengthen your own is one our debating coach strongly encourages. He does a similar statement all the time. I don't mind.
6. Okay, that last point had two things I want to contradict. I was cutting corners. 500 characters is a really bad limit. Stats and references were impossible. The only point I mentioned stats and references was where I told him that it was a side argument. My other point had examples, saying that "Even child friendly channels like Stampylonghead have very hateful remarks in the discussion." and so I was informing him that the one with references was the main argument I was presenting.

The main reason for almost all your complaints is a 500 character limit. You try rebutting and arguing with only 500 characters at your disposal. It's harder than it looks.
Posted by GIDHIR 1 year ago
GIDHIR
It did reach me, Donderpants. both in your round 2 rebuttal and your comment you state that the opponent, Harry...debater, did not have any resources or evidence and that he was focussing on a side point. First of all, you yourself didn't state one fact or reference at a all, so you criticizing his shortcomings only exemplifies your own. Secondly, all he was stating was his general point on the matter as a preamble, an introduction. You should've just begun the second round with a more detailed explanation of what you believe on the matter. Third, if what he was criticizing in your first round was just a simple side argument then why was it important enough for you to bring it up in the first place? Last you claim you were not condescending him and that you and him are on the same debate team so you are just correcting each other. Well you know what, your first paragraph was just being mad that he had a statement about something you said instead of just accepting with an "ok"; your second paragraph you say one positive,and it's a back handed insult. "At least you concede that I was right in that regard. At least you have SOME civility." And then you do exactly what you were mad at him for. You take a single part of his arguement and criticize it without evidence. Was there a single reference, statistic, or fact you stated in your own argument?
P.S. My statement about misspelling was a criticism of many debates I've seen, including yours, which petty fog the major issues in favor of criticizing minor issues with what the contender had said.
Posted by Donderpants 1 year ago
Donderpants
In the hopes that GIDHIR sees this-
My original argument was significantly kinder, thanking my opponent for at least acknowledging that Youtube was not perfect, things like that, but as there was a 500 character limit, large amounts of that was lost.
None of that stuff was ever said once. I am friends in real life with the person on the other side. I wouldn't dream of saying I'm more intelligent than them.
The closest either of us came to what you said was me- and clearly you didn't bother to understand the rest of the argument. I said that the bit he had rebutted against had no references, or evidence, to let him know that all he had rebutted was a side point. No one pointed out spelling errors. No one said what the other side didn't mention. And I imagine he would be pleased to be informed of this- we're on the same debate team in real life, and so having someone correct any small errors instead of letting them have that error in a more important context is good for me, and good for him.

Telling people off for spelling, no references- that's wrong. Telling the other that they seem to have missed the meat of the argument is in fact helpful, and let's them know what to target next round. I hope this reaches you GIDHIR.
Posted by GIDHIR 1 year ago
GIDHIR
Oh boy, doesn't everyone love debates that begin with each person treating the other in a juvenile way? "Your arguement didn't even bla bla bla and you clearly misspelled blergidy blerg bler." "As you all can see, my opponent is so beneath my intelligence for I am right. No evidence, no references, nothing, what an amateur." Stop condescending to the other and just make your points known.
No votes have been placed for this debate.