The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,476 times Debate No: 42730
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




As you should know, RoyLatham is quite a good debater. He's nearly as good as me!

RoyLatham is quite a good debater, his only flaw being that he barely ever loses. He only has 13 loses and 211 wins at time of writing [1].

He may get a few more losses if all of his opponents now get a 15-point head start. Here are some of his recent debates he may've lost if his opponent were given a 15-point head start:

Roy losing more would be good because:

* More people would be able to brag about beating him
* He'd learn to cope with loss in debate
* Debates would be a bit more fairer.

Thank you.




Greetings members of DebateDotOrg(DDO). My name is Logical-Master and I represent the CON position in today's debate. Today, I will prove that people who go into the debate with the user RoyLatham should NOT get a 15 point head start. Without further ado, let us proceed.

The instigator's arguments are quite persuasive. As he points out, Mr. Latham has 211 wins at the time of writing and has only lost 13 debates. The evidence is strong and can't be contested. Clearly, a rival debater needs some sort of leverage when up against the great and almighty RoyLatham. Otherwise, the man is practically unbeatable.

Where the instigator and I disagree is what sort of leverage this should be. Whereas the instigator argues that opponents should get a 15 point head start, it is my position that this leverage is neither interesting nor strong enough a remedy to serve the interest of DDO. As can be seen by a wider number of Mr. Latham's debates, 15 points is but twig standing in the way of a hurricane! Not to mention there might be those who'd be inclined to give Mr. Latham 15 points regardless simply due to this new rule.

Rather, instead of giving people an automatic 15 point head-start, it should be required that in addition to debating in each of his debates, that Mr. Latham do so in rhyme. Dr. Seus if you will. The first rounds of this debate are a good example and what that might look like.[1] Ths attached video also details such debate.[2] Additional points would be encouraged were Roy to actually videos and sing out his debates.

It is my contention that were Roy forced to debate in this manner (for at least 2 out of every 5 debates), his debates would become more interestnig, would be easier to read and we'd see each of the benefits the instigator talks about come to fruition. In short, my plan is better.

And that's all for now:



Debate Round No. 1


Con argues that there'd be people who would be inclined to give Roy the 15-points no matter what if the rule were to be implemented, but in that case the votes would be votebombs and would be either reported or countered to make the debate fair again.

Rhyme? Am I hearing that right? Rhyme? That's ridiculous and too unfair on poor old Roy. Do you want him to lose every debate he ever has from whenever this absurd law passes on?

Making poor old Roy to do his debates in Rhyme will make him lose in every one. Consider this scenario:

Resolution: Don't use rhymes! (First one to use a rhyme loses)
KingDebater (Pro) v. RoyLatham (Con)
7622 points 0 points

- Round 1 -
First round is for acceptance.
Hey KingDebater, I'll post my arguments later! I accept this debate and consider you my best mate.

- Round 2 -
RoyLatham used two rhymes in round 1! I win!
Uh oh, I lose! Now, I am off to watch Blue's clues!

(Most people on DDO hate the version of Blue's clues he's watching so they'll vote against him anyway)

Do you understand? Roy wouldn't stand a chance! His win ratio might even become negative! Do you really want that to happen to poor old Roy?

Also, the odds are really stacked against him in a debate where he has to rhyme all his arguments. The word "concede" has 88 pure rhymes [1], whilst the word "accept" has only 15 pure rhymes [2] which means that when trying to make his arguments all snappy and clever, he's more likely to say he concedes that say he accepts the debate! RoyLatham would lose a phenomenal amount of debates and that wouldn't be fair or good because a) it would mean a free win for anyone who enters a debate with him and b) he'd forget what it's like to win a debate.

Spelling/grammar error made by Con: "Dr. Seus" instead of "Dr. Seuss".
Another spelling/grammar error made by Con: not putting a full stop at the end of that sentence.

Thank you.




Verse 1

There once was a man named KingDebater, who sounded like a real Roy Hater!

He presented a plan with great folly, which I shall refute with great jolly!

He insisted opponents get a head start, instead of having them use their smarts!

He denied the anger this would produce, insisting the anger would be countered, he deduced!

Not realizing the counters could be countered, he failed. Or that the rules can be averted, despite jail! [1]

Verse 2

Rhyme? He heard rhyme, I cannot deny. These are the rules that should apply!

Losing every debate? That I contest. As he admitted, Roy is the best!

He talks about a debate where Roy can’t rhyme . . . presuming Roy would accept and waste his time!

This plan of mine . . . need not be absolute. Just two of five debates are a hoot! [2]

Blues Clues is awesome, to deny that is insane! This statement itself . . . no need to explain!

He complains about “stacked odds” . . . rather bizarre . . . is that not the point of the argument he’s pushed so far?

To make Roy lose, so he said . . . in his round one, were we mislead?

King contradicts himself, very sad . . . this might make voters very mad!

To debate against rhyme, no win guarenteed. This debate is proof . . . yes indeed. ;)

Verse 3

He attacks my grammar, quite unsporting, while his is in need of tremendous sorting!

Than and that? They are two different words.[2] To confuse the two is quite absurb!

"Clues" should be capitalized, since it is proper.[3] Those who say otherwise are grammatical paupers!

Verse 4

Great justice demands that you vote CON . . . now excuse me while I go play in the lawn!

Thanks for the debate!




[2] See CON R1.

[2] "The word "concede" has 88 pure rhymes [1], whilst the word "accept" has only 15 pure rhymes [2] which means that when trying to make his arguments all snappy and clever, he's more likely to say he concedes that say he accepts the debate! "

[3] Uh oh, I lose! Now, I am off to watch Blue's clues!

Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
Something about me posting bias votes? I'd like to get involved in this 10 month old discussion.
Posted by James.Price 2 years ago
2-D, I try very hard to base my decisions on the merits of the arguments as presented. I care very little to try and please celebrity divas.

You are describing a fallacy, called an "Appeal to Authority," wherein a debater is seen as 'correct' simply because of his screen name. In other words, reputations that are earned matter. Those that have been fluffed with sycophantic votes have not been earned, and are not impressive.

I point again to the fact that he was recently awarded points for superior Spelling and Grammar in a debate where he misspelled his own title. This is not uncommon. I also noticed that at least one voter had his account removed after voting for Roy in the three debates mentioned here. Was this a result of voting impropriety? I have no way to know, but I strongly suspect that it could have been. Voting impropriety is common with him, as you attest.

Latham has some skill. Yet, like the famous sportsmen who have used steroids, it is impossible to know how much skill he has - due to all of the improper votes from persons such as yourself, Donald_Keller, 4-16 Fighting Falcon, Gordon James, dtaylor971, and Dylancatlow.
Posted by KingDebater 2 years ago
It looks like you've got this one in the bag!
Posted by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Gracias, Mr. Atheist! :)
Posted by 2-D 2 years ago
@James It is true that I, and likely many others, hesitate to vote against debaters with a strong reputation. That's a good thing. Reputations are earned and they matter. Pretending otherwise or asserting that this is an injustice just ignores the practical reality in front of us as well as the facts.

That Roy has a fan base that is willing to quickly weigh in on debates only confirms popularity not a conspiracy to promote arguments without merit. It is true that a strong reputation means voters feel more pressure to understand arguments and offer a stronger RFD. This is often helpful and motivates users to earn a reputation for themselves.

I like this site because it is the evidence that ultimately matters. Roy is, in fact, a great debater and reading his debates is sufficient evidence.
Posted by James.Price 2 years ago
You might know, 2-D. You have never voted against Roy Latham. You are not alone.

Donald Keller, for example, never votes outside of his ideology. He has never voted against Roy Latham.

After having misspelled the title of his own debate, two debaters claimed that he deserved high marks for his excellent "Spelling and Grammar."

4-16 Fighting Falcon, Gordon James, dtaylor971, and Dylancatlow have never once voted against Roy Latham, in any debate. Dylancatlow, in fact, awarded Roy Latham a full 7 points in a debate that he was losing.

Skill has little to do with his win record. These questionable votes do.

Of course, I am not saying that Roy Latham deserves no votes, and that whoever votes for him is a bootlicking sycophant. He has debated well at times, and does deserve credit for this. However, his win record is not impressive, since it includes such obvious team-voting.
Posted by 2-D 2 years ago
@James that's a strong charge. I haven't noticed any pattern among voters for Roy to justify that statement. From reading his debates any one can see the talent.

Where are you getting evidence for your accusation?
Posted by KingDebater 2 years ago
@Imabench If you want to
Posted by James.Price 2 years ago
Roy Latham is not a good debater. Whenever he debates, multiple accounts magically spring up and vote for him no matter what he says. This is not skill.
Posted by soon 2 years ago
Quotations are not intended to assert an ad hominem. I apologize.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to judge, but the win goes to Con for his excellent last round argument. I do hope RoyLatham reads this debate and votes on it as it is brilliant and a testament to his abilities. Sources are tied, as they linked well not much. Conduct and spelling are tied again, now lets not penalize Roy :)