The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

People who have high rankings should be put in jail.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 83160
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

I propose that people who achieve a high ranking on this website should be put in jail. This is because a high ranking on this website is a clear indication of advanced skills in the art of skulduggery and Machiavellian digression.
Jonbonbon

Con

Thanks for starting this topic. Hopefully this discussion goes somewhere.

1) High rank is too ambigous.

We can't judge it by percentile, because you can be literally the worst debater on the site and still be in the 99.5th percentile, which is only .5 away from being the best. I bring up the example of Vi_Spex who has lost nearly 300 debates and won less than 50 [1]. So in this percentile you have people who are awful and still accused of being awful people.

We can't judge based on ELO because you can just accept debates from people who will most likely forfeit most of their debates for an extended period of time and win a lot.

We can't just based on debates won, because that fails to take into account the caliber of debaters that they debated. And trying to judge their caliber runs into the same problems I'm listing, making this all circular and implosive.

We can't just based on public opinion, because appeal to people is a logical fallacy. People can be wrong about their opinions.

We can't judge based on the skills they demonstrate, because we can't rank that, and if we did it would most likely be highly flawed. Plus there's the reason I will mention below.

2) People who are good at debate have many desirable qualities.

They are generally very analytical, logical, and intelligent. These are not things to shun in the real world. In the real world we need people who are analytical, logical, and intelligent unless we want a society run completely by idiots. So generalizing people with these skills as being personally flawed in my opponent's unfounded opinion is ludicrous.

3) The law

There is no legal provision to throw people in jail because they have crappy personalities. Another law would have to exist to support this, otherwise this law fails to even exist because there's no provision for it. It would be like that law in Tennessee that restricts you from whale hunting from land.

So my opponent's case has zero foundation.

Thank you for reading.

Source:

[1] www.debate.org/vi_spex/
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

Success in this forum is based on the points system which is not entirely a democratic system. The points are distributed according to conduct, agreement with topic before and after debate, quality of grammar, quality of reference material and best argument.

From my experience so far, I have noticed that people use their friends to cast votes for them. This is not what I would call a democratic system. This website is like a class of students which doesn't have a teacher out the front of the class room to keep order and discipline. This results in the students going berserk and ruining the furniture, throwing food at one another and generally making a mess. (analogy only)

I have tried to register for voting purposes but it appears they don't send activation codes to Australia.

I would suggest a better voting system should be employed so that a fairer result could be achieved. It would be much fairer if voting was anonymous and compulsory to a roster system of voters. Each person who posts a debate would be obliged to vote on one other debate as a kind of payback to ensure system integrity is maintained. In this way, voting would be done by regular contributors and not by Adolf Hitler impersonators.

At the moment, I would say that people that have very high rankings are those that know how to rort the system and are not particularly good debaters. The reasons for voting section is just a sham, and does little to justify any decision.
Jonbonbon

Con

First I will address the resolution.

Let's stay on topic please. Nothing in the last round clarified why people who have friends to support them (even if the support isn't always morally sound) should be thrown in jail. Thus, the last round is essentially a forfeit as far as the debate goes.

Second I will address my opponent's complaints.

1) This is a theres where you can post enhancement suggestions and Juggle can ignore it. http://www.debate.org...

2) Judges can be elected so that only the ones you want voting on your debate will vote on your debate. This means that no matter who you debate, you don't have to worry about having the other guy's friends vote against you just because they're the friends. You can even be civil and ask the opponent to pick an equal number of voters for their debate. Avoiding vote bombs is very easy if you care enough.

3) You can set the voting standards so that high caliber debaters/voters can't vote on your debate.

So under no circumstances is my opponent right. The voting system can be adjusted by someone who cares.

Therefore since the voting system can be adjusted by anyone to make it more fair, the fault is on no one but my opponent. My opponent has literally no ground to stand on.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

People who have high rankings are obviously rorting the system. These people are posting very short, one or two word debates and then usually win by 15-20 votes while their opponents get no points. So, obviously there is a scam going on here.

Example - Mikal who has the hihest ranking of 9,000.

Debate - We can create a religion

His reply - I will make a cup cake.

He then proceeds to cut and paste the recipe for a cup cake.

Mikal wins by 22 points to zero.

Now, what the hell is that?

I would not call that a debate! This is just someone who is rorting the system with absolute nonsense and garbage.

Thus, I have proven that the safe guards that have been put into place are not working and that idiots are running riot by posting absolute garbage and then winning. It appears that complaints about system abuse go unheeded. I have complained about a number of members and no action has been taken on these members.

Thus, I have clearly proven that people who are rorting the system should be put into some kind of jail. This jail may be in the form of a temporary exclusion zone.
Jonbonbon

Con

Summary:

My opponent hasn't even come close to addressing why someone should be put in jail.

1) He hasn't made a logical connection.

If his argument were to be put into a syllogism, it would look like this.

P1) It is possible to fix votes.
P2) Some people on DDO fix votes.
C) Those people should be put in jail.

That's a huge jump from Premise 2 to the Conclusion.

2) His only example was a bad example.

Here's the debate: http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, Mikal presented an actual argument. He shut down the only argument from the other side, and then posted the cupcake recipe. His opponent forfeited all but the first round. Since Mikal actually presented an argument, that necessitates he wins.

Thus, my opponent abused that source, which is actually worse than asking your friends to vote on your debate, and I actually provided the link, because the example doesn't harm my side of the debate.

3) Let's keep the language civil please.

4) My opponent is being severely rude.

He did not address any of the options I provided. He did not address how specifically they fail to protect voting. He didn't even have a proper example. Yet he's dismissing my entire last round like it was just a candle in a hurricane.

5) The voting system is one of the few things Juggle actually changed. My opponent hasn't been around long enough to know that, but there used to be a huge controversy. The voting system can be easily guarded now by people who care.

6) My opponent's personal problems aren't relevant in this debate.

7) Still no connection to jail.

I don't know how it works in Australia, but this is the definition of jail: "
a place for the confinement of people accused or convicted of a crime."

It's not like we're sending them to a virtual Gilligan's Island or something. And if that exists, I want papers on my desk about it's location by midnight tonight.

But to be clear, there's no crime, and no one's getting sent to jail over my opponent's personal problems.

So my opponent's resolution completely falls completely.

Now I'm going to post a recipe about how to make great chocolate chip cookies.


Ingredients 40 m 18 servings 285 cals

Gold Medal Flour
$1.79

Market Pantry Granulated Sugar - 4lbs
$1.99



Instructions:
  1. Preheat the oven to 325 degrees F (165 degrees C). Grease cookie sheets or line with parchment paper.
  2. Sift together the flour, baking soda and salt; set aside.
  3. In a medium bowl, cream together the melted butter, brown sugar and white sugar until well blended. Beat in the vanilla, egg, and egg yolk until light and creamy. Mix in the sifted ingredients until just blended. Stir in the chocolate chips by hand using a wooden spoon. Drop cookie dough 1/4 cup at a time onto the prepared cookie sheets. Cookies should be about 3 inches apart.
  4. Bake for 15 to 17 minutes in the preheated oven, or until the edges are lightly toasted. Cool on baking sheets for a few minutes before transferring to wire racks to cool completely.

Source: http://allrecipes.com...

Thank you for reading!

Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I have no idea what you're saying, but if it makes you feel better, I'm going to assume the reason you sound stupid is because you're drunk.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Who's going to guard the guards? The basic problem and deficiency of every democracy. lol
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mikal// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Nazi vote mod lol IF this gets removed, im writing a 10 pape vote and then spamming the main forum why I should not have to post a long RFD on a retarted debate like this Pro needed to support the claim that people who have a high ranking on DDO deserve jail time. He did not do that. He merely stated it a couple times and backed it up by saying that people who rank high on DDO know how to rort DDO's system. Con showed that not only is DDO's system unrortable if you're trying, but that there are no legal provisions or logical reasoning (through the syllogism) to jail someone for the reasons pro provides. Pro also abused the evidence provided, and con turned it around on him to show why it was a debate I should've won. Aside from that, pro failed to back up any of his arguments with anything sound. So sources and arguments to con. By the way, cookies aren't as good as cupcakes.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently analyzes arguments made by both sides to come to a decision and comes to a sufficient decision on sources. As the reporter doesn't add any significant reason for removal, the vote remains. Further reports of this vote will be ignored unless those reasons are added.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: bballcrook21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Con used quite a lot of evidence to show that there is no reasonable explanation as to why someone who is high ranking should be jailed. In all seriousness, Pro's argument was not convincing enough to pose as practical. Con was able to highlight how there are moderators on this forum and how there is some sort of shared trust in respects to vote bombing. He also pointed out the fallacy in Con's argument, by referring to syllogisms (Oh my hatred for syllogisms). Pro was being very rude and referring to fellow ddo members in a derogatory manner. I agreed with Con before and after the debate due to the fact that he provided a recipe for some delicious cookies that I just made and they burnt my mouth but that's okay.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently analyzes arguments made by both sides to come to a decision, and the conduct point allocation is sufficient. If the reporter intends to report this again, he should do so with something akin to a reason for removal.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
No it wasn't an ad hominem. Being mean isn't inherently ad hominem. Attacking a person in place of attacking an argument is ad hominem. Being mean while correctly attacking an argument is just being mean. So apparently I was right to assume you don't know what ad hominem is :)
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Making the rude assumption that somebody doesn't understand what an ad hominen is in itself an ad hominen. Thus - guilty as charged. lol
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I was addressing your logic. Nothing more. Your logic is faulty, and your ignoring the point only proves that. So your opinion is invalid :)
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Facts are facts. Criminal ethical codes are jaded. Thus, your opinion is invalid. lol
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol yeah I know you love ad hominem logical fallacies (in case you don't know what that means, it means you attack people instead of arguments. You can hate the people all you want, but that doesn't make them wrong. So your argument is actually illogical and most likely wrong, but good try. You're really bad at making logical points).
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Your 2 votes are from 2 top crims. One a 16 year old who earns more than $150, 000? How? Selling drugs? lol
The other Mikal, who wins by posting recipes. lol What a joke!

Thus, that makes me the winner because only crims would try to defend themselves in such a blatant method.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
AkhenatenJonbonbonTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used quite a lot of evidence to show that there is no reasonable explanation as to why someone who is high ranking should be jailed. In all seriousness, Pro's argument was not convincing enough to pose as practical. Con was able to highlight how there are moderators on this forum and how there is some sort of shared trust in respects to vote bombing. He also pointed out the fallacy in Con's argument, by referring to syllogisms (Oh my hatred for syllogisms). Pro was being very rude and referring to fellow ddo members in a derogatory manner. I agreed with Con before and after the debate due to the fact that he provided a recipe for some delicious cookies that I just made and they burnt my mouth but that's okay.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
AkhenatenJonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Nazi vote mod lol IF this gets removed, im writing a 10 pape vote and then spamming the main forum why I should not have to post a long RFD on a retarted debate like this Pro needed to support the claim that people who have a high ranking on DDO deserve jail time. He did not do that. He merely stated it a couple times and backed it up by saying that people who rank high on DDO know how to rort DDO's system. Con showed that not only is DDO's system unrortable if you're trying, but that there are no legal provisions or logical reasoning (through the syllogism) to jail someone for the reasons pro provides. Pro also abused the evidence provided, and con turned it around on him to show why it was a debate I should've won. Aside from that, pro failed to back up any of his arguments with anything sound. So sources and arguments to con. By the way, cookies aren't as good as cupcakes.