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

Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 43097
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




This debate exists to determine whether or not Pro is capable of participating effectively in debates on the DDO that involve topics I am knowledgeable of.

Debate will last three rounds, as Con's first post will be a declaration of acceptance, and the last will consist of both sides' final word, regardless of final opinion.

Character limit is ten thousand. Argument deadline is 72 hours. Voting period is ten days.

BoP is on me, so I expect the first round from Con to be a rebuttal of the points made in my initial argument; however, I do not assert this as mandatory. Con is free to use any and all tactics and strategies in its' attempt to refute my claim, whether they be valid and logically sound or not (apart from using the first round for anything other than a declaration of acceptance, or the last round to expand on arguments for or against its' position).

Con is free to research my profile to support its' claims.

Con is free to use information from the internet to attempt to refute my position.

Con is free to use information from physical sources to attempt to refute my position.

*Con is free to use logically sound and unsound arguments in its' attempt to prove my incompetency.

*Con is free to use the opening argument (in round two) to declare the details and arguments of its' position, in place of limiting that argument to an attempt to rebut my opening argument.

All regulatory principles assigned to Con are assigned to me, where applicable, except in the instance of *, where in the first, I may only use the first Argument (second round) to state my position and initial arguments in favor of the position, and in the second, be limited to logically sound arguments for the duration of this debate, and only to support my position by complementing my previous arguments and refuting Con's arguments.

Be advised: I intend to use this debate to evaluate my critical thinking skills and, potentially, my research skills as well.

Good luck to both sides.


I am willing to debate you. Good luck, and this should be an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I acknowledge and appreciate Con's initiative. I too hope for this to be interesting.

I currently believe I am capable of effectively participating in debates such as this on the DDO, except where I lack sufficient background knowledge, which for now is the majority of popular topics, including those I want most to participate in. It is my general lack of knowledge that prompts me to begin my reputation within DDO with a debate that questions my ability to participate in a debate and remain a valid participant for the duration of the debate.
According to (, a debate is "a discussion involving opposing points; an argument.".
According to the same website, an argument can be "a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood". (

See also :

I agree with these definitions: I think a debate is a discussion involving opposing ideas, in which the advocates of each idea attempt to discredit the others' position in favor of their own.

I think I have demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is. To support my position, I use the preceding sentence to complement my claim, which is as follows:

I am capable of participating in a formal debate.

Premise: I possess accurate knowledge of what a debate is.

Argument: I have demonstrated the consistency between my idea of what a debate is and the knowledge of more reputable sources by linking the sources directly to their definitions and subsequently stating my derived definition (which appears to be consistent with my sources). Therefore, regardless of any experience I have with debate, I can then use this knowledge to determine my behavior when attempting to participate in a debate, thus leading to me effectively being a valid participant (assuming I possess the relevant background necessary to contribute to the progress of the debate topic at hand).

Goal of this argument is to provide a coherent and well-communicated idea.


I appreciate Pro's prompt reply.
I accept Pro's definitions.
However, I will be arguing against the affirmation that "Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate Pro is familiar with."


1. Pro states, "Goal of this argument is to provide a coherent and well-communicated idea."
According to Merriam-Webster, a valid dictionary, the definition of "coherent" is "logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated; coherent style; a coherent argument." [1] This argument was not coherent or well-communicated; as, contradicting the definition, Pro jumped directly from the knowledge of what a debate is to the assumption that the definition will determine behavior in a debate (in the argument supporting the first premise). However, the definitions alone do not provide any insight into the conduct of a debate other than what any debate is meant to do: present opposing sides of an affirmation and attempt to disqualify one. Those definitions do not imply any strategies that are crucial to being an effective participant in a debate, e.g. presenting solid contentions with valid reasoning and evidence to support them. This is clearly demonstrated in Pro's argument, as only flawed reasoning is incorporated into his argument, with no evidence to support it. Therefore, I have successfully invalidated Pro's goal of the argument.

2. Pro consistently states that he can only participate in debates that he does not "lack sufficient background knowledge" in.
a) First of all, this invalidates his own claim that "I am capable of participating in a formal debate." Clearly, if the formal debate in question concerned a topic that Pro is unfamiliar with, he would not be able to stand a chance in the debate spotlight.
b) In addition to the previous statement, his claim comes in conflict with the affirmation of this debate: "Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with." His claim covers ground that extends far past the grounds of the affirmation, which only contains those topics that Pro is familiar with. His statement is irrelevant to this debate and therefore invalid.

3. Pro states, "I think I have demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is."
a) In this statement, the incorporation of the word "think" clearly shows uncertainty on Pro's part. Therefore, Pro's point is already unstable, as he has shown through his uncertainty that he is considering the opposite: that Pro has not demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is. Logically, Pro is supporting my side of this argument and has invalidated his own.
b) Also, as I have previously stated in my first rebut, the "awareness of what a debate is" does not constitute competency in debate. Competency is the bare minimum of efficiency, and as this is the goal of the affirmation, the lack of competency would clearly invalidate it.

I have rebutted the claims that embody the entirety of Pro's speech. Thank you, and the spotlight is now on Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for the rebuttal.

I must concede. My argument was pathetically ineffective, and I failed to provide enough specifications for what this debate was meant to address, which you took advantage of. Your arguments are for the most part aggreeable.

I apologize for wasting your time.


Thank you for the debate, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


soon forfeited this round.


Thank you for the debate, and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4


soon forfeited this round.


Thank you for the debate, and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by soon 3 years ago
No problem. I suspected as much. Looking at your argument now....
Posted by ruiran0326 3 years ago
Sorry I haven't been able to do the argument, I've been busy with New Year's events...
Posted by soon 3 years ago
Apologies the grammar, organization, and overuse of the first-person rhetoric. I am severely out of practice.
Posted by soon 3 years ago
repeating a certain word too often.... mybad.
Posted by soon 3 years ago
That I can participate functionally in a debate; that I understand how to make a point, argue for it, and refute my opponents' arguments in turn. properly (That my point and arguments are coherent and meaningful).

That i can recognize logical fallacies, inconsistencies, or other invalid arguments being used against me, without using any in my own arguments.

If that wasn't clear than at the very least I would have expected this to be seen as a joke debate, like so many others on this site.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
So, all you have to do is argue and you win? That does not sound fair.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A polite concession by pro, so I'll give him conduct. That does mean arguments go to con though.