The Instigator
ContradictiveInk
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
birdlandmemories
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Putting limits on debates

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 3 votes the winner is...
birdlandmemories
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 60524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

ContradictiveInk

Con

I was looking through the debate section and saw a debate that caught my eye so I decided to click on it. Little did I know that it had an "amount of debate" qualification. I was of course not able to argue or debate my ideas with this person due to this limit, because I had just started today. I believe that there shouldn't be a limit on who should be able to debate. Just because I haven't completed as much or more than another person doesn't necessarily mean you or the person qualified to debate has better reasons or ideas. It also doesn't benefit you in any shape or form. Because of that limit you have set up, you have now disregarded another's idea without knowing. Now I conclude my beginning argument by saying that while putting up limits may show how ranked you are, it's debating we should be doing; not cherry picking opponents.
birdlandmemories

Pro

I accept this debate and will put forth my arguments in the 2nd round.
Debate Round No. 1
ContradictiveInk

Con

Do you disagree with what I say? Why should there be limits on debates? A debate is supposed to show an argument of another or to collaborate ideas. There is no need to exclude someone who has an honest opinion about the subject.
birdlandmemories

Pro

I had an argument typed out already that was deleted, so unfortunately I will have to make a short but detailed argument:

In this round I will post my arguments for why people should put limits on debates:

1: Debates with limits tend to be higher quality:

The debate below was left open to the public

https://www.debate.org...

As you can see, it was accepted by a troll.

Now this debate that was made impossible to accept turned out to be of high quality

https://www.debate.org...

2: With a debate made impossible to accept, the instigator gets to choose an opponent:


Many debates that are made impossible to accept, ask users to post in the comments if they want to accept. This allowed the instigator to choose between users, and make sure that they get a high quality opponent, and not a troll or a person who might forfeit.

3: Speaking of forfeits, debates left open to the public tend to see the instigator forfeit more often.

Below are examples:

https://www.debate.org...

https://www.debate.org...

https://www.debate.org...


I have provided evidence why it is best to make debates impossible to accept.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ContradictiveInk

Con

I understand where you're coming from but those are only few examples. Though, the purpose of a debate isn't to pick your opponent. The purpose of a real debate is to share ideas with someone who disagrees or has a different idea on the subject. "High quality opponent?" The amount of debates or age range does not determine who's ideas differentiate. If a ten year old would like to challenge me in a debate, I'd be happy to hear his ideas and add on to mine. And of that wasn't good enough for me then I'd move on to another debator. And as I said before, the amount of debates doesn't determine quality. Only the "quantity" of an opponent. And just because another person has more debates completed that me, does that mean his ideas are better or of better value? Don't judge books by their cover. That's what I've learned. We should all take this into consideration. And yes I do understand about trolls, but if someone trolls you, if there's a block button; block them. If not, just start another post, no biggie. Copy and paste. Thank you for listening to me blabber on. I do apologize for posting late.
birdlandmemories

Pro

birdlandmemories forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Domr's vote is plain robbery.
Posted by ContradictiveInk 2 years ago
ContradictiveInk
Yeah I'm not sure if I could have used sources only counter arguments. But I do agree your debate was a bit better than mine. But look at this though. If I would have put a limit on the debate I may not have gotten a chance to exchange ideas with you. But thanks for the debate though. I'm still pretty new here. And thanks for the friending me. I do need some help with this website.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Contradictiveink, be sure to use sources next time. Then you'll have a better chance to win arguments.
Posted by ContradictiveInk 2 years ago
ContradictiveInk
Though the other user forfeited a round. He won to a more convincing argument. That's nice.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
If somebody puts a limit, you can always ask them to make an exception.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
I feel as though this is passive aggressively referring to my debate below.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
ContradictiveInkbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited. Argument: Pro had a far superior argument, even if it could have been expanded upon. Sources: Pro the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
ContradictiveInkbirdlandmemoriesTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. and a few examples does not speak for the 35,000+ debates on this website. no proof the debates are higher quality or that an opponent will forfeit. (Especially if the person has never debated before) it would be judging a book by its cover in that regard.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ContradictiveInkbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: birdie forfeited but he gave very good reasons to his position