The Instigator
nickoboy1992
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Quote Debates are actual 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,300 times Debate No: 7381
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

nickoboy1992

Pro

I will be pro for this debate and i will give the con the first speech.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

To start, we must define each debate that is mentioned.

Quote Debate: A debate where the participants post the best quotes they can find, sometimes regarding a theme (E.G. War, humour)

Regular Debate: A debate where the participants try to win using an argument that is logical and makes more sense than their opponents.

===========
CON ARGUMENT
===========

==#1. QUOTE DEBATES LACK CHARACTERISTICS OF REGULAR DEBATES==

A) Quote debates lack an argument:
- A regular debate requires the participants to find an argument that is logically superior to their opponents. A quote debate lacks such a characteristic, as all that is required is for the participants is to find the best quote they can. An argument can require looking at many sources, and stringing them together to make a strong case. On the other hand, you merely have to post a quote you found from a book or website.

B) Quote debates lack rebuttal & contradictions
- A regular debates often require the participants to find holes in their opponents logic, and use it to weaken their opponents case. This is called a rebuttal. They can also find a statement which goes against something else they mention. This is called a contradiction. They make debates more interesting and logical. A quote debate has neither of these.

This is all I will post for now, and I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
nickoboy1992

Pro

A) Argumentation can be made in different ways
Debates are not solely a matter of Logos but can also include elements of ethos and pathos. So there are multiple ways of making an argument in a debate, not all of them having to do with logic. So therefore quote debates can have the necessary characteristics of a debate, making an argument through pathos (whoever makes the judge laughs the loudest or cry the most wins the debate) thus there are no necessary characteristics lacking in quote debates.

Moreover i contend that debates can devolve into a string of assertions and still be considered a debate, for example I could assert right now that quotes are educational. This is a claim but at the same time there is no logical reasoning behind the claim. Even without such a string of logical reasoning i can continue to make a string of assertions in a debate. All a quote debate is, is starting with a presumed argument (my quote is funny) and then post evidence (the quote itself). Thus there is a string of assertions even if those assertions are unwarranted.

Finally, the clash is implicit in weighing, the resolution would state something like my quote is superior to yours meaning the only proof necessary is that one quote is superior to another. Quotes have the implicit logic in themselves (for example a quote debate asking which quote is funnier, i dont need to be told why a certain quote is funny, the logic for it is implied in the quote or most likely it would not be funny, the comparison comes in the magnitude). Such magnitude comparisons are legitimate in debate. Another example, if we were debating on national sovereignty vs. proliferation treaties, the debater in favor of the proliferation treaties might say the end result of the national sovereignty is a nuclear winter while the other side claims the impact of national sovereignty violations may lead to genocide. Legitimately this would be a debate as impacts are present in the round as is necessary for a weighing resolution even though the impacts are never weighed against each other.

Therefore, to sum things up, since
1. Quotes make arguments through Ethos
2. Quotes implicitly create impacts that tie back to the resolution
3. Magnitude comparison is not necessary for something to be considered a debate
quote debates are legitimate

B) Rebuttals are implied and contradictions are not necessary.
First i would argue that the rebuttal is implied in that each quote creates an impact as stated above which functions comparatively in a debate. Insofar as in a debate one can grant the opponent that one of their points is true while still winning by proving that their own point is also true and more important, the rebuttal comes in with whose quote is funnier. Thus there is a rebuttal when someone posts another quote.

Contradictions are not necessary in a debate
1. Look at my argument or even your own argument for contradictions, i did not see any in your argument and you did not see any in my argument. This means that just by looking at your own case and my own case we can see that there are no inherent flaws in a debate. (and oh by the way claiming this argument makes your own a contradiction would be false in that it just links into your own case, as a paradox, it does not necessarily contradict)
2. I can put in place a one sentence argument that does not have a flaw in it that applies and does not contradict.
3. Note the wording of my opponent, "regular debate", "often", and "can also", mean he is defining debate by general practice and not what is. The wording of the case shows that other LEGITIMATE forms of debate allow for these contingencies to be untrue, debate does not necessitate that any of these be in the debate itself. He is not providing for the scope of ALL debates.

I now stand ready for my opponents speech and urge all the voters to vote for me.
I-am-a-panda

Con

In would like to thank my opponent fir his speedy response.

========
REBUTTAL:
========

==PRO:==

>>Debates are not solely a matter of Logos but can also include elements of ethos and pathos. So there are multiple ways of making an argument in a debate, not all of them having to do with logic. So therefore quote debates can have the necessary characteristics of a debate, making an argument through pathos (whoever makes the judge laughs the loudest or cry the most wins the debate) thus there are no necessary characteristics lacking in quote debates.<<

==REBUTTAL==

I would firstly like my opponent to clear up what Ethos and Pathos are.

I do concede there are multiple ways to make an argument. You can use sources, you can use pure rebuttals, but all arguments are statements that, in order to win, most be logically superior to your opponents. However, a quote debate is comparing which quote is better than your opponents. Whereas the main goal is to trump your opponent using logic in a regular debate, a quote debate requires comparing quotes with each other and seeing which one you prefer. It is a contest at best.

==PRO:==
>>Moreover i contend that debates can devolve into a string of assertions and still be considered a debate, for example I could assert right now that quotes are educational. This is a claim but at the same time there is no logical reasoning behind the claim. Even without such a string of logical reasoning i can continue to make a string of assertions in a debate. All a quote debate is, is starting with a presumed argument (my quote is funny) and then post evidence (the quote itself). Thus there is a string of assertions even if those assertions are unwarranted.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

Whilst debates can turn into strings of assertions, they are often logically backed. You saying quotes are educational is logically backed, simply because quotes from great people are considered intelligent, and anything intelligent is educational.

All debates under your theory have a presumed argument. This debate has a presumed argument E.G.Quote debates aren't real debates for CON (presumed argument) because....(my evidence). This would be around the board for all debates. However, this is untrue. In all debates, all arguments have to be made. A quote debate does not have any argument other than quotes, therefore it is not a regular debate.

==PRO:==
>>Finally, the clash is implicit in weighing, the resolution would state something like my quote is superior to yours meaning the only proof necessary is that one quote is superior to another. Quotes have the implicit logic in themselves (for example a quote debate asking which quote is funnier, i dont need to be told why a certain quote is funny, the logic for it is implied in the quote or most likely it would not be funny, the comparison comes in the magnitude). Such magnitude comparisons are legitimate in debate. Another example, if we were debating on national sovereignty vs. proliferation treaties, the debater in favor of the proliferation treaties might say the end result of the national sovereignty is a nuclear winter while the other side claims the impact of national sovereignty violations may lead to genocide. Legitimately this would be a debate as impacts are present in the round as is necessary for a weighing resolution even though the impacts are never weighed against each other<<

==REBUTTAL:==

If the resolution states my quote is better than yours, then you have to explain why. This is the foundation of the argument. If you cannot answer Why?, then it is left to the judge, and it turns to what the judge perceives as better, not what is actually better. Although in the case of which quote is funnier (the one exception), where the reasoning is self explanatory, a level of rebuttal is expected E.G. My quote was funnier than CON's because 'X'.

Although there are few debates such as Proliferation treaties vs. National Sovereignty, giving an impact is still not a proper debate. There, in all debates, is a certain amount of explaining to do regarding why you think your side is better than the others.

==PRO:==
>>First i would argue that the rebuttal is implied in that each quote creates an impact as stated above which functions comparatively in a debate. Insofar as in a debate one can grant the opponent that one of their points is true while still winning by proving that their own point is also true and more important, the rebuttal comes in with whose quote is funnier. Thus there is a rebuttal when someone posts another quote.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

Rebuttal is not when the other person posts another quote. Posting your quote after someone else's to prove it is more important is not a form of rebuttal. Posting a statement with impact followed by a statement with greater impact does not constitute as rebuttal.

E.G. Hurricanes vs. Snowstorms
PRO: Hurricanes can destroy houses
CON: Snowstorms can close down power stations and all electricity

No rebuttal is evident here. Even if CON was trying to imply the the closing of a power station is worse than the destruction of homes, it is not rebuttal. It is merely trying to make claims without backing them up, with makes them a statement without any reasoning to why? it is better than PRO's.

==PRO:==
>>1. Look at my argument or even your own argument for contradictions, i did not see any in your argument and you did not see any in my argument. This means that just by looking at your own case and my own case we can see that there are no inherent flaws in a debate. (and oh by the way claiming this argument makes your own a contradiction would be false in that it just links into your own case, as a paradox, it does not necessarily contradict)
2. I can put in place a one sentence argument that does not have a flaw in it that applies and does not contradict.
3. Note the wording of my opponent, "regular debate", "often", and "can also", mean he is defining debate by general practice and not what is. The wording of the case shows that other LEGITIMATE forms of debate allow for these contingencies to be untrue, debate does not necessitate that any of these be in the debate itself. He is not providing for the scope of ALL debates.<<

==REBUTTAL==

Firstly, I did not assert all debates have contradictions. I simply showed the lack of contradictions in quote debates, thus distancing them from actual debates. My opponent claims he can write a one sentence argument without a contradiction, however, I simply assert that an actual debate has room for a contradiction, whereas a quote debate does not.

I would also like PRO to elaborate more on point 3. For the most part, I am comparing Quote debates to regular internet debates. These often practice a case of both sides making a case, and both refuting them, or one side making a case, and the other refuting them, and so on. For the sake of the debate and all simplicity, we shall not be discussing LD, CBA or any variants of debates other than a regular internet debate.

So far, I feel my opponent has not fully proven a quote debate is on par with a regular debate, and so far urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 2
nickoboy1992

Pro

Ethos is making an argument through an appeal to expertise (like saying im right because a doctor says so) and then Pathos is an emotional appeal. Both these are legitimate forms of making an argument and thus, since quotes can do both, quotes have some appeal as to why they are better.

"However, a quote debate is comparing which quote is better than your opponents."
There are many topics open for debate asking things like Util is superior to deontology or things like that, comparative topics exist all the time. Proving why one is better than the other is necessarily the way you win comparative debates. Since quote debates are comparative debates, comparing the two legitimately is considered a debate. I'm comparing between two things.

"Whilst debates can turn into strings of assertions, they are often logically backed."
Quote debates have some kind of topic. The quotes themselves have some link. That link to the topic is the loogical backing for the quote and thus they are logically backed in terms of the topic.

"In all debates, all arguments have to be made."
I would like to ask my opponent to what extent? Do i have to warrant my warrant? And then that one and that one and that one... The point is there is always some base assumption that can be questioned. My argument is that the quote is the original argument as to why pro/con wins the round because the topic questions who has the funnier/more serious quote. Thus there is a base level of argumentation made and appeal made to the topic itself. Thus the assumed argument (aff/neg has better quotes) IS backed up by evidence (quote) just like this debate starts with a topic (quote debates are real debates) and then arguments (like this one)

"If the resolution states my quote is better than yours, then you have to explain why."
Ok. I was going off quote debates that just post a quote. But if there is an explanation to the quote then the Pro wins this debate because in a comparative weighing topic, analysis as to why one is better than the other is one signal it is a debate. I could argue blue is better than green for instance and we could debate over that. Similarly if the CON says that quote debates allow one to include justifications then it is obvious that the topic is actually a debate.

"If you cannot answer Why?, then it is left to the judge, and it turns to what the judge perceives as better, not what is actually better."
1. There is no objective way to determine that anyways, look at all these topics on debate.org, most are not a 109-0 win. There is always some degree of subjectivity to a debate round (as there will likely be in this one). My opponent gives no reason to why debates necessarily have to have an objective standard.
2. Quote debates are objective in that they provide a link to the topic and the superior argument is voted off of (quote)
3. The rebuttal is in the form of competing impacts... ill explain in the next section.

"Although there are few debates such as Proliferation treaties vs. National Sovereignty, giving an impact is still not a proper debate. There, in all debates, is a certain amount of explaining to do regarding why you think your side is better than the others."

Quick debate 101
arguments are constructed claim-warrant-impact the impact bieng the reason why the argument is pertinent for the topic. Thus the arguments can be refuted at any of those levels. What im referring to is refuting it at the impact level by saying "Whats happening on my side is more important." This is a common debate strat.

But now on to the argument specifically on the impact wieghing

"Posting a statement with impact followed by a statement with greater impact does not constitute as rebuttal.

E.G. Hurricanes vs. Snowstorms
PRO: Hurricanes can destroy houses
CON: Snowstorms can close down power stations and all electricity"

My argument is that since debates can devolve into assertion debates (which my opponent says have implicit impacts) then these assertions clash to the extent of magnitude. In the above debate CON basically granted that PRO's would happen but asserted a worse impact. Almost everyone would agree the above is a debate (Snowstorms vs Hurricanes). Two competing impacts give judges reason to vote pro or con and thus provide some way to evaluate a debate. A perfectly logical strategy in a debate is to concede one of your opponents arguments will happen but claim it does not matter because there is something inherently worse going to happen. These quotes represent an impact (laughing/crying) and thus the more sever of the two wins as in a debate with concessions (or one of the two could say that quote was not funny or whatnot) This means that this is a debate and is determined by evaluating impacts.

"Firstly, I did not assert all debates have contradictions. I simply showed the lack of contradictions in quote debates, thus distancing them from actual debates. My opponent claims he can write a one sentence argument without a contradiction, however, I simply assert that an actual debate has room for a contradiction, whereas a quote debate does not."

Exactly - debates don't necessitate contradictions - they are not a necessary part of debate and thus since we are evaluating the quote debates based on the definition of debate then this argument should play no part. If most people could walk and there was the ability to walk for almost everyone, that does not mean a person who can not walk is not human.

Second i would say that a quote that is not topical could fall into this category. The third argument was basically saying that contradictions are not necessary in a debate.

So here is how i win
1. Quote debates are comparative debates backed up by warrents for why one side is funnier, those warrants are the quotes
2. Impacts can be weighed on the quotes in terms of humor or seriousness and thus are comparative - rebuttals occur in terms of outweighing the other debater
3. Since my case is functioning to prove my opponent wrong, my opponent must take out my case to win the round and since he does not adequately do this i win the round.

I urge a ballot for PRO
I-am-a-panda

Con

==PRO:==
>>There are many topics open for debate asking things like Util is superior to deontology or things like that, comparative topics exist all the time. Proving why one is better than the other is necessarily the way you win comparative debates. Since quote debates are comparative debates, comparing the two legitimately is considered a debate. I'm comparing between two things.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

This comment works for my argument. My opponent states comparative debates require proof that one side is better than the other, and then goes on to say quote debates are example of such debates. However, quote debates do not require reasoning or proof as to why their quote is better than the others.

Quote debates =/= Comparative debates

==PRO:==
>>Quote debates have some kind of topic. The quotes themselves have some link. That link to the topic is the loogical backing for the quote and thus they are logically backed in terms of the topic.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

In a quote debate, my opponent has made out that:
Resolution = Presumed Argument
Quote = Assertion
Link between Resolution and Quote = Logical backing

However, then, under any debate any assertion to do with the topic is logical.

Example: God is omnipotent
PRO: God is obviously omnipotent because he made the bible.

Under PRO's logic, the above claim is logical because it's linked to the resolution. However, this is far from true in any regular debate.

==PRO:==
>>I would like to ask my opponent to what extent? Do i have to warrant my warrant? And then that one and that one and that one... The point is there is always some base assumption that can be questioned. My argument is that the quote is the original argument as to why pro/con wins the round because the topic questions who has the funnier/more serious quote. Thus there is a base level of argumentation made and appeal made to the topic itself. Thus the assumed argument (aff/neg has better quotes) IS backed up by evidence (quote) just like this debate starts with a topic (quote debates are real debates) and then arguments (like this one)<<

==REBUTTAL:==

The extent the argument must be made is until (you feel) your argument is more logical than you're opponents.

PRO then explicitly says:

Quote debate:
Resolution = Assumed Argument ---> Quotes = Evidence

Actual debate:
Resolution ---> Argument

Actual debate = Quote debate

This is a clear flaw in logic here. In a quote debate, my opponent says the resolution is the argument, and the quotes back it up. In an actual debate, an argument must be made off the resolution. This is a contradiction to what he has previously said, and works for my case.

==PRO:==
>>Ok. I was going off quote debates that just post a quote. But if there is an explanation to the quote then the Pro wins this debate because in a comparative weighing topic, analysis as to why one is better than the other is one signal it is a debate. I could argue blue is better than green for instance and we could debate over that. Similarly if the CON says that quote debates allow one to include justifications then it is obvious that the topic is actually a debate.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

I am not sure what PRO is saying here, but the quote debates mentioned throughout this debate have not included justifications, arguments, rebuttal, contradictions, or any of the many other characteristic of a debate other than:

1) It has a resolution (I have better quotes than CON)
2) It has evidence (The quotes)

However, neither make up a debate solely.

==PRO:==
>>1. There is no objective way to determine that anyways, look at all these topics on debate.org, most are not a 109-0 win. There is always some degree of subjectivity to a debate round (as there will likely be in this one). My opponent gives no reason to why debates necessarily have to have an objective standard.
2. Quote debates are objective in that they provide a link to the topic and the superior argument is voted off of (quote)
3. The rebuttal is in the form of competing impacts... ill explain in the next section.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

1. Although it does not pertain to this topic, the 109-0 wins you mentioned are the explicit results of vote bombing.
2. Providing evidence does not make an argument., as there is no rebuttal.
3. Unless one side says "My impact is better than PRO's because 'X'", then it is not rebuttal.

==PRO:==
>>arguments are constructed claim-warrant-impact the impact bieng the reason why the argument is pertinent for the topic. Thus the arguments can be refuted at any of those levels. What im referring to is refuting it at the impact level by saying "Whats happening on my side is more important." This is a common debate strat.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

Claim-Warrant-Impact obviously requires you to:
Make a claim ---> Warrant your claim ---> Give the impact. A quote debate does none of this.

==PRO:==
>>My argument is that since debates can devolve into assertion debates (which my opponent says have implicit impacts) then these assertions clash to the extent of magnitude. In the above debate CON basically granted that PRO's would happen but asserted a worse impact. Almost everyone would agree the above is a debate (Snowstorms vs Hurricanes). Two competing impacts give judges reason to vote pro or con and thus provide some way to evaluate a debate. A perfectly logical strategy in a debate is to concede one of your opponents arguments will happen but claim it does not matter because there is something inherently worse going to happen. These quotes represent an impact (laughing/crying) and thus the more sever of the two wins as in a debate with concessions (or one of the two could say that quote was not funny or whatnot) This means that this is a debate and is determined by evaluating impacts.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

In the above example of a debate, CON makes no gesture to indicate he is saying his impact is worse than his opponents. If CON said "yeah but", or some variant of that, then it would constitute CON is saying his/her impact is greater than PRO's. If someone makes a statement, and then follows up with another statement with reference to the previous one, it is rebuttal. A quote debate does not have this.

==PRO:==
>>Exactly - debates don't necessitate contradictions - they are not a necessary part of debate and thus since we are evaluating the quote debates based on the definition of debate then this argument should play no part. If most people could walk and there was the ability to walk for almost everyone, that does not mean a person who can not walk is not human.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

The point I'm trying to make in this area is that debates can facilitate contradictions. Contradictions aren't in every debate, and may only play a small part, but they are in debates, both internet and real life, and because a quote debate cannot facilitate them, it distances them further from actual debates.

==CONCLUSION:==

1) Quote debates do not contain an argument
2) Quote debates do not contain rebuttal
3) Quote debates cannot facilitate contradictions
---> Quote debates lack the characteristics of Actual debates ---> Quote debates =/= Actual debates.

I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
nickoboy1992

Pro

"The extent the argument must be made is until (you feel) your argument is more logical than you're opponents"
Big mistake - quote debates function in such a way, i feel my quote fits better than my opponents. Just to clarify the resolution in quote debates ask who has a funnier quote, sadder quote, etc. and thus a quote provides an argument as to HOW you have a better quote. Thus by posting a quote, a debater feels like they have accomplished all they need to win, they have found a better quote (since the judgement to what extent is made by them).

Now this means that an argument is made to a good extent and links to the topic. THIS IS THE FIRST PLACE I WIN.

"My opponent says the resolution is the argument and the quotes back it up"
Ok maybe i made this argument confusing. I will clear it up now. The resolution implies the question "whose quote is better in x category" the quotes are the arguments as to why the quotes are better.

Now to the comparison
"Actual debate:
Resolution ---> Argument"
Quote debate
Resolution ----> Quotes

The quotes function in the same way as arguments, backing up pro or con to the resolution (Nickoboy1992 has better quotes than I-am-panda). Thus, this is the second place quote debates function as debates.

"Im not sure what the pro is saying here"
Ok i wont hold you responsible for this argument unless I make it understandable this time through. In the last round you made a mention to being able to explain the quotes. This means it functions in the same way as a debate like red is better than blue would function, through comparative analysis. SO if you are saying quote debates allow for explinations, there is absolutely no difference and no way to create such a difference.

And the last time i checked, all a debate was was evidence tying back to a resolution. Rebuttals and all.

"1...
2...
3..."

His first point about the 109-0 is vote bombing only proves the point - there is no objective way to wiegh a debate in the first place meaning that clashing evidence, even if not explicitly wieghed is considered a debate. The evidence in the quote debates are the quotes which mean that it is a debate on this level as will.

His second point about there being no rebuttal - first i would say look to the one round debates on debate.org, there is no rebuttal in those and they are debates, all a debate is is a set of conflicting claims used to convince an audience of one side or another. Secondly i would say the rubuttal is the next round of quotes to prove why one sides quotes ARE better than another. Finally i would say that this is not true as all i have to do is provide a larger impact. For example the argument earlier about the snow storm would have been a debate even though the impacts were not weighed. Sure it would be a nightmare for the judges but it is still a debate. Finally i would tell you such explicit weighing is only the mark of a good debater, not a necessary function in a debate. Ask any debate coach - there are debates in which one side completely disregards the other and asserts an impact without weighing.

"con makes no gesture to indicate he is saying his impact is worse than his opponents"
This is not nesicary in a debate. Implicit wieghing is just as good. most of the times really good national circuit LD debates come down to two competing impacts not excplicitly wieghed against. Another example of this is someone who attacks the entire opponents case and pulls out the impact without weighing and then the opponent successfully defends his case and tries the same. There are two competing impacts that have absolutely no way to choose which one is superior. Thus there is no function in debate that requires impact analysis. Two floating, non-compared impacts still function for a debate (although they are awful in terms of adjudication). Moreover look to any inexperienced debater only trying to rebuild his own case without doing anything or just reasserting his own case. In the case of two debaters like this, there are two competing impacts that are exactly the same as those in quote debates.

"Debates can facilitate contradictions."
Can functionally means this argument is not nesisary for a debate. They dont have to be there meaning we dont have to look at this argument when determining if quote debates are actual debates.

OK HERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS I MADE NOT RESPONDED TO
Quotes create argumentation through ethos and pathos meaning they are legitimate as arguments functioning back to a resolution. Remember there are multiple ways to make an argument. This argument was not responded to so DONT LET HIM MAKE A NEW RESPONSE SINCE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY FOR ME TO RESPOND SINCE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND. That would be akin to cheating.

THIS is the number one place to vote for me becuase it means arguments can be made without logic. I.e. if i make an appeal to an expert then it can be considered my argument is superior. This is an unattacked reason as to why quote debates have argumentation. Moreover this means that quote debates can functionally have rebuttals in the form of ethos and pathos. THIS ARGUMENT BASICALLY SHOWS LOGIC IS NOT NEEDED FOR SOMETHING TO BE A DEBATE. ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE IN TWO OTHER WAYS. therefore rubuttals can use quotes that have these elements that prove why an argument is superior.

I WIN RIGHT THERE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ROUND. MY OPPONENT CAN NOT RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN ANSWER ANY NEW ARGUMENTS. THE REASON THIS DEBATE HAD FOUR ROUNDS WAS SO THAT THERE WERE 3 ROUNDS TO DEVELOP AND REFINE ARGUMENTS. IF MY OPPONENT MAKES A NEW ARGUMENT AS TO WHY ETHOS AND PATHOS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE THEN YOU VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE HE IS BIENG UNFAIR SINCE HE HAS A POINT THAT I CAN NEVER REFUTE. YOU VOTE FOR ME OFF FAIRNESS BECAUSE THE VOTE AT THE TOP ASKS WHAT SIDE OF THE RESoLUTION WAS PROVED BETTER. IF THERE IS NO FAIRNESS, THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER FAIR SINCE THERE ARE WORD CONSTRAINTS, ETC. THUS YOU VOTE TO A. ENSURE FUTURE DEBATES ARE FAIR AND MY OPPONENT IS PENALIZED FOR CHEATING AND B. GIVE ME THE WIN BECAUSE I ARGUED THE RESOLUTION BETTER BECUASE THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO TO COMBAT SUCH UNFAIR PRACTICES

(Note that argument only applies if my opponent makes a new argument to something he had not attacked before. Even if you dont buy it as a reason to vote for me, it is a reason to disregard new arguments. Even if you dont buy that i still win in other places)

On my opponents voters
1) Quote debates do not contain an argument
A. Other ways to argue (pathos and ethos)
B. Implicit argumentation (my quotes are better because this is one of my quotes)
2) Quote debates do not contain rebuttal
A. Other ways to argue - the rebuttal comes through Ethos and Pathos which are ways to prove why something is more important
B. There is no need to explicitly weigh impacts therefore floating impacts are fine in a debate - quote debates have floating impacts as per A and B on number one.
C. There does not need to be a rebuttal in a debate - look at one round debates.
3) No contradictions
A. Contradictions are not needed or implied in a debate. My opponent only says they can be in a debate. Sure quote debates are not similar to those 90% of debates that do allow for contradictions but that does not mean they do not fall in the other 10% or whatever. Thus my opponent has to win off 1 and 2.

VOTING ISSUES
1. There are other ways to make arguments (Ethos and Pathos) and all quotes have elements of one or the other
2. There is an implicit topic (my quotes are better than yours) and the way it is proved is by supplying quotes - there exists a topic and evidence
3. Quote debates contain impacts (my quote makes you laugh or cry) and thus there is a way to prove that one quote is superior to another.

I urge everyone to vote PRO

Thank you for the debate I-am-panda
I-am-a-panda

Con

I am afraid to say real life has caught up with my debating here, and I do not have much time to post.

==PRO:==
The quotes function in the same way as arguments, backing up pro or con to the resolution (Nickoboy1992 has better quotes than I-am-panda). Thus, this is the second place quote debates function as debates.

==REBUTTAL:==

The comparison you showed of:
"Actual debate:
Resolution ---> Argument"
Quote debate
Resolution ----> Quotes

Actually backs up my claim. As long as I can prove:

Quotes =/= Argument of Actual Debate

My opponents argument is void.

==PRO:==
first i would say look to the one round debates on debate.org, there is no rebuttal in those and they are debates, all a debate is is a set of conflicting claims used to convince an audience of one side or another. Secondly i would say the rubuttal is the next round of quotes to prove why one sides quotes ARE better than another. Finally i would say that this is not true as all i have to do is provide a larger impact. For example the argument earlier about the snow storm would have been a debate even though the impacts were not weighed. Sure it would be a nightmare for the judges but it is still a debate. Finally i would tell you such explicit weighing is only the mark of a good debater, not a necessary function in a debate. Ask any debate coach - there are debates in which one side completely disregards the other and asserts an impact without weighing.

==REBUTTAL:==

1) There are one round debates with rebuttal. Some are used purely to test someone's argument for an upcoming debate.

2) You are basically saying:
Quotes without explanation= Rebuttal

However, if I say blue is better than green because blue looks like the sea, and you respond with geen is like a leaf, it is not refuting my claim about blue being like the sea. Rebuttal requires the debater to attack their opponents claim.

==PRO:==
Can functionally means this argument is not nesisary for a debate. They dont have to be there meaning we dont have to look at this argument when determining if quote debates are actual debates.

==REBUTTAL:==
Debates don't necessarily have contradictions, but they are actively involved (especially in online debates). The lack of contradictions distances quote debates from actual debates.

==CONCLUSION:==

I only have 5 minutes left, so I will conclude that:

- A resolution is not an assumed argument, therefore quote debates have no argument.
- A quote debate lacks rebuttal through the lack of explanation in regards to why one quote is better than the other.
- A quote debate cannot facilitate a contradiction.

I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Since a quote debate has no resolution, there is no subject for argument. Without a subject, there is no argumentation for or against anything. All definitions of debate require argumentation, so there is no debate. Con made the point adequately.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I disliked this debate. First of all, the obvious move would be to define, with more rigidity, what makes a debate a debate. This was never done, both sides deliberately avoided it. I disliked Pro's argument about Ethos and Pathos because when an argument goes down either path, it is logically fallacious in the standard format of comparing logical arguments.

That being said:

C: Both debaters had good conduct, up until Pro's last argument. I found that the large block of capitalized text was not only ineffective, but unprofessional. In addition, his last response was peppered with statements I personally found to be uncharacteristic and desperate in winning audience appeal. Points go to CON

S&G: No noticeable difference between the two, both debaters had good spelling and grammar. Tie.

A: Neither side made a more convincing argument than the other. I personally found that Pro's last post seemed too frantic and desperate to take seriously. In addition, Con got the last word and wrapped everything up in a need package. I would vote CON, but fearing my bias and given the fact that neither was *that* much greater than the other, Tie.

S: No sources used -.- this would have been a very good debate to use sources. Especially definitions of debate, ethos, and pathos. Tie.
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
ok then, that is how it shall be
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I would whole heartedly prefer if the debates comments section was reserved for discussion of the topic, as it is a bone of contention here.
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
ok in the comments i want to ask for a debate just for fun. I wanna see peoples opinions over whose picture is more awesome and which is more menacing. Just for fun, not for votes. Go.
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
cool, this will be fun.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
nickoboy1992I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33