The Instigator
baus
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

(Resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 55538
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

baus

Con

Resolution sniping: Attacking a debate's resolution as the contender in order to leave the opponent defenseless and render their intended arguments within he resolution's framework futile.

Noob sniping: Intentionally preying on newer members of the site as debating partners knowing that it will be easier to win and thus improve one's win-loss ratio.

The definition of immoral is open to discussion and will not be concrete as that would ruin the entire purpose of having this debate.

This must be purely based on the general concept, not on the hypocrisy of the debate instigator.

Good luck to my opponent.

I have set the character limit to 4k for the sake of briefness as this debate could go on far longer than it needs to if the character limit were the typical 8k.

I wish my opponent the best of luck.

Round one is the opening case, not simply acceptance. Failure to do this will result in a 7-point forfeit.
dsjpk5

Pro

It's immoral to pick on noobs like myself because we are hopelessly mismatched when it comes to debating seasoned debaters (like yourself). I have virtually no chance of winning.
Debate Round No. 1
baus

Con

According to Darwinism, it would only be right of me to pick on, and bully, you into submission as many times as I please ot ensure my dominance over you remains absolute until you either adapt to the environment and surpass me as the new alpha male or inevitably die off for not having ht desirable traits of a DDO debater.

Additionally, even if Darwinism were rendered as an invalid basis for morality, your actual claim itself is false.

Hope is an emotion derived in your brain. It is your fault that you are hopeless and it's certainly not mine.

You state that you have 'virtually' no chance of winning. That indicates that a chance of you winning exists. Thus, I do not see any moral violation of this debate's occurrence.
dsjpk5

Pro

Darwinism makes no claim of morality, so I am confused as to why you would inject it into our discussion. Based on your logic older siblings should beat up their infant sister until she is able to defend herself or she dies.

I retract the word "hopelessly" and go simply with "we are mismatched".

I retract the word "virtually" and go simply with "I have no chance of winning". You are clearly superior to me when it comes to debates. Therefore, debating a noob like me is clearly immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
baus

Con

"Darwinism makes no claim of morality"

False; social Darwinism exists. (http://global.britannica.com...) You have the burden fo proof to disprove the validity of it, not to deny its very existence.

"Based on your logic older siblings should beat up their infant sister until she is able to defend herself or she dies."

Not necessarily at all. I would encourage them to play fight eith one another but never go as far as to kill one another. Instead, I'd encourage them to gang up on only children in the neighbourhood to ensure that their family's genes become the most gene to pass on.

"I retract the word "hopelessly" and go simply with "we are mismatched"."

This is now rendered moot and irrelevant to the debate. It's a matter of subjective opinion.

"I retract the word "virtually" and go simply with "I have no chance of winning"."

False; if you had no chance of winning, you wouldn't hav eposted that round of debate and instead woudl have forfeited it.

"You are clearly superior to me when it comes to debates."

This has no moral implication whatsoever.

"Therefore, debating a noob like me is clearly immoral."

Based on what single piece of evidence?
dsjpk5

Pro

Your answer about social Darwinism existing does not refute my claim that Darwinism makes no claim concerning morality. I challenge you to show me anywhere where Darwin made the claim that his theory was a moral one. The existence of Darwinism does not even entertain the question "is it moral?"

You are mistaken to say that the fact that I accepted the debate means I have a chance of winning. It's possible that I only accepted your challenge so that I could eventually get enough debates under my belt so that I could vote on debates in the future.

You chose to debate a noob like me because you knew that I would have no chance of winning. Everyone can clearly see that you have thoroughly beat me. This debate was fixed so that you were guaranteed victory. That is cheating, which is immoral.
Debate Round No. 3
baus

Con

In this debate, I have not violated a single ToS of DDO, thus I am not cheating: http://www.debate.org...

Darwinism states that we evolved 'morality' as a result of natural selection and that, despite this, natural selection will inevitably be required for our species to prosper and survive. [http://www1.umn.edu...]

You have full burden of proof in this debate and have not met it.

You have to prove why me being a better debater than you confirms that (resolution and/or noob) sniping is/are immoral for a Debate.Org user to do on a regular basis. You have not remotely begun to do so.
dsjpk5

Pro

One thing I forgot to point out in the last round is this: Your logic was faulty in point concerning older siblings and infants. You originally said that Darwinism teaches that you should beat me up in order to assert your dominance over me (something you've clearly done). So in order for you to be consistent in your argument, you should admit that it would be moral for older siblings to do the same to their infant sister.

As for the alleged evidence you offered to claim Darwinism claims to be moral, I would assert you have misread it. In that article, Darwin says that animals don't have a "moral sense", and yet, certainly you would agree that animals engage in survival of the fittest.

Finally, just because you haven't violated the terms of this debate doesn't mean you haven't cheated. Dictionary.com has as one of its definitions of cheating as attempting to "gain an unfair advantage". Certainly noob sniping is done to "gain an unfair advantage". This is defined as cheating, and is therefore immoral.
Debate Round No. 4
baus

Con

If you were my brother and there was someone else to pick on, I'd pick on them. int he mean time I'd pick on you. Killing you would be stupid as I'd have you as a loyal brother by my side in times of need to help me pass out family genes on. This is, indeed Darwinism.

It is how monopolies turn into cartels, how a 'thug' turns into a 'gangster' and how a nerd becomes one of the geeks.

It is about the need to fight in groups that is inevitably increasing one's chances in surviving this round *meaning generation) of natural selection. Bullying needs to hurt losers, it helps them toughen up. I am a living example of a bullied kid who grew up to be as awesome as I am now. It toughens you up, that's what life is all about. I hated it, yes, but now I'm immensely tougher than I ever before it. Never give up, never back down and you will eventually find that you can survive. It is people who think they can't win that consistently prove themselves right.

All I'm doing is toughening you up so you're more debate-hardy for your next debate and therefore you represent the demographic that DDO wants to present itself as having rather than the lousy type you once were. I'm your obstacle to survival, you're the naturally selected weed that's about to be plucked. You can either grow some roots and backbone and try to stand your ground or die like the rest of your kind. The choice is yours, it was always a choice and it was always possible for you to win.

I have no unfair advantage over you, we both have the same facilities to debate, I do not have any more chance of winning than you do by any handicaps whatsoever.

You are suffering form paranoia, and that's going to ruin you unless you get psychiatric help so that you are cured in time to survive this round of natural selection.

Thanks for this debate, best of luck to you, Pro!
dsjpk5

Pro

You have just admitted to bullying me by debating me (a noob). Any fair minded person know that bullying someone is immoral. Basically, you just admitted that you did something immoral by picking on noobs.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
I agree. If he ever reactivates his account, I'm sure he will appreciate your compliment!
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
Nice noob snipe con
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
Sorry, I started a game of mafia which has hit 600 posts in the first phase, my hands are kind of full at this point. Thanks for the invite though, if I lose mafia I'll let you know.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Brilliant set up! I am impressed. I would debate you, but I am a noob. (sad face emoticon)
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Interesting concept, but it misses the point that people debate just for the sake of debating and are not worries about win loss ratio. How to prove someone is actually sniping? Its impossible.
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
this debate, as con is noob sniping.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
This debate was targeted to me XD.
Posted by numberwang 3 years ago
numberwang
I'm interested but I only have 4 completed :(
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
You're con. Interesting...
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
I was gonna get all over this and go con, but I guess that side is already taken.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
Progressivist
bausdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Baus made more convincing arguments, but bordered on misconduct when calling Pro a "noob". Minor spelling errors also grant spelling to pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
bausdsjpk5Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, Con's right when he says it's your burden of proof here. You have to give me a substantive reason why sniping is harmful, and your loss in a debate on here is not an impact that I would consider substantial enough to show that sniping as a whole is immoral. Debaters win and lose on here all the time, and the likelihood of victory doesn't change its morality. Now, if you had said that it dissuades you and others like you from staying on this site and becoming contributing members to a growing debate community where thoughts are exchanged on a high level, thus improving not only yourself but everyone you interact with, and that sniping specifically strays from debate by making it a game of technicalities and semantics debates, I'd have found your argument more pertinent. Con, it is not your opponent's burden to establish a moral framework for Darwinism, it is yours, since it's your argument. You barely spent any time establishing it, and it's not even a voting issue for me.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
bausdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay. Firstly @Pro, once you accept the debate. It matters not how much experience you have, you still have a chance of winning. You just need to do your research and present your arguments in a convincing, logical fashion to churn your audience. Conduct: shared. S&G, baus, you had a few grammatical errors that made your work difficult to read sometimes. However, since this was probably just overlooked and your grammar otherwise was excellent, S&G is shared. Arguments: both sides had flaws. Con, your analogy was inappropriate, as Pro showed. Pro, you had the BOP to show that Darwinism was immoral, or your opponent was cheating and you did not meet it. Therefore, arguments are shared. Sources: Though other voters said Con was the only one to use one, Pro used sources for definitions. Though he could have used others, I still take this as a source. Pro, next time, link your source so that voters could easily pick up on it. Overall, I think this was a tie. Good job to both parties.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 2 years ago
2Sense
bausdsjpk5Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Flaws in both arguments.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
bausdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: "ot" = spelling to Pro. Con used sources. Pro defeated argument that debating implies possibility of victory. Con defeated argument that Con is cheating. The debate about Darwinism is stupid, and we all know it, baus. Staph. No vote on arguments.