The Instigator
C-Mach
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Flare_Corran
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

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  
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: 5/5/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,125 times Debate No: 8128
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

C-Mach

Pro

Member defined: A person who belongs to a group of people or a group such as a company or nation who belongs to another group like an alliance or consortium. By extension it can refer to any part of a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Acceptable defined: Capable, worthy, or sure of being accepted or received with pleasure; pleasing to a receiver; gratifying; agreeable; welcome.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Using these definitions, I will seek to defend the position of deeming debates on the website debate.com between members of the aforementioned website who know each other personally are indeed acceptable and foster debate between friends in a quasi-formal manner in the domain of the Internet, viewable by all.

By agreeing to this debate, my opponent, Flare_Corran, has confirmed that he thinks debates on the website debate.com between members of the aforementioned website who know each other personally are not acceptable, as referenced by the following comment:

"I hate all these debates between people who actually know each other."
- Flare_Corran

http://www.debate.org...

I am looking forward to a response.
Flare_Corran

Con

My argument is that debates between members who know each other personally skew the voting system (by some sources being of unknown reliability for anyone other than the players), can cause personal conflict between the players, and irritate those who read them, since they do not actually understand some of the things that are said.

(note: if the debaters do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, there is no longer an issue.)

First, the debates can skew the voting system in such a way that the better debater could actually lose the debate. In the debate where my comment was posted (http://www.debate.org...), part of the refutation of PRO's argument was based on the personal knowledge that CON had gone to a Catholic school. While in this case the information was immediately acknowledged, personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source. Those voting have no way of knowing who to trust.

Second, it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate. Not only does this harm the debaters' relationship, it also pollutes the site, by leading to people being sidetracked.

Finally, in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events. For instance http://www.debate.org.... In this case, the entire debate is based around personal information and previous events. This is useless to anyone else who reads it.

Such debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication.
Debate Round No. 1
C-Mach

Pro

"First, the debates can skew the voting system in such a way that the better debater could actually lose the debate. In the debate where my comment was posted (http://www.debate.org...), part of the refutation of PRO's argument was based on the personal knowledge that CON had gone to a Catholic school. While in this case the information was immediately acknowledged, personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source. Those voting have no way of knowing who to trust.

Second, it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate. Not only does this harm the debaters' relationship, it also pollutes the site, by leading to people being sidetracked.

Finally, in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events. For instance http://www.debate.org.... In this case, the entire debate is based around personal information and previous events. This is useless to anyone else who reads it.

Such debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication."

1._ While "personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source," you also stated that personal "information was immediately acknowledged" in the debate between Danononian and I, so it is not definite that using personal information in a debate is unacceptable.

2._ For your second and third arguments, those types of "debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication." However, this does not immediately discredit all debates between members who know each other personally, such as this one:

http://www.debate.org...

My opponent has not proved to me that debates between members who know each other personally are unacceptable.

Your rebuttal, Flare_Corran?
Flare_Corran

Con

My argument (which I unfortunately did not make quite clear), was that had the information NOT been immediately acknowledge, no information is available to the voters as to which debater was correct.

The debate you mentioned as a refutation of my second and third arguments falls under my note which I posted originally. If the debaters do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, they might as well not know each other (from the perspective of the voters) and thus are outside the resolution. Carry my second and third arguments through.
Debate Round No. 2
C-Mach

Pro

"My argument (which I unfortunately did not make quite clear), was that had the information NOT been immediately acknowledge[d], no information is available to the voters as to which debater was correct."

It is correct to say that debaters should not bring up unsourcable personal information, like when Danononian brought up that his teacher was stupid and paid $20,000 per annum. I honestly didn't know whether this was true or not, but I dismissed the information with a true statement that happens to be unsourcable.

This is a clear example why you should not use personal information. However, I did not discredit those debate between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments.

Your second and third arguments carry through, as those are not serious debates/
Flare_Corran

Con

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that you actually made any arguments against my points in round 3.
You agreed with me that personal information should not be used.
Then you said that my second and third arguments carry through. If users do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, then, for all intents and purposes, they do not, and are thus outside of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
C-Mach

Pro

"I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that you actually made any arguments against my points in round 3.
You agreed with me that personal information should not be used."

Let me clarify: I did agree with you against personal information being used. "However, I did not discredit those debate[s] between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments," and thusly, you did not prove to me that debates between members are unacceptable.
Flare_Corran

Con

I think it's possible you have misunderstood me.
I have said that if two individuals do NOT make it obvious that they know each other, for the purpose of this debate, they may as well not. Obviously, there is nothing inherent about them knowing each other that makes it unacceptable for them to debate, my argument is that when you can tell that they know each other from the debate, then it becomes unacceptable.
Debate Round No. 4
C-Mach

Pro

"I think it's possible you have misunderstood me.
I have said that if two individuals do NOT make it obvious that they know each other, for the purpose of this debate, they may as well not. Obviously, there is nothing inherent about them knowing each other that makes it unacceptable for them to debate, my argument is that when you can tell that they know each other from the debate, then it becomes unacceptable."

This argument carries as well. "'However, I did not discredit those debate[s] between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments,' and thusly, you did not prove to me that debates between members are unacceptable."
Flare_Corran

Con

My argument throughout has been that if one cannot tell from the debate that the members know each other personally, then they are outside of the resolution, as it is self-evident that it is acceptable. This, however, is not a concession, but rather a statement that if they do not make it evident that they know each other, then for all intents and purposes they do not. As I have repeatedly stated this (starting in my opening argument) and you have not disagreed, I can only assume that this argument carries through and is part of the definitions for the debate.

Therefore, as you have still not refuted my second and third arguments above, I must assume that you agree with me when I say that "it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate" and " in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events."

Since you agreed with my first point and did not dispute my second or third, I have won this debate.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
It was necessary to flesh them out because they do not currently negate the resolution. Perhaps elaborating on your points could have demonstrated how they render these debates unacceptable rather than just suspicious or uninteresting.
Posted by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
It was unnecessary for me to flesh out my arguments, as none of them were ever refuted. Two of them were never even addressed.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Conduct: Tie
S & G: Tie
Arguments: Pro - Both sides could have fleshed out their arguments a bit more, but I didn't see any solid arguments on Con's side that negated the resolution.
Sources: Tie - It was roughly equal on both sides.
Posted by Danononian 7 years ago
Danononian
wow!! I cant believe it happened
Posted by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
It is not necessary to copy and paste my entire argument.
It appears above yours anyway.
Posted by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
Acceptable defined: Capable, worthy, or sure of being accepted or received with pleasure; pleasing to a receiver; gratifying; agreeable; welcome.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

Annoying defined: Causing irritation or annoyance; troublesome; vexatious.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

As something that is annoying is obviously not welcome, something that is not welcome is unacceptable.
Posted by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
I'm really not sure I would go so far as to say that they are UNacceptable. Just annoying.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
C-MachFlare_CorranTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C-MachFlare_CorranTied
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