The Instigator
catsrule
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Egoowner58
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

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 2 votes the winner is...
catsrule
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,552 times Debate No: 17279
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

catsrule

Pro

I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own.

Think of this as my "trial" of sorts, regardless of your personal opinion of me vote Pro if I'm "not guilty" and Con if I'm "guilty".

No semantics.

Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.[1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)
Egoowner58

Con

I accept this debate, it is my job to prove that he has "trolled" atleast once.
Debate Round No. 1
catsrule

Pro

"it is my job to prove that he has "trolled" atleast once" -actually no, since the resolution states "on balance: the Con (henceforth known as the prosecution) has to show how I have trolled more often than not.

I look forward to the Prosecutions allegations.
Egoowner58

Con

I will start by using a couple definitions, and then explain how he is, by definition a troll (for the most part if not all the time).

Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

inflammatory- Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire [1]

Extraneous-
1. Not constituting a vital element or part. [2]
2. Inessential or unrelated to the topic or matter at hand; irrelevant [2]

I will combine extraneous and off topic.

Now to begin

Contention one, you are extraneous.
Debate.org's statement describing who/what they are goes as follows:
Debate.org is a premier online debate website that features active discussion on thousands of debate topics. Find ongoing debates on everything from religion, politics, science, and sports. Exchange your opinion with other community members over today's most pressing issues. [3]
Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category. The majority of your topics for debate do not fall into any of the category's listed in the description, making them off-topic/extraneous. Here are the titles of just a few of your extraneous debates...

"On balance, Slytherin house is better than Gryffindor."
"Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll."
"cats should be afforded the exact same rights as human beings"
"cats are more intelligent than humans"
"Resolved: That mimes can be considered, with little doubt, the worst non-criminal people."
"in a fight, megan fox could defeat taylor swift"
"i cannot lose this round."
"Feeding the trolls is more fun than leaving them alone"
"sunglasses"
"I will win this debate"
"I will beat my opponent in this debate"

keep in mind that that is not all of the extraneous debate's you have been in, but only a few that i saw as i skimmed over your recent debates.

Contention two, you are inflammatory.
By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion.

You also have understand your effect on people... Im sure you can agree with me that the vast majority of the people on this site find you to be a beautiful human being, they want you/desire to be you. That, though maybe not your fault, makes you a troll all the time.

so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.juggle.com...
Debate Round No. 2
catsrule

Pro

=Rebuttal=

"Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category." - False, a Miscellaneous category does exist, if you o not believe me try starting a debate, and under "category" select Miscellaneous. Just because DDO's statement doesn't mention Miscallaneous debates, they've shown their endorsement of them by creating a category for them. Furthermore, even if you were right that they didn't endorse Miscellaneous debates, they haven't specifically spoken out against them, and anything that is not explicitly against the rules is legal.

So that Contention falls.

"By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion" -I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand.

"so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous." -actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."

Intent: "the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act" [1] so if I didn't do on purpose (I.E. not my fault) I am not a troll.

=Cross Examination=

1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too?

2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?

3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?

4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct?

I look foward to the Prosecutions reply.

=Source=

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Egoowner58

Con

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll
I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own.


I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand.
That is incorrect sir, by defintion we are all troll's, we can not out of the blue up and decide that because it is better for your side of the argument we must make an expetion for this site, unfortunatly life does not work that way. It is true, i am a troll, you are a troll, and everyone on this site is a troll, and you just admitted yourself that you are indeed a troll. you just conceded this entire debate by agreeing that you are a troll at all times.


-actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll:
Im sorry for the confusion, i was just saying that in an attempt to be nicer, it is your fault, the way you act and appear is the reasons why people desire you (which you didnt deny) both of these can be changed by you so you intended to do so.

Cross ex-
1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too?

yes, as i mentioned earilier we, on this site, are all trolls.

2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?
I did not decide it, i am going off the four baisc, yet broad catogory's used in the discription of debate.org

3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?
that is a fair statement, but you agree'd that you are a troll every time you debate.


4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct?

no, just because it is an inflammatory activity does not mean we can alter the defintion of troll, i am simply going of the resalution and your defintion of troll.
Debate Round No. 3
catsrule

Pro

=Clearing up some misconceptions=

1. Honestly, I'm very surprised the Prosecution hasn't brought this up yet but to prevent him from bringing it up in the last round where I can't refute him, I will refute it now. My infamous debate with iownu about who is a better troll (http://www.debate.org...), does NOT make me a troll. Just because I have skill at trolling (which I admit to in that round) does not make me a troll. For example, I have some skill at the Saxophone but that does not make me, on balance, a musician. The same can be said about trolling. Having an ability for it does not mean that I am one, that is a logical fallacy.

2. Now, another thing the Prosecution might bring up in his last round are some previous debates of mine where I have performed poorly. I will explain why those do not make me a troll.

Since the definition of "troll" specifically states "intent", the Prosecution must prove that my behavior in such rounds was intentionally bad. This is not the case. He cannot prove, for example, that I wasn't just new and un-used to the site and how to behave on it. Or I am just terrible at debate. Or perha something else entirely. Until my Opponent proves (or at least provides substantial evidence) that all of my "trolling" was intentional, I win this round. Innocent until proven guilty.

=Rebuttal=

"by defintion we are all troll's" - The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. That is false because A) the definition of troll states intent, and B) if we were all trolls, the word "troll" would not exist. As the famous saying goes "if everyone's rich, everyone's poor." In an online community a troll is a distinct member, and the Prosecution still has not proven my uniqueness I.E. trollness to this website.

"and you just admitted yourself that you are indeed a troll" -The resolution states "on balance" so even if I did admit that, it's irrelevant to the resolved until it's proven that I am a troll the majority of the time.

"i was just saying that in an attempt to be nicer, it is your fault, the way you act and appear is the reasons why people desire you (which you didnt deny) both of these can be changed by you so you intended to do so." -thank you very much for trying to be nice. (I mean that honesly, too many people, esp. on the internet are not nice.) Now you claim that the way I "act and appear" is why these people "desire" (I believe you meant despise?) me. Again, you must prove that A) I have done actions, in the majority of my debates, that can be considered trolling, and B) that I did it with intent. Until that happens, I win this round.

"I did not decide it, i am going off the four baisc, yet broad catogory's used in the discription of debate.org" -however you still haven't made up for the fact that DDO has a miscellaneous debate category! So your entire contention one falls.

"that is a fair statement, but you agree'd that you are a troll every time you debate" -Since you agreed that it's a fair statement that I win if you can't prove the majority of my debates are trolls, and your interpretation of what a "troll" is has been called into serious question, and you still have not proven that the majority of my debates are trolls, you just conceded.

=The definition of Troll=

This has been brought into serious question during this round, so now I must fully elaborate on what a troll is. The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. He ignores not only the social context of the word troll, as I've already elaborated on (if everyone is a troll, no one is, he must show my uniqueness), but he's also ignoring the key word in the definition intent. Just to prove my point that intent matters, heres the link to Urban Dictionaries definition of troll. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) Lets examine some more definitions of "troll".

1. "One who posts a deliberately provocative message..."
2. "One who purposely and deliberately...."
3. "...who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off..."
ECT.

So an intent/purpose is critical in trolling. The Prosecutions still has not shown my intent of trolling, and even admitted that it may not be my fault if I have trolled, so I win this round.

=Closing=

I know that many of you dislike me. I know that many of you think I'm a troll, however please, in the name of justice do not rule based on your personal belief. The Prosecution has not prove that I am a troll thus far, and his contentions no longer stand so please, vote Pro.

The defense rests.
Egoowner58

Con


1. Honestly, I'm very surprised the Prosecution hasn't brought this up yet but to prevent him from bringing it up in the last round where I can't refute him, I will refute it now. My infamous debate with iownu about who is a better troll (http://www.debate.org......), does NOT make me a troll. Just because I have skill at trolling (which I admit to in that round) does not make me a troll. For example, I have some skill at the Saxophone but that does not make me, on balance, a musician. The same can be said about trolling. Having an ability for it does not mean that I am one, that is a logical fallacy.

I actually planned not to bring because I understand PART of what you saying there. But now that you bring it up I feel as though I should point out a few things that happened in that "Infamous" round..

first and most likely the most obvious sign that points to you being a troll is this dialog

Iownu: he needs to gtfo because DDO is now my trolling turf.
*this is obviously means that he does nothing but troll people, and he has done more than a couple"

later on in the text you reply
you: ...
3. I also affirm/negate unwinnable causes

4. I have posted more trolls than you have

I'm specifically talking about number four, because he said that this is his "trolling" turf (meaning all he does is troll) by you saying you have trolled more then he has means you have trolled a considerable amount... far more than "on balance"



2. Now, another thing the Prosecution might bring up in his last round are some previous debates of mine where I have performed poorly. I will explain why those do not make me a troll.

I'm was not going to call you out on this because I agree (and still do) just because you are terrible at debate doesn't mean you are trolling.


"by definition we are all trolls" - The Prosecution contends that we are all trolls. That is false because A) the definition of troll states intent, and B) if we were all trolls, the word "troll" would not exist. As the famous saying goes "if everyone rich, everyone's poor." In an online community a troll is a distinct member, and the Prosecution still has not proven my uniqueness I.E. trollness to this website.

A) yes it does say intent, I am not downplaying that, but feel free to explain debate to me... debate is showing INTENT to change a guys EMOTIONS towards a subject because you feel passionate about it. Unless you don't know you are debating, then you are showing intent to be a troll through the use of inflammatory.

B) that statement is truly false, I think you misunderstood me, when I said me I meant everyone that participates in a debate, not the entire Internet. The word "troll" was not originated here, it originated elsware to describe people like us. Also no where in the definition of troll does it say distinct member.


The resolution states "on balance" so even if I did admit that, it's irrelevant to the resolved until it's proven that I am a troll the majority of the time.
you admitted you were a troll when I stated that every time you debate you are a troll, meaning every time you debate your trolling, I.E on balance

now for your definition, I am ignoring them because they did not come from a reputable source, but even if I did the ideal you are trying to argue (intent) I have already explained.

yes it does say intent, I am not downplaying that... debate is showing INTENT to change a guys EMOTIONS towards a subject by arguing with him because you feel passionate about it. Unless you don't know you are debating, then by arguing with you opposer you are showing intent to be a troll through the use of inflammatory.

=Closing=

I have proven, that just by arguing his case, or any debate case he is infact a troll. Just by opening his mouth (or in this instance typing on his keyboard) he has shown intent to argue/debate which he has already agreed is a form of trolling. Because we are talking specifically about his participation on this debating site I have proven that because all he does on this site is argue, that he has "on balance" been a troll to this site.

thank you for this debate, it was my first and definitly not my last.

the prosecution rests.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Egoowner58 5 years ago
Egoowner58
thett3
look the last paragraph right before my closing....

explain to me how i dropped the intent.
Posted by Egoowner58 5 years ago
Egoowner58
I know right
Posted by catsrule 5 years ago
catsrule
he has the perfect avatar for a prosecutor.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
LF, I think that is all the proof necessary.
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
http://www.debate.org...

Also all of Pro's other debates.
Posted by catsrule 5 years ago
catsrule
no, you still haven't explained how this is a troll.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
Wouldn't that make me guilty of trolling myself? ;)
Posted by catsrule 5 years ago
catsrule
how is this a troll debate? explain that to me. And if you honestly believe that I've already lost, than accept this debate and prosecute me.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
Clearly this debate is an example of you 'trolling'. You lose without the debate beginning. ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
catsruleEgoowner58Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: "which he has already agreed is a form of trolling" - if you make the word mean everyone it means nothing. Solid performance by Pro, decent response by Con but not enough to overturn the argument. 3:2
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
catsruleEgoowner58Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I was suprised, catsrule actually...did well. 0.0. What reallly won it for me was the "defense"'s whole arguments about the definition of trolling. the prosecution did not meet the requirements to prove how he's a troll inthe MAJORITY of debates, anddropped the intent thing compeletely.