The Instigator
bhu2001
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK

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 1 vote the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,249 times Debate No: 71183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)

 

bhu2001

Pro

You shouldn't do it.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept. PRO has the full burden of proof to show us that it is "not okay" to accept every friend request.
Debate Round No. 1
bhu2001

Pro

What does that mean?

You also have to say why it's OK...

Other wise it's not a debate
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

First, PRO seems to be unaware of the convention whereby R1 is merely for acceptance.

Second, PRO fully misses the distinction between "making a claim" and "negating that claim." The burden of proof always falls on the person who is making an affirmative claim.

Case in point:

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever." [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...]

So, the fact of the matter is, PRO, in defending a positive claim, has the sole burden of proof, but he has wasted his second round without a single positive argument. No new arguments are allowed in Round 3, so you're already voting CON by default since he has the BOP. With that said, though, here's a positive argument from my side--note that I am not obligated to provide one.


C1) Friendliness

The main reason you should accept every friend request is because it's a sign of friendliness. Whether or not you're actually going to talk to those people--and you should, if only for the new perspective they could provide and the fact that you never know who may become your new best friend--there is absolutely no harm done in at least accept a friend request. If anything, refusing to accept that request is extremely insolent, and could result in hurt feelings--and why would you want to inflict that when you can readily prevent it?
Debate Round No. 2
bhu2001

Pro

I'm new to the site so here goes nothing.

I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have been interrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off.

I am sorry if the top part seems mean. Also how do you know the people most of the time (for me) people end up being jerks and not showing "Friendliness"

"If anything, refusing to accept that request is extremely insolent, and could result in hurt feelings--and why would you want to inflict that when you can readily prevent it?"

Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO begins his third round with a positive argument, but I urge you to ignore it entirely. As I noted earlier, and as PRO has completely disregarded, new arguments are *not* allowed in the final round of debate. Nevertheless, PRO has opted to lay waste to the ethics of debate. Judges, please bear this in mind when dolling out conduct points.

As I also noted in Round 2, I am not obligated, as the person without the burden of proof--and you'll note that PRO never once contested that he had the burden of proof, so it extends through that it lies solely with him--to provide a positive argument. Nevertheless, I have done so, and PRO has completely dropped it. This is even more reason to immediately vote CON.


I'm going to rebut PRO's arguments, even though I'm not obligated to at this time since it's, again, illegitimate and unethical to initiate new arguments in the final round of debat.

PRO states, "I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have beeninterrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off."

PRO is basing his entire case on his own subjective experience. Not only is there no evidence at all that this actually took place--nor should you buy that it actually did--but this is not in the slightest a rational reason to draw a line in the sand and say "Do not do X." Life is not, and need not, be one size fits all, nor can we reason from any particular subjective experence to a general rule. PRO provides only the former and claims it as a basis for the latter, but this cannot possible obtain. Further, he ignores that he's (1) more likely to either not speak with those individuals than to have contentions relations with them; (2) he may in fact befriend them, and again is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" by also eshewing any opportunity for friendship; and (3) has several means of recourse--blocking, "stopping threads" and deleting the PM conversation, contacting a moderator, etc.--should he feel that a member is harassing them, though again we have no reason to believe that this was the case.

PRO states, "Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?"

This is irrelevant to the debate.


Vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Lee001//Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything except grammar). RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: Pro's emotions got to involved in the debate. Again, calling people names and such. He didn't fulfill his BoP and based the argument more on his own problem. Good job con for keeping in professional."

*Reason for removal.* Failure to explain sources vote.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>DomriRade444//Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: Pro used terrible grammar and made un- supported claims"

*Reason for removal.* Failure to explain conduct and sources votes.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: debatefox//Moderator action taken: Removed<

7 points to Con. RFD: "yah"

*Reason for removal.* Failure to explain every single one of the 7 points it awarded.
====================================================================
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
ConceptEagle haha. Me too.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
They're aren't being mean it's the truth, but you probably won't read this comment since you already deactivated your account.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Im sorry /.\
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
First @bhu2001. Don't panic!

What you should do is read some of the other debates. Get a feel for how this works. Its a little hard to expect to jump into the debates without a understanding of debate. What con did was not mean, he was working his debate. You were not. Again, you just need to get a grip on how it work.
Posted by bhu2001 2 years ago
bhu2001
why are you being so mean?
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
XD @RevNge well put!
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
And that, Bhu, is how you vote properly (albeit very primitively). :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
bhu2001ResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro called people "jerks" and somewhat lost control of his emotions in the third round. Arguments to Con because Pro did not fulfill his part of the BoP, nor did he know what BoP even was. Con was also the only one who argued objective contentions, whereas Pro was wholly subjective, allowing Con to easily rebut his case.