Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK
Debate Rounds (3)
You shouldn't do it.
I accept. PRO has the full burden of proof to show us that it is "not okay" to accept every friend request.
What does that mean?
You also have to say why it's OK...
Other wise it's not a debate
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.
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?
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?
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RevNge 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.