Should bad debaters be removed from Debate.org
Debate Rounds (5)
Rounds 2-4: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion
2. Bad- "low or poor in quality". Basically, a bad debater is a poor debater. One who is inferior to the average debater due to their sub par quality of arguing. So technically, somebody who has lost their first debate is a "bad debater", since they have a losing record. This bad debater could be someone who is actually professional at debating, but lost to someone who does much better at the very subject. Removing bad debaters from Debate.org is entirely destroying the privilege of being allowed to debate. People will no longer be allowed to debate. Negative criticism will pass on to others, and they will never join Debate.org. This site would then become abandoned.
definition of bad- not pleasant, pleasing, or enjoyable.
This debate should be about preventing trolls from taking over the website. I firmly believe that the officials of DDO should take a solid policy stance towards weeding out those debaters who consistently create dirty or racially provacative arguments, discriminate in their debates and stand only to hurt the debate community. Weeding and removing these bad debaters from the DDO community is benificial. In doing so we can enspire those who want to become better at deates becasuse they will have more positive competition. Removing bad debaters also serves the image of DDO, is shows that we will only tolerate a certain behavioral attitude and shows our serious desire to harbor great debates.
I would like to posit that this be the accepted definition, this is what I thought when I joined the round, and because pro has failed his given burden to define and clarify all terms and words, I think that it is only fair that I receieve the power to decide the definition.
But there is another reason that I do not believe we should accept pro's definition bad, and this is because it is wrong to label any debater as 'bad' in the sense of their skill or what have you. Labeling people as bad at someone only serves to create a social divide in Debate.org which of course undermines the purpose of trying to create an environment of freeflwing ideas. Labeling people as 'bad' skill debaters makes them feel that they are and forever will be the lower class of DDO. It inherently gives out the idea that there is no improvement, for they ARE bad debaters, the description gives no way out of this condition. For this reason I protest the use of the word bad in the sense of skill level. You may consider this as a kritik of the word. This kritik explicitly gives another reason to prefer the first definition I provided.
I thank you for reading and I hope to insire a truely thought provoking discussion.
First of all, trolls and bad debaters are not exactly the same type of people. Since my debate is about removing bad debaters as a whole, removing trolls cannot be applied against my claim, considering the fact that my topic implies that *all* bad debaters should be removed from Debate.org. I also think it's quite melodramatic to assume that "trolls will take over this website".
I have not failed my given burden for providing a definition, I have already beat you to it. I explained that a bad debater is one of poor debating quality, especially one that tries so hard but cannot win a debate. Not all bad debaters resort to bad behavioral issues, some of which want to improve but have a hard time doing so. Once again, if Debate.org removes the debaters' rights to freedom, its popularity will collapse and become an abandoned website. I have already set up an argument and a definition for you, and in return, you HAVE to refute my original argument and argue that all bad debaters should be removed, not just trolls.
definition of bad- not pleasant, pleasing, or enjoyable.
I would again like to argue that it is the opponent's duty to define all rules and definitions in Round 1, a duty which has negligibly been left unfullfilled. It would be simply unfair to me as the pro team to still give him this ability to define the terms, as I have already accepted the deabte with the understang of a different definition. It's not about who provides it first, but whether or not it is provided in the first round or not. Had he defined it the way he did, I would not have accepted the debate.
My First argument is simple. Imagine the resolution is, we should kick bad people off of the cite, in this example bad people would mean people who behave badly. In that same way, the resolution as I define it, means debators who are behaviorally bad. If debaters have bad conduct repeatedly and indifferently, then after a fair evalution to determine whether they truely are behaviorally bad, they should indeed be removed from the website. The benifit is that it shows the cite's firm resolution to take itself and its users' experience seriously. To help develope good debaters and to keep the cite clean.
Even if the resoning I gave for not accepting con's definition is, for some utterly bizzare reason, rejected then I have another reason to prefer my definition which is the Kritik Argument I also gave last round. I do not think we should accept it because it labels debaters as 'bad' as far as their skill and prowess. We should not accept that there are bad debaters, describing debaters as bad gives them no escape from the condition. It is a form of separation wich only serves to cause a split in the DDO community, as there is always a perceived struggle between good and bad. Having such a divide and accepting such a divide undermines the purpose of DDO which is to promote growth in education, learning retention, analytical skills, data collection and other vital functions. It pushes debaters away from the website and is thus unacceptable. Again, this is all another reason to prefer my definition to con's, although mine should be prefered by fault of the broken rules. So I can agree with con, removing debaters which he considers to be of bad skill is a wrong thing to do, and will, as he concedes lead to its popularity collapsing and become an abandoned website. This only hurts his own case.
I thank the opponent for his response but none of my arguments have been refted more, My definition and K still stand as well as my argument for removing those debaters who a bad (behaviorally).
Seeing as I beat you to the definition, and seeing as I posted an argument showing you what I am talking about, it's completely unnecessary to provide a definition of your own. What would be the point of debating if people were able to overturn others' definitions? It would make sense to assume what the definition is if I have not presented one by Round 1, but since I beat you to the stairs for providing definitions, and provided an argument sypporting my resolution, you must refute it. If you claim that your argument is unrefuted and stands strong, then I must say the same for my original argument. I believe this is an issue of common sense. Misinterpreting my debate when I specify the details shows a lack of conduct and common sense, thus acting as a method of forfeiture. Not to mention that you acknowledge the fact that I have an original argument without refuting it. You mention that I hurt my own case without specifying why. You even said that you AGREE with me on said topic. If my opponent agrees with me, than that is a result of forfeiture.
So I have provided TWO reasons for why my opponent has forfeited.
definition of bad- not pleasant, pleasing, or enjoyable.
Argument 1: Prefer MY Definition of 'bad' becuase of --- Fairness, DDO rules, and norms of the website
Well look man, you are new here, im not particularly old on here but old enough to know that, at least on this website, you must specify definitions and rules to the opponent before his acceptance, surely he accepted thinking the resolution meant something else and thus it is unfair to him to then force him to argue something he never intended to argue...such is the case in this debate. I accepted thinking the definition was something else, so its only fair we debate on my terms. These is standard site decency and I'm pretty sure its a rule. I maintain this argument as true and uncontested.
Argument 2: Prefer MY Definition of 'bad' becuase of --- The Kritik argument.
A.) Let's say we have a voter who hates being mainstream and wants to give the definition of 'bad' to con. Well in this case I still have another reason to prefer my definition, The Kritik argument (for more explanation on a kritik see*).
B.) In general a kritik challenges a certain fundemental mind-set or disposition of a resolution becuase it is philosphically bad to accept. If the Kritik is correct and represents a true harm or philosophical harm then the definition should automotically go to me. The reasons, once again, are that accepting that people are poorly skilled in debate: Is a statement of permanence and inescapablility which is bad because it leads to social rejection. It also leads to social rejection because there is an eternal struggle between 'the good and the bad' which means that accepting the existance of bad debaters directly creates a conflict between members which is bad for the website interests, one way it is bad is because it prevents to autonomous free flow of ideas, as should always occur in a place where you can speak your mind. It discourages people from getting better because it labels them as 'lower than acceptable'. Our goal is to promote growth, just as con says, and thus this course of action is bad. It prevents learning. All of these impacts are reasons to prefer my definition of 'bad', and thus every single outcome accepting 'bad' to mean skill must be refuted. Please note every single one has been conceded thus far, as con has not responded to them, and in debates 'silence is compliance'.
Final word and some input for this round
At this point, this is a classic definitions debate. Both con and myself have very strong cases inside of our own respective definitions of bad and thus whoever wins the definitinos debate wins the round. I will concede now that if con's definition is accepted then I should auto-lose. But I honestly don't think it should, as of now he has conceded my points and there are real and substantial negative impacts to accepting con's definition, whereas according to the very rules of DDO and morality, I should be rewarded the definition. It is never acceptable to argue new points in the last round, but in just this instance I excuse and actually request that pro make real arguments against the K and argument 1. I ask the voters to abide and let him argue. Just be aware that you won't be able to respond to my rebutal as it is of course the last round. As of now though, if there is no refutation made, con must lose by concession.
* a kritik usually challenges a certain mindset, assumption, or discursive element that exists within the advocacy of the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory
....the link for this is source 
**Critical Theory - a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."
...the link for this is source 
SUMMARY: I offered the opponent a chance to refute my arguments despite this being the final round, but he has not accepted. The only challenge he has given is to state that we should forget about DDO rules, and norms, yet hasn't given a reason for such besides just asserting it.
Last round con said my K was late or something, that's surprising, according to my definition of late, round 2 is not late. To confirm I have been arguing that same point through the round you can simply see my second round argment under the tittle "K". Even if the opponent was right about fogeting the rules of DDO and instead doing this 'whoever goes first wins' thing, I still show that it is immoral to accept that definition which means we should select mine. The opponent has not contested that whoever wins the definition wins the round and thus being that the K is utterly conceded, I don't think I could, in good conscious, be voted against.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DudeWithAName 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really understand much of what exactly was being argued about. Troll and poor debater was mentioned, but the terms, agreeing with Pro, where not fully explained as needed. Confusing argument we have here, but due to Pro's clear grammar and writing quality, as well as Con making mistakes to explain the terms, and writing many filler words, for instance, the words "Basically, So, and Technically," I have to give Pro the win.
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.