Should contenders always win?
Contenders should not always win because sometimes they fail to post even remotely logical arguments that can challenge that of the instigator. While the instigator has the advantage, most topics on DDO are balanced and researchable for both sides, making it a toss up between the two sides, leaving the contender as the One who may not post better arguments, like me.
Con firsts says that there is a chance that contenders post useless stuff.
1) What's stopping Instigators from being stupid? Sometimes, people who start a debate, start with bad wording, horrible, if not no definitions, and a poorly worded argument.
“While the instigator has the advantage...like me.”
1)7d 2 accept
|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||2|