The Instigator
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
simpleton
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Standardized Exit Exams: Lincoln-Douglas Format

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,076 times Debate No: 9632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (9)

 

alto2osu

Pro

Though I will readily admit that this is possibly one of my least favorite LD topics of all time, I want to run my cases for blocking purposes. Plus, I feel as though I have been long absent from DDO. :)

I ask that my opponent use LD format, but I'm not going to be a huge stickler about it. In other words, the purpose of running this is two-fold: I want a good debate, but I also want to be able to run it in such a way that helps my kids block out my arguments and a decent neg case. This requires LD format.

I also ask the the rounds mimic competition slightly in that RD 3 is reserved for voting issues only (i.e. please no new arguments).

---------------------------------------------------------
I affirm, resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

Observation 1: Definitions

Standardized Exit Exam: any state-wide assessment that must be passed prior to receiving one's public high school diploma. The affirmative acknowledges that some states choose not to assess a student's potential to successfully exit high school using the stereotypical multiple-choice test.

Observation 2: Standards.

V: Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students.

C: A legitimate system of education. In order to have a meaningful debate on education reform, we cannot neglect the system that the test is directly linked to. The affirmative contends that exit exams not only fail to indicate mastery within the educational system, but entrench the inequality of education distribution to the detriment of student success.

1.My first contention is that exit exams test a deeply biased system of education, which makes the exam invalid.

A. US school systems are socio-economically stratified by resources, materials, & personnel.

It is widely acknowledged in countless educational studies over the years that the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities. Unfortunately, as it is in most cases, the poor bear the brunt of the burden, receiving less qualified educational instructors and less overall resources than districts with more available funds. This inequality oftentimes manifests itself in the form of standardized exam results, as detailed by Viadero:

"The detrimental effects of the new policy were harder on girls than on boys. Girls experienced a 19-percentage point drop in graduation rates after the Californian High School Exit Exam… was implemented, while the graduation rate for boys with similar academic profiles decreased by 12 percentage points over the same period. Likewise, graduation rates among black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students declined by 15 to 19 percentage points following the enactment of the exit exam policy. The comparable graduation-rate drop for white students in the same achievement quartile was 1 percentage point." (2009)

Since a standardized test assesses one's competency within a set of standards, if all of those standards are disparately taught, the test cannot be valid.

B. Results of this invalid exam withhold diplomas unjustly, and even prevent student mastery and success. Exams, in their inability to solve for inequalities in education, simply entrench already disadvantaged students further by labeling them falsely as failures. Since the educational standards of a given state cannot be equally represented in every classroom in that state due to these deep-seeded disparities, the students who are most underserved are more likely to fail those exams. The psychological effect of being branded a failure is described as Viadero continues:

"Even though students have plenty of opportunities to retake the exam—and most do—poor, inner-city students who just missed the passing cutoff in 10th grade are less likely to graduate on time than demographically similar students who just barely passed, even though both groups scored at roughly the same levels on the 10th grade exam. Failing or passing the tests seems to have no statistically significant effect, though, on the probability of graduation for wealthier, suburban students." (2009)

The stigma of failure, even though that failure is generally one of the institution, and not the student, is enough to significantly reduce the chances of a poorer student graduating. Students who are mistreated by the system, and who do not graduate as a result, are much less likely to succeed, and will even become a social liability. Carnoy explains:

"High school is where economically disadvantaged young people—many of them African Americans and Latinos—make it or break it educationally. High school determines how these students will be incorporated into work and social structures. High school is also where educational reformers' efforts to improve how much students learn face the acid test. If students do not finish high school with their cohort, they are likely to be marginalized from the mainstream and to become a social liability. Reforms aiming to improve educational quality must ultimately be evaluated in terms of improving high school completion rates." (2005)

2. My second contention is that standardized exit exams offer no academic benefits to those who pass them.

Even if the system itself weren't inherently damaged, the test itself, in both material and form, do not correlate to a student's mastery of important skills or future success. Considering that high school is a preparatory institution for college and the workforce, as well as the final stop in a 12-year quest for what society deems as crucial cognitive skills, if the exit exam cannot prove mastery or indicate a readiness for graduation from this institution, it must be abolished. Warren & Grodsky published a comprehensive study of exit exams in 2009 which spans the last 30 years of educational data regarding the exams. Over that 30 years, they discovered the following:

First of all:

"We found no evidence for any effect of exit exams…on reading or math achievement at the mean or at any of several cut-points of the achievement distribution. These results hold for 13-year-olds and for 17-year-olds and don't vary across racial/ethnic or social class backgrounds, undermining claims of disparate impact."

Second of all:

"Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds."

In other words, Warren & Grodsky found that exit exams not only do not test a student's competency accurately in reading or math, but that they also have no bearing whatsoever on a student's employability in the US workforce. As exit exams have proven themselves as illegitimate measures of academic achievement, they cannot be used to provide legitimacy to the education system.

Have at me :)
simpleton

Con

I thank my new friend for granting this welcome opportunity to measure my mettle and hope he benefits, at least, equally. However, my greatest hope is for the welfare of his children. Currently, my friend adheres to an ideology that threatens children everywhere. Friends, my opponent believes that one should throw out, with the bath water, the baby!

I'd like to begin by asking my opponent, in regard to (1), if the education system is biased, from where do we recruit those lonely, objective individuals who are able to untangle themselves from their biases and give their help in developing a just education system and how do we lowly biased brutes recognize objectivity when we see it?

My opponent also leaves me confused in his assertion (2) that said testing offers no benefits to passers. Would he please explain the apparent contradiction in his argument that follows? The concern is the establishment of just education, apparently, for the under-served: those who failed. What relevance is there between that and the level of achievement gained by passers?

Resolved: A standardized exit exam should be required for all U.S. high school students to graduate.

C: The goal of education is to prepare citizens to meet their civil duties.

V: Standardized testing is the only reliable method of measuring the effectiveness of educators and the requisite knowledge level for citizens moving into self-governance.

1)My first contention is that humanity has always proved that when the opportunity for self-fulfillment at the cost of acceptable consequences presents itself, many will exploit the opportunity without regard to the impact on others. This is common knowledge without citing the Holocaust, Jim Crow or slavery.

Because educators are members of humanity, we must be cautious of their tendency to fulfill themselves at the expense of students ( YouTube.com/watch?v=gj--P1sYarY ). A form of fullfillment may be teaching lessons that are inconsistent with the objective of public education. By requiring students to pass exit exams, we pressure teachers to use their limited resources ( theapple.monster.com/benefits/articles/7665-9-reasons-to-quit-teaching-and-10-reasons-to-stay ) to teach what the electorate decides is most relevant to becoming a good citizen.

I do know... this coarse implication grates on the refined ears of our enlightened countrymen. I do know... those practitioners of gentile academic pursuits such as rooting out theoretical injustice in every gopher hole in every golf course find the task of being the boss repulsive. And, I do know... that applying a purely academic standard to real life has a purely real life consequence that the academic has no need to worry about.

This leads me to my next contention. It is the duty of the citizenry to insure that the government is carrying out its duties.

In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson tells us that when a government drifts toward despotism, the citizens are burdened with,'a duty to throw it off.' Does this not suggest that we also have the duty to prevent despotism? And, if so, are we not responsible to the sovereigns of tomorrow, the children, to prevent them from becoming despots?

"We hold these truths to be self evident." " Fourscore and seven years ago." "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Are we not failing posterity if we accept that these sacred moments in our history can be interpreted as anything else but an assertion that our country's founding is rooted in natural law, that blood is one of the currencies in which freedom is purchased, and that justice can prevail against tyranny and we're the descendants of those who proved such?

Only a standardized test is practical enough to insure we meet this obviously necessary responsibility. Some will say,'Studies this, studies that, studies, studies, studies!' I say to you,"Study well and you'll accomplish more than that study... which is biased."

Lastly, to my good friends who require sources for the above, I ask that you consider such a need support for my argument.
Debate Round No. 1
alto2osu

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge. I will address all arguments in the order that my opponent listed them in his RD 1 posting.

OV: his address against my case was not organized by my case, but by two general responses that did not seek to specifically rebut my standards or my contentions. Hence, nearly all of the offensive arguments and warrants in the affirmative's round 1 can be extended. At that point, you affirm.

--------------------

On the Affirmative Case:

In response to my opponent's paragraph 2, regarding bias and the aff's ability to solve for it:

1: It isn't my job to present an alternative to graduation exit exams. It is my job, as the affirmative, to prove that exit exams lack merit in that they are more harmful than beneficial. Hence, I need not solve for the harms that I detail in my case.

2: No human institution may be entirely unbiased. However, at the point where I prove that exit exams not only can't fix discrimination, but actually reify that discrimination, then clearly the affirmative world is a better choice.

In response to my opponent's paragraph 3, regarding the "contradiction" between my two contentions and the fact that they don't link together:

1: My opponent doesn't articulate this supposed contradiction at all, so without a crystal ball and a great deal of cosmic luck, I can't address it. I encourage him to be clearer in RD 2.

2: I don't need to link my contentions together, as they are independent reasons to affirm the resolution. They both detail separate and equally detrimental flaws with the exit exam model. What I do need to do is link both of my contentions with my standards, which I do clearly in the first round. Essentially, I have sought to prove that exit exams result in an illegitimate system of education, and my contentions are the qualities about exit exams that result in this illegitimacy. If the system is illegitimate, then we can't access societal welfare, which includes equal access to education as tied to the success of American society.

--------------------

On the Negative Case:

Standards: My opponent has not used a recognizable value or criterion, has not defined them further, has not linked them together, and has not linked them to his case in anyway. As it stands, I am currently winning the standards since he doesn't actually have any. That, and he drops my standards and analysis, so we will assume that whoever fulfills my standards is winning the round.

My opponent's first contention (rhetorical mishmash aside) is essentially that exit exams, being standardized, act as a check to educators who may not choose to teach the standards to their students. I have 3 responses:

1: Standardized exams don't solve the problems of a biased system. They instead encourage schools, districts, and even whole states to manipulate students and tests in order to artificially inflate their passing scores. A number of states have openly admitted to rewriting standardized exams used to calculate AYP for NCLB, and principals will even hold students back who are unable to pass exit exams (typically taken in 10th grade) in order to bolster graduation rates each year.

2: My opponent assumes that all teachers have equal access to materials to teach state standards, which I prove is patently false in my case. He scapegoats teachers for the failure of students, when realistically it is also the inherent stratification of resources.

3: Cross-apply my entire Contention 2, which goes dropped in the debate. Even if my opponent later attempts to claim that he can check individual teachers that don't (or can't) teach the standards, he still can't prove that exit exams show competence in "what the electorate decides is most relevant to becoming a good citizen," nor can he prove that they correlate in any way to a student's future employability.

As for my opponent's second contention, which asserts (and only asserts) that exit exams are the only way to guarantee the imparting of crucial knowledge, I have two responses:

1: My opponent doesn't warrant any of his arguments here. He doesn't link any of his rhetoric to the concept of an exit exam. He attempts to say that the only way to access this set of fabulous knowledge (which he doesn't define as anything in particular) is to embrace standardized testing. However, he doesn't bother to let you know exactly how this actually works.

2: Cross-apply my entire Contention 2 again, which is basically dropped in his round 1 posting (excepting his remarks about how it didn't link to Contention 1, which I already discussed). Exit exams are not a proven or effective metric for academic achievement, and they have no bearing on our success in the US workforce. Since my opponent has yet to warrant or even explain how standardized exit exams actually show competence or help students succeed outside of high school, my analysis and evidence outweigh.

Since the negative clearly cannot avoid illegitimizing the education system further by employing exit exams, I encourage a vote for the affirmative.
simpleton

Con

I thank my opponent for her timely response and hope mine wasn't too long in the coming. I assumed by the invitation that formalities would be less regarded than they are. As a result, I accepted a debate that required me to research more extensively debate protocol. However, all things good come to those who wait...

Rebuttal:
My opponent says my address against her case was not organized by her case, but by two general responses that did not seek to specifically rebut her standards or her contentions.

My opponent is correct. Consistent with LD debate, I asked questions in order that my opponent can clarify her stance. Therefore, it is true that my questions didn't rebut her standards or contentions. However, unless one asks fallacious questions (complex), no rebuttal can be asserted during cross exam. Therefore, my opponent's claim is a just observation that I committed no fallacy.

However, my case is organized according to my opponent's. The apparent difference is that my opponent used many words to assert what amounts to babble, whereas, I asserted nothing with no words. I will seek to prove such.

My opponent's intended argument is:

Less injustice is good.
Eliminating exit exams is less injustice.
Therefore, eliminating exit exams is good.

However, she also argues:

Less injustice is good.
Eliminating school is less injustice. (Because: "...the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities.")
Therefore, eliminating school is good.

However, she claims:

"Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students."

Here, she contradicts herself. She claims that citizens are owed an education, which, I assume, is gained through school (but it would suffice for my purposes if it's any "human institution".)

My opponent's definition of justice clearly falls to a reductio ad absurdum. As a result, all arguments that rest on that foundation are erroneous and, therefore, meaningless.

In response to the remainder of my opponent's case, NFA LD rules [1] state "The affirmative need only prove that the resolution should be adopted." Because my opponent has only advanced an erroneous argument, she has failed to accomplish this goal. Therefore, Con must win.

[1]http://cas.bethel.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
alto2osu

Pro

My final round will be in the order given by my opponent:

On my overview: my assertion was that my case is essentially untouched because no effort was made by my opponent to actually refute my advocacy. At this point, since the attempt at a standards debate still hasn't been made, you will be weighing the round via mine. If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, then please affirm.

Setting aside the fact that my opponent is introducing what constitutes a whopper of a new argument, and can then further that argument in RD 3 without my ability to counter, there are several reasons why you won't prefer his analysis to mine:

1. My opponent has clearly misconstrued my argumentation in RDs 1 & 2 with regards to my "intended" arguments. My intended arguments are clear: I am stating that exit exams are invalid because they test an inherently biased system and because they don't actually indicate mastery of high school curriculum or skill goals. My opponent essentially puts words in my mouth when he states that I want to eliminate the entire education system. My purpose in pointing out the inherent bias in the system was not to scrap the entire system, but to state that exit exams don't improve its state. Hence, if we are trying to legitimize education by maximizing equal access and reducing discrimination, exit exams aren't the way there.

2. It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely. Basically, as the quotation my opponent uses from my case states, every human institution contains some element of discrimination. Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system that doesn't contain bias.

3. The accusation my opponent makes regarding my use of justice in the round being reductio ad absurdum is warrantless. He doesn't actually tell you why my contention about exit exams entrenching bias into the school system is illogical or absurd, which is what "reductio ad absurdum" arguments are supposed to be.

4. I fail to see in what way I have violated the terms of Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Normally, I wouldn't even bother addressing this, but I have lots of characters left and a classroom full of kids taking state tests right now (I know, right? Irony!) Essentially, my opponent has misquoted this rule. Though I contend above that I have not made any illogical or unwarranted arguments, I would also contend that the NFA rules aren't suggesting that illogical arguments are actually against the rules of debate. The debater in question still needs to adequately refute all illogical arguments presented in a given round. That rule is referring to the burdens given to either side in a debate, and not the quality of arguments.

Now, for a few voting issues:

1. Extend my entire affirmative case, as my opponent calls some of my arguments "reductio ad absurdum" in RD 2 but never actually tells you why. He attempts to warrant this by making a few arguments for me that were, by my RD 1 posting, clearly not intended. So, essentially, he's straw manning me.

Specifically, note that, coming out of RD 2, my opponent has admitted to exit exams being invalid on all three levels I describe: they entrench discrimination, rather than allowing equal access to high school education, they are not an indicator of mastery of skills or curriculum, and they are not indicative of success in the workplace.

2. Extend all of the offensive arguments that I assigned to his advocacy in RD 2. Never does my opponent fulfill his burden of proving that exit exams are something that should be instituted in US public schools. He gave warrantless arguments in RD 1, which I addressed adequately. He then chose to abandon his entire advocacy in RD 2, which means that he has no offense coming into RD 3, no matter what new arguments he chooses to bring up after this is posted.

Thank you for the debate. Vote affirmative.
simpleton

Con

Argumentation is a river, a river that begins atop a mountain and flows to and through every facet of our lives. Under normal conditions, just as water breeds life, argument breeds intelligence. However, it's not a guarantee.

When the mountain from which our river emerges leeches pollutants into the water, what happens? Perhaps life still breeds, but if so, it's mutated... Such is the case with my opponent's conclusion.

Let us untangle our friend's mistakes.

In this round, she says,"a standards debate still hasn't been made..."

By what rule is she playing? Is asserting the falsity of her definition of justice not a standards debate? That's silly. One round she's claiming that I'm not refuting, though I'm not supposed to be refuting. Now, when I'm refuting, she claims I'm not!

Oh! If only my mother hadn't raised such a foolish boy, I could set our friend a'right. Alas, my mother did raise a foolish boy and that boy became a foolish man and today, as I type for your approval, I ponder in confusion over our friend's misguided argument.

Could she have overlooked the syllogisms? Are they not a form of argument? Wherefrom then can the claim that I presented no values debate come? Tragically, friends, from that same place which that absurd inference that we should eliminate schools emanates... in an irrational thought process. To this point, shortly we'll return.

Our friend says,"If I can prove that my opponent cannot access a legitimate system of justice per my standards, please affirm."

Why, friends, is the burden of proof not incumbent upon Pro? I did cite such with a respectable source. Yet, now we see our good friend seeking to lay the burden of proof on Con!

Alas, I must again admit, I am a fool unpracticed in the skills of debate. Yet, in my heart, I know her demand lacks merit. For, if faced with the choice between left and right, do we not follow the direction that's marked with a signpost? That signpost, my esteemed reader, is my previous source. Our friend is refusing to see it because she walks in a direction sensible only to herself.

Next, our friend takes an unusual turn by stating that I shall further my argument in RD3.

This leaves me further confused. There is no more argument. We have witnessed the dismantling of her position and what was left was an absurdity proved by syllogism.

My friends, there is no argument to advance. The syllogism proves the error. There is no more.

In response to my friend's rebuttal, I respond in like:

1. My friend is concerned with my use of "intended". However, her concern is the result of confusing where I used the term.

In my first syllogism above, I stated what she intended in syllogistic format. Now, she accurately reiterates the long hand version. No disagreement here.

Where the problem lies is in her negligence to recognize my use of "however" in relation to the second syllogism, which lays the foundation to expose the absurdity. I used "however" because I know she didn't "intend" to make that mistake.

2. Our friend asserts,"It is ridiculous to assume that because I criticize a system as biased that I want to eliminate it entirely."

I must agree. I believe that our friend has the best intentions. Because of that, I don't think she wants to eliminate education. This is why, on the logic, I have won the debate: Her argument causes conclusions that are absurd.

Does our friend's logic force her to affirm the end of education while also promoting it? Yes. That's the absurdity. That's why her current argument against exit exams has not been supported: It relies on an absurdity.

In the same section, she says,"Maximizing justice is simply minimizing bias, not eliminating any system..."

If that were factual, why wouldn't she argue for improving the tests instead of eliminating them? Because her argument is exactly what she rejects! Test not perfect? Kill it. Schools not perfect? Fill in the blank.

3. Our friend says,"reductio ad absurdum is..."

Where is her source? Above, I spell out my argument through syllogism to reveal a priori knowledge.

A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C. What, exactly, is confusing?

In regard to the remainder of our friend's argument, there is still nothing there but perhaps a desparate reach for you to cling to formalities though she began by saying we weren't going to stick to them.

Our friend claims that I didn't challenge some of her positions. Let me ask you this, dear reader: Should you have the misfortune of living downstream from a mountain that leeches pollutants into the water, would you sip from the stream?

Such is my opponenets position. She asks you to take in the poison of irrationality.

I thank alto2osu and you, good reader and you, thoughtful voter for sharing my first sojourn into debate.

In closing, just because a good thing has some negatives doesn't mean we discard it. That would be... Throwing out the baby with the bath water!

Vote logic. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rulshok 7 years ago
rulshok
Simpleton,
This round definitely goes pro. Almost all of your points are either logically flawed or simply don't make sense. I was surprised that you even got any votes with that case that you claim is LD format, when you put a criterion before a value. LOL. Obviously, you need to look at some core LD rules before you debate in this format again.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Which is probably a time management issue on my part. There was a lot of moving target-type stuff going on, and I may not have been as crystal clear as I wanted to be. I'd have to re-read the debate to see if I ever said in the round exactly what I said here, but I'm sure you can understand why I don't want to spend much more time going through the rounds. Thanks for the feedback, Nails. :)
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"we probably need educational reform to start fixing the bias in the system, but that the aff isn't obligated to nail down that 'counterplan'"
This makes sense.

All I got was this:
"I attempt to do that by pointing out that SEE's actually make the results of a biased system worse."

Even a basic structure for rebuilding the education system probably would have been enough to win against such a simpleton. Unfortunately, all you said seemed to be that the education system has flaws.

The comments have certainly changed my mind about who was right. Problem was, I didn't hear quite the same in the actual debate.
Posted by simpleton 7 years ago
simpleton
The problem is that the foundation you lay for that desired conclusion creates a fallacious argument. And ever since that was pointed out, your argument has been,'you know what I mean.'

It's not that you have to provide the reform, but you have to explain what's wrong with the status quo you oppose. The problem is that your reason for opposition is reason to oppose education. That portion of the argument might not be so bad. However, when you use education as part of the argument for your position, a contradiction ten exists.

What you're arguing right now is support of being irrational. You're arguing against logic.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
@Nails: my advocacy is basically that we probably need educational reform to start fixing the bias in the system, but that the aff isn't obligated to nail down that "counterplan" (if you can call it one). I would argue that, since the resolution clearly implies merit, rather than policy, my job is to prove that standardized exit exams have more harms than benefits. I attempt to do that by pointing out that SEE's actually make the results of a biased system worse.

Like, I'm sure that the education system needs some reforms, but I don't think the aff has to provide reform to still effectively affirm. If that clarifies a little bit :)
Posted by simpleton 7 years ago
simpleton
:D this has been educational. Your post confirms my position that this is a popularity contest, not a contest of positions. Intellectual honesty is not the norm.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Now I'm wishing I hadn't voted for you, simpleton. Losing a debate isn't the end of the world; get over it.

@ Alto, my problem was that your logic was "we reject it because it is biased" but you also agreed that the same was true of the education system. I didn't see why this wouldn't mean that you're advocating scrapping the system.
Posted by simpleton 8 years ago
simpleton
"you win, whatever you want that to mean."

Before the comma is the passive. After is the aggressive. Another absurdity.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Well, for both of our sake's, I'm calling this broken record what it is and throwing in the towel. You win, whatever you want that to mean. Peace.
Posted by simpleton 8 years ago
simpleton
Ad hominem much?

Generally, no. I'll do it for the moments before I remember that I can't change intellectual dishonesty or questionable intelligence... That time before you realize you're being jerked around for their personal gain while you're still operating on the premise that the truth is a mutual goal.

Quote:
I'm on a phone. It'd be a pain and you'd just make up some other weasel argument.

Suffice to say, using your definitions, I mapped out two syllogisms that exposed a contradiction/absurdity in your argument. If you want to pretend that isn't what happened, if you want to demonstrate that your ego is more important than logic, I can't overcome your dishonesty, ignorance or selfishness (whichever one it may be) or that of others.

I can live with that but it's a shame helpless kids will model it.

Reference:
More bull? A list of twenty essays instead of an actual source?

Get a life.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by insignia96 7 years ago
insignia96
alto2osusimpletonTied
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 
Vote Placed by LadyHavok13 8 years ago
LadyHavok13
alto2osusimpletonTied
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 
Vote Placed by seeley.linda 8 years ago
seeley.linda
alto2osusimpletonTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 8 years ago
Nails
alto2osusimpletonTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Gilgameshdg 8 years ago
Gilgameshdg
alto2osusimpletonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nathan.fraly 8 years ago
Nathan.fraly
alto2osusimpletonTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
alto2osusimpletonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:52 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
alto2osusimpletonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by simpleton 8 years ago
simpleton
alto2osusimpletonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05