The Instigator
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Success is unlikely without attending high school.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,807 times Debate No: 25354
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (10)

 

MouthWash

Pro

I will take the position that it is very hard to make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful in the US without attending formal high school or doing any other type of schooling instead. For instance, using online schooling, night schooling, tutoring or anything similar as your argument is forbidden. That includes college.

Con will take the position that high school attendance is not generally necessary for success. Please note that while the scenarios we will be discussing naturally exclude school as a possibility, that does not prevent self-education or any other type of preparation for adult responsibilities. I want details. Cite statistics; give multiple reasons. Nothing is off of the table.

Rules

1. Please have typing experience and p
rovide sources.

2. Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.


3. No lawyering, trolling, or semantics.

4. The BOP is shared, and Con should make the first argument.
THEBOMB

Con

Thank you for this challenge MouthWash, I hope to have a good debate.

I must ask, who are you, I, or anybody else to define what constitutes a successful life to another person?



A wise man once said “success is a journey, not a destination.” Now, I would like to make a single observation about this resolution, it all centers around the word and the meaning of "success." Now I’m sure my opponent is thinking, that’s semantics, I said no semantics, blah, blah, blah. But, if we simply apply an objective standard that money automatically equals success, then what do we really accomplish? Sure while money and financial well being is a part of success, it is not the full picture. Since we are debating absolutes, I lay out 6 components of success in life. I am free to do so as my opponent has not proposed an objective measure of what constitutes success, as they have not done so, that leaves two options for myself: 1) propose an objective measure or 2) leave it in the realm of subjectivity.

  1. 1. Peace of Mind

I define Peace of Mind as freedom from fear, anger, worry, and guilt. People seek peace of mind through many channels. One of these channels is faith.

  1. 2. Health and Energy

How can you be successful in life if you are not healthy and you are not energized? If you do not at least have the potential to enjoy life, how could you ever be successful?

  1. 3. Loving Relationships.

Here let us examine the age old tale of Ebenezer Scrooge. We could consider him very financially sound, but he had no peace of mind and nobody to share it with, and he was unhappy and grumpy in every way.

  1. 4. Financial Freedom

This basically means you have to be free from thinking about money all the time. Not being “rich” so to speak, but having enough money to pay the bills. I am not simply talking about money in the bank, for some $50,000 dollars would be enough, for others, 5 million dollars would not be enough. This point talks about the mentality that everything will be okay.

  1. 5. Worthy Goals

We all want something to “chase.” That’s human nature.

  1. 6. Personal fulfillment

We have all heard the idea of “be all you can be.” This is basically the feeling that you matter and are not just going through the motions.

But, success is a journey, not a destination. You want to strive to reach all six of these things. Now to establish burdens, in order for PRO to win this debate, they must establish that it is unlikely or impossible for a person without an education cannot strive and reach the six above things. CON’s burden is to establish the likeliness of a person without an education to reach the above said things.

Now, I will go point by point and show the possibility.

  1. 1. Peace of Mind

As stated above, peace of mind can be found through religion. Whether or not theists are right or wrong, or whether god exists or not, is not what is being argued here. The point is billions of people around the world find solace in their faith in a higher being. For many, prayer simply erases fear and ushers in tranquility. Unless my opponent wishes to argue that the uneducated are not likely to be religious, we can hold that the uneducated can strive to be religious. I mean, about 89% of the world is religious and only 2% are atheists (1) (the other 9 percent are simply unreligious). People can find peace of mind through faith.

  1. 2. Health and Energy

I sincerely hope my opponent will not contest this here and attempt to argue the likelihood of the uneducated being healthy and energized, but if they really want to…

  1. 3. Loving Relationships

In the United States, the two groups with the lowest divorce rates were the uneducated, who never received a highschool degree or GED, and the highly educated, those with a bachelor’s degree and up. The rates of divorce were 14.4 per 1,000 and 14.2 per 1,000 respectively. (2) Marriage is a culmination of two people’s love for each other, so naturally we can hold that one will be just as likely to be uneducated and stay in a marriage as those who are educated and in a marriage. Even without marriage, a person can still cohabitate (common law marriage) and simply be in a relationship. My opponent must show that it is unlikely that an uneducated person could either be in a relationship, cohabitating, or married.

  1. 4. Financial Freedom

Once again without a measure of what constitutes success or not, we leave it in the realm of subjectivity. As I said above, being free financially does not simply mean having money in the bank. It is the mentality that everything will be okay. In a 2004 study, Wake Forest University asked the question of whether “people with less education, such as high school dropouts, report less day-to-day stress?” (3) The answer is a resounding yes, highschool dropouts report having stress only 30% of their days. And eventually, the stressors stop creating stress for those without an education. (3) As this is simply a mentality, you cannot objectively measure what causes someone to feel freedom.

  1. 5. Worthy Goals

I hold that someone who is a highschool dropout can have more worthy goals than someone who has say a professional degree. They can have the goal to say get their GED and eventually college degree. I am not saying that these people WILL get to school, but what I am saying is this can be their GOAL. Furthermore, the GED test can be taken by anyone, even those who do not take classes. They can either download books on the GED for free or buy them online. Then they have the equivalent of a highschool degree. Every year, “800,000 people take the exam “ and “500,000 pass.” (4) And yes, it is possible to self-study for the test. A study of 970 people without GED credentials found that over half of people who either self-studied on their own or studied in a group setting passed the GED test. (5) People who are uneducated can also have other worthy goals, but once again, this is in the subjective, who am I to say what constitutes a worthy goal for someone else? Who is my opponent to say the same thing?

  1. 6. Personal Fulfillment

This is completely in the realm of subjectivity. Two people can live the same exact lives with only one person feeling fulfilled. There is no way to objectively measure what constitutes a fulfilling life.

In sum, true success is a matter of subjective preferences and goals. My opponent cannot simply define what constitutes success for somebody else. In their mind, money and employment may be the definition of success, but for somebody else, that is simply not true. Take a look at the Wall Street protestors, many of them are unemployed and want to work. You may see them as not having a worthy goal, but they do not see it that way, they feel like they are a part of something. They felt that through their dedication they could enact change. It was a worthy goal. So now I reiterate the question, who are you, I or anybody else to define what constitutes success for somebody else?

  1. 1. https://www.cia.gov...
  2. 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
  3. 3. http://abcnews.go.com...
  4. 4. http://www.nytimes.com...
  5. 5. http://www.ncsall.net...
Debate Round No. 1
MouthWash

Pro

Fuck this shit.

I'm not playing your game. I said "make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful." I was INFERRING the definition of successful by talking ABOUT making money or getting a job. I even talked about "preparation for adult responsibilities" which anyone should have been able to understand as meaning jobs or money.

I EXPECT A RESPONSIBLE DEBATER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE TOPIC RELEVANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD DEFY THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE RULE THAT SAYS "NO GODDAMN SEMANTICS." YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHOICES AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND THE RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN A RELEVANT ARGUMENT.

But how dare you to even think about accusing me of creating a forum topic to cheat? I was prepared to concede once I had some advice but you went ahead and fucked the whole thing up. You lost an easy win and I lost whatever advice someone might have given me. Next time, think things through when you spot an "easy win" because you might end up looking like a pathetic douchebag when you can't even debate properly.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank MouthWash for his arguments.

"Fvck this sh1t."

If you really want to, go ahead.

"I'm not playing your game. I said "make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful."

You said "I will take the position that it is very hard to make money, gain employment, or otherwise become successful." You did not say success is defined as "it is very hard to make money, gain employment or otherwise become successful." You may believe you were inferring a definition. But, you were not. You never defined your terms. Simple as that. In a debate, you cannot rely on your opponent to interpret and twist your words to fit what you want them to say.



"I EXPECT A RESPONSIBLE DEBATER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE TOPIC RELEVANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD DEFY THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE RULE THAT SAYS "NO GODDAMN SEMANTICS." YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHOICES AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THIS DEBATE IS OVER AND THE RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN A RELEVANT ARGUMENT."

Despite the annoying caps, how is what I argued irrelevant exactly? I argued you can reach success. Simple as that. I did not defy the rule that says "no semantics" as I was the only one to place terms. Simply because you do not like what I argued does not place it under the banner of semantics. You also told me what to argue, "Con will take the position that high school attendance is not generally necessary for success." Once again, how did I not argue that? My argument is completely relevant to the resolution. And, once again, I shall say, you never provided an objective basis to measure success.



"But how dare you to even think about accusing me of creating a forum topic to cheat?"

What was I supposed to think exactly? You create a forum topic which just so happens to coincide with this debate?

"You lost an easy win and I lost whatever advice someone might have given me. Next time, think things through when you spot an "easy win" because you might end up looking like a pathetic d0uchebag when you can't even debate properly."

1. It hasn't reached the voting period, so bare assertion fallacy.
2. You didn't lose any advice, see your forum for more details.
3. I did think things through. It took me a while to construct that argument.
4. Thank you for the ad hominem. I take insults that people give to me through the internet very seriously (sarcasm)
5. I have been here on DDO longer than you and participated in more debates. Simply because you do not like what I have to say, does not justify blatant insults.
Debate Round No. 2
MouthWash

Pro

My oppoent has decided to try and defend his argument. Which is sad, because there is no defense that can be made to excuse his blatant disregard for the rules and his pathetic semantics ploy.

"In a debate, you cannot rely on your opponent to interpret and twist your words to fit what you want them to say."

As I said, I inferred my purpose when I correlated success with making money and gaining employment. Success does not mean achieving Nirvana. Success does not mean having a wife and kids. In a capitalist society where "success" is defined by money and power and achieved primarily through school, we shouldn't have to negotiate over such definitions. My opponent cannot simply twist around terms in order to have them correlate to an irrelevant meaning. When someone says that they want to be successful, they don't mean being able to meditate well, they mean being rich. I shouldn't even have had to specifically describe what I meant by success, but I did anyway. There is no excuse.

"What was I supposed to think exactly? You create a forum topic which just so happens to coincide with this debate?"

Are you really justifying yourself here as well?

Here are some reasons why I wouldn't do something like that:

1. People would accuse me of cheating. There are other forums on the internet.

2. I made the thread after you posted your round.

3. I have previously said that I hated school in the forums.

4. There was no point in making this debate other than to gain advice.

5. I have already asked the question of what to do after leaving school: [http://mises.org...]I gained plenty of advice but no hard statistics. And if you don't believe that the OP is me, I'll post on that thread and prove it. Notice that the date that thread was made was well before this debate even started.

Disregarding the link, even a basic amount of common sense disproves all of this in an instant. Do I have to provide a picture my permission to homeschool from the State of Georgia so that you will believe me?

"1. It hasn't reached the voting period, so bare assertion fallacy."

I thoroughly expect to be votebombed by people like darkkermit and royalpaladin for "cheating." Nobody can argue with the nutfucks when the nutfucks are committed to their course of action. Fortunately there are some people on here who don't reward semantics or desperate accusations.

"2. You didn't lose any advice, see your forum for more details."

I wanted multiple, unbiased statistics. I didn't get them on the thread.

"3. I did think things through. It took me a while to construct that argument."

Clearly.

"5. I have been here on DDO longer than you and participated in more debates. Simply because you do not like what I have to say, does not justify blatant insults."

I wouldn't even be mad if not for the idiotic cheating accusations. Should have thought about it a little harder before doing that, am I right?

My opponent has failed to justify his actions whatsoever. He has simply restated his position and demanded that I conform to his arbitrary definiton of success. I ask all debaters- when was the last time you saw a debate on one subject be switched to another and voted for the semantics? When I first came on DDO, I tried it and lost spectacularly. Semantics never work. Why can't you understand that?
THEBOMB

Con

"My oppoent has decided to try and defend his argument. Which is sad, because there is no defense that can be made to excuse his blatant disregard for the rules and his pathetic semantics ploy."

Not semantics. I should not have to infer what the definition is. Take laws, should the law abider have to infer what the law means? No. The law stating someone should not kill another person is rather clear.


"As I said, I inferred my purpose when I correlated success with making money and gaining employment."

See above....which you never actually refuted.


"Success does not mean achieving Nirvana. Success does not mean having a wife and kids. In a capitalist society where "success" is defined by money and power and achieved primarily through school, we shouldn't have to negotiate over such definitions."

Bare assertion fallacy. Once again, how do you know? Do monks who take vows of poverty not exist in capitalist societies? Can they not believe their lives are successful? We should have to negotiate, because, as I stated above in my opening argument which has never actually been argued against, success is personal.


"Are you really justifying yourself here as well?"

Yes.

"People would accuse me of cheating. There are other forums on the internet."

You have cheated once (see your debate with Danielle), why would I think you would not cheat again?


"I made the thread after you posted your round."

Bingo. Which suggests to me you wanted arguments.

"I have previously said that I hated school in the forums."

And...your point?

"There was no point in making this debate other than to gain advice."

So the forum with 100+ posts was not enough? You are grasping at straws here. If you just wanted advice, the forum would have been enough, you should not ask people who look for an honest debate to waste their time forging an argument. You are grasping at straws.

"I have already asked the question of what to do after leaving school"

And...go on...the point being?


"I thoroughly expect to be votebombed..."

You cannot predicte the future. And you still have not presented a case as to why it was semantics. You cannot expect your opponent to infer a definition. That is quite simple. You have to blantatly state this is what x is defined as. (Hint: cursing at the voters is not a good way to get votes).

"I wanted multiple, unbiased statistics. I didn't get them on the thread."

Then why did you not ask? Or research it for yourself? Not waste a potential debaters time creating a useless debate.

"I wouldn't even be mad if not for the idiotic cheating accusations. Should have thought about it a little harder before doing that, am I right?"

That does not justify cursing at me and insulting me. Fine you may be angry, but you are typing, not speaking, you have time to review your words. Remember, what is here stays here, forever. Also, past behavoir predicts future behavior. You have exploited the site in the past to potentially win debates, why would I not expect you to do so here?

"My opponent has failed to justify his actions whatsoever."

Really? The last two rounds are dedicated to me "justifying" my actions. My opponent has simply said that he expects me to "infer" from his round the definition of success. I do not have to twist my opponents words so that the definition suits their case.

The definition was never established to begin with (you cannot expect me to infer something from your statement). So the rest of my opponent's rant is irrelevant.

I would simply like to say that even with my opponent's objections to the case, it could have been an actual debate. I did not define success in such a way that made it impossible for my opponent to win. They still could have debated but, they opted out. For absolutely no reason at all. This is a debate site. If my opponent did not wish to debate what success is, they should have clearly stated "success is defined by X." They failed to do so, allowing me to define success. It is not that difficult to understand that you cannot expect your opponent to twist your words and infer meaning from another statement.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
So what? different debate, different debater. If you had given that same debate to me, I would have defined things much differently. Costs can be a number of things, same thing with success.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Fixed.

"Notice how the CP did NOT take the word "costs" to mean a spiritual malaise. The instigator didn't even have to define it."
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
http://www.debate.org...

Notice how the Contender did NOT take the word "costs" to mean a spiritual malaise. CP didn't even have to define it.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
"You may have personally correlated success with money"

Basic common sense should tell you that that was what I wanted to discuss. You don't even seem to have read the debate.

Regarding the gay parenting debate. You dismissed my sources for no legitimate reason. WSA countered you until you justified yourself. You never did.

I'm getting tired of this. As I said, there is no arguing with you. Give all seven points to Con. I really don't care, and someone more mentally competent will counter you.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
You may have personally correlated success with money for the purposes of your argument, but you did not explicitly argue that you only wanted to discuss financial success. Con defined success and explained why it does not necessarily have to do with money.

I can vote conduct against you for the cheating issue, and I will.

I don't even vote on most of your debates. The ones I do vote on, I read. You may not think of me as a fair judge. When thett debated FourTrouble, I voted for FourTrouble even though I despised FourTrouble at the time and I thett was one of my best friends. That was because FT actually won the debate. You just swear at everyone who votes against you. You may think you did well in the debates I voted against you, but you actually did not.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
I see. You realized that you can't justify voting against me because of my "cheating," so you're using the semantics issue instead. Half the time you don't even read the the debates you vote against me on.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
"You just stated what YOU were going to argue."

And when I did, I correlated success with money. I then said that he would be defending the possibility of "success" without school. How about reading the next round?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
No, you didn't make it clear. You never clearly defined what "success" meant. I don't see why we have to agree to your definition of success if you never provided one. You just stated what YOU were going to argue.

The solution really was simple. All you had to do was explain why financial success outweighed "personal fulfillment"/why financial success is necessary for personal fulfillment. It could have been done very easily, but you just chose to swear at your opponent.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
I inferred what I meant by success. It should have been obvious. I even thought that something like this would happen, but I dismissed it because I thought I had made it clear.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
There were no semantics involved. You did not define success, and as BlackVoid mentioned in the forum thread, success is not even dependent on finances.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "Vote for him instead of me, please." http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/24515/
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 5 years ago
Jessalyn
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The vote on conduct must be awarded to Con, as Pro "lost his cool," so to speak, unleashing a string of profanity and accusation that was not justifiable by any means.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 5 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Fair enough, I'll justify my vote. Pro may have assumed that success = money and material gain, but he did not state that clearly. I do not equate those things with success, and neither did con. This was not a case of semantics, it was a clever and well-supported argument. Pro also threw a fit and acted like a child, and stopped arguing after round one (and didn't refute any of con's arguments). My vote is justified and I will not remove it. Yours, however, is not.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Is there any way to give negative points? Because neither side did anything to uphold their end of the resolution.
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 5 years ago
InsertNameHere
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: If this thread(http://www.debate.org/forums/personal/topic/24423/) has anything to do with this debate I can in no way vote for pro.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: This is probably going to be a very unpopular vote, but I feel Con played semantics without sufficient justification. Conduct to Con anyway because Pro was very rude.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: "Mouthwash sucks and so did his arguments. " M- the destroyer, completely votebombed. Why did his arguments suck? You completely fail to point out why or how he lost. Simply saying someone sucks, and voting six points to the other individual, is horrible conduct. Arguments for mouthwash cheating are unfounded also, and mainly based on opinion. Even if it were his goal to get other people's opinions, I don't see why that is so wrong. I'll remove my vote when M-the destroyer does.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have easily re-affirmed the definition of success as getting a well paying job and pointed out the trolling by the pro regarding the definition of being successful and quickly won the debate, but instead decided to resort to the "F*CK YOU" argument instead.... Conduct the the con who is not a douchebag, pro never actually gave arguments and instead threw a hissy fit, and the con actually used sources....
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro was an asshole. Arguments: The *intent* of the debate was pretty clear, particularly because of context imparted by Pro's thread in the forums. Con was kind of playing semantics on this one. Sources: Even though Pro gets arguments, Con did point out that Pro's definition sucked/was very open-ended (which I count as a source dispute), and actually made a pretty good a priori argument that "success", generally understood, not requiring formal schooling.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
MouthWashTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: So, why has no one given Conduct to con yet? I'd say the vulgar language and telling off your opponent during a round is automatically Conduct for the opponent. I voted con b/c of the fact that pro DIDNT DEFINE SUCCESS and con took the liberty of simply clarifying the resolution. Nice rebut by pro also, cursing out your opponent is definitely the way to go! Also, just to point out there, (from round 1 Pro) "...hard to make money, gain employment, OR OTHERWISE BECOME SUCCESSFUL IN THE US..."