The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

The Debate Challenge

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 51750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Hello there. You must be a very good debater, accepting this challenge? Why?
Well I heard some people can still win even if they forfeit one or two rounds. But this has yet to be proved. You have to win against me in this debate, by supporting yourself enough in merely two rounds, forfeiting the second round, (losing conduct) but still having enough argument to win against me.
So far nobody has won against me, had they forfeited even just one more round than me. Can you disprove me, 9spaceking? Much effort is required to beat me, if I really try.
You can start round one, but you must forfeit the second round. This is a fun social experiment meant to see who can beat me even if they forfeit one round.
This is not quite as hard as Rational Thinker's "aBcD" experiment, but nevertheless it is very difficult.
If it is not clear to you you have to prove you can beat me (because of your experience, support, my lack of evidence, or whatever you want, as long as it makes enough sense for the voters to vote you) in every other topic (Spelling and Grammar, Convincing Arguments, etc. etc.) enough to beat me overall. (in other words, even if you lose conduct, you win against me in everything else)
Accept if you dare.


I would like to thank Pro for this unusual ‘challenge’ debate and of course the best of luck over the next few rounds.


There is no firm resolution on the debate other than that I allegedly cannot win the debate due to being forced to forfeit a round. However there is no obligation in the rule guidelines that mandates a debate with a forfeit from a person to be ruled an automatic win for the opponent. Therefore I ask voters to vote objectively based on the content of my two rounds of argument.

In any case I will centre my arguments on this vague resolution and attempt to show what is required to win a debate, and why forfeiture does not necessarily lead to an automatic loss.

Opening Arguments:


In live debates, the debates are often won on presentation, style, wit and least importantly – the quality of arguments [1]. One does not necessarily need to be objectively correct in order to win. When up against someone with presentation, style and wit of their own, so long as the arguments sound on the surface convincing, then they often count as legitimate points for winning the debate.

An excellent example of this type of a good debater is William Lane Craig [2], who with absolutely magnificent oratory skills and with good precision on the points he chooses to make. Very rarely does he waste time on low-impact arguments. Many lines he uses to justify his arguments are factually wrong under the analysis experts within the field of argument (cosmology), but it’s especially difficult in real-time to fact-check everything in real time, and space is very much limited.

In written debates, such as on DDO there is a luxury of time to fact-check the arguments an opponent makes, but only a few invest the substantial amounts of time required in order to fact check every reference and statement an opponent makes. And often pointing every last detail of factually wrong statements the opponent makes.

Therefore it is very much possible to win without having the objectively correct position; debates are much more about presenting ones core ideas and highlight some key points than it is to find the truth. If this were the case then criminal trials would only take a matter of a few hours to complete, this is obviously not the case.

Forfeiture & Conduct Point:

The forfeit was mandated in the rules of the debate, however the loss of a conduct point is not, it is merely asserted as a consequence of the forfeiture. I see no reason to accept this presupposition, in fact to imply as much is probably poor conduct from my opponent and therefore he should lose this point. Since the forfeit is agreed upon, I have violated no DDO rules in doing so [3], and therefore it in no way constituted poor conduct on my behalf.

I would like to ask Pro whether I should wait out the 48 hours to automatically forfeit round 2, or if he would like me to actually do the round by simply stating “I forfeit this round” in order to complete this debate more quickly.

I would like to refer you to the following debates by GodChoosesLife [4] and Rational_Thinker9119’s debates [5], who managed to even score the conduct point despite giving up a round. Furthermore, you can also see one of my own debates to see that even victories can be scored despite forfeiting multiple rounds given that the arguments are strong enough[6].

Quantity & Quality of Arguments:

Now, in live debates you are allotted a specific period of time to speak, and on DDO you are allotted a specific quantity of characters to make your points (8,000 in this case). Pro has used just 1,226 (15%) of them for his opening round, which means if I give two full 8,000 character arguments, I will have at least 93% of the brute content Pro has given, and presumably a similar number of points raised.

Moreover my opponent has 2 rounds to follow this, but has only 1 round of points to respond to. It is likely my opponent will have ‘too much space’, as 16,000 characters is likely unnecessary to address these arguments. Akin to fuelling your car to the brim to only drive 20 yards. Therefore I anticipate much of this handicap will be wasted by no fault of Pro’s.

My Own Advantages:

Moreover, I get to go last in this debate, and my opponent did not specify that the final round cannot be used to make new arguments. Therefore I can make a number of points in my final round to which my opponent will not get the chance to respond to. This is not something I intend to do, an excellent example of how this (admittedly underhand and immoral) tactic can work is seen in Matt Dillahunty’s debate with Father Hans Jacobse [7], Jacobse waited until the final round (he was to go last) to bring forth his criticisms regarding atheism/secularist leading to eugenics, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. In this case it was fortunate he had a Q&A session to be able to make some response to these remarks, but there is no such opportunity on DDO.

Other Potential Tactics:

Another tactic I could (but will not) use to neutralize this handicap is the Gish Gallop technique [8]:

“The Gish Gallop - named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education. “[8]

Spelling & Grammar:

My opponent utilises rather sloppy formatting for his opening argument, with no clear paragraphs to break up his text. Furthermore, my opponent has done repeated usage of the word ‘you’ which is incorrect English grammar:

“If it is not clear to you you have to prove you can beat me (because of your experience, support, my lack of evidence, or whatever you want, as long as it makes enough sense for the voters to vote you).”

Thereby my opponent concedes the S&G point already provided I make no mistakes of my own.

Quality of Sources:

My opponent mentions Rational Thinker’s debate; however he provides absolutely no reference to either the person involved, not the debate itself. The genuine rational thinker on DDO [9] is a member who has not been online for five years (!). I can only assume Pro is talking about Rational_Thinker9119[10] who has a number of similar debates. However since Pro has not been forward with his sources, which he needs to being for the resolution proposed, then Pro is not doing what is required to fulfil his BoP.

Furthermore Rational_Thinker9119 has more than one debate on the same topic, and it is not clear which one he is referring to, another lack of precision on my opponent’s part.


As I have shown, there is no reason why someone who forfeits a rounds should automatically lose a debate, and in the context of this specific debate my opponent has made no concrete resolution, so in effect this debate is just a 2 round vs 2 round debate, due to my opponent’s lack of arguments in the first round. I listed a number of techniques one could use to gain an unfair advantage in a debate

Back to Con!


  1. 1.

  2. 2.

  3. 3.

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

  6. 6.

  7. 7.

  8. 8.

  9. 9.

  10. 10.

Debate Round No. 1


Well done, incredible job con. (yeah, you can just post "I forfeit this round" to make the debate faster)
In GCL's debate: " Forfeited out of respect", says the first voter. And beside, GCL even said she didn't agree on the topic.
RT9119's debate: seriously? RT's an insanely smart dude. He forfeited on purpose to make his argument stronger! Furthermore, that was a troll debate. Troll debates can be won in a gazillion ways. Unfortunately this is not a troll debate. It's a challenge where you automatically lose conduct (forfeit not because you didn't want to argue on the side you didn't agree on, but on purpose because it was a challenge, and accepting the challenge, you abide by the rules).
I agree with your ability to "sly underhand" attack me in the last round, so I will actually use as much of the 8000 characters I can to make arguments.
Thank you for mentioning the Gish Gallop. This round I will exactly use that argument. Next round I will provide actual solid evidence, so you need to defeat "the troll argument" and "the solid argument" all in one round.
Onto "The Troll Argument"!

52 reasons why Sswdwm cannot win this debate
1. he only has a 62.50% win percentage

2. his name is really really weird. No offense dude.

3. Sswdwm's name is really really hard to type up. No offense.

4. his elo is at an measly 2,105

5. there are debaters at 8000!!

6. it can be concluded from 4 and 5 that he's not that good of a debater

7. no one whom has forfeited even one round has won against me

8. 9spaceking requires much effort to win against, as can be seen from

9. 9spaceking is serious on this debate.

10. 9spaceking agrees on this topic

11. 9spaceking has technically only lost 2 debates where he was serious and agreed on his side of the topic

12. thus, sswdwm cannot win because of 9, 10 and 11

13. his profile pic. is hard to see

14. he is interested in women

15. he isn’t gay

16. gay is essentially not wrong

17. sswdwm is wrong

18. wrong=false

19. sswdwm has made false claims in round 1

20. sswdwm will not win because of his false information

21. 9spaceking has made no grammar mistakes (because he pointed them out and he is false)

22. everything is awesome! Everything is good when you’re part of a team!

23. sswdwm’s username does not contain any letter from “Everything”

24. sswdwm is a person, not everything

25. sswdwm is not awesome. No offense.

26. sswdwm is not part of a team, as far as I’m concerned.

27. sswdwm isn’t good. No offense.

28. sswdwm uses Wikipedia.

29. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

30. that means sswdwm is only 9/10 credible.

31. GCL’s debate has been explained.

32. RT9119’s debate has been explained.

33. sswdwm is now only 7/10 credible.

34. 7/10 is a “C minus”

35. C minus will get you to no good college

36. sswdwm’s argument won’t even get him into a good college

37. sswdwm has not been in a good college

38. sswdwm has bad education

39. I go to TJHSST

40. TJHSST is the best school (sometimes second best) of US

41. I have awesome grades at TJHSST

42. I currently have an awesome education

43. awesome education>bad education

44. I will win over sswdwm

45. sswdwm likes badminton

46. badminton is my 2cd favorite sport

47. therefore sswdwm is only 2cd best to me

48. sswdwm doesn’t support a president

49. sswdwm therefore doesn’t support a democracy

50. sswdwm is therefore horrible. No offense intended.

51. nobody votes for horrible people

52. back to you! Oh wait, you can’t rebut back! Muhahahahaha!



I forfeit this round
Debate Round No. 2


Haha! See? My argument was so convincing, so amazing, it "drowned the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time". Thank you con for helping me with that information.
Now onto the solid argument.
Most of my debates which I won, the opponents forfeited. This is actually a result of my badness at debating, however, it also displays that attending the rounds within the debates are crucial. Because my opponent(s) forfeited, it didn't matter how stupid, how dumb, how flimsy my argument was, I still won. One great example is my troll response to the argument "torture is cool", "...Study has shown in the Jail of Azkabam that 90 percent of people agree that Torture is Cool, giving them a new thing to look for. "Boredom is killing me on the inside," Jack McGonnell, one of the soul (whoops! I mean sole) survivors, says, "Torture is much cooler, I can show my jail-mates what I managed to survive!""
I mean, that's not even real proof! That's just a funny reference and teasing of Harry Potter and dementors.
Another good example is ANOTHER troll response, this time to a shocksite.... "Your video fails to show Barack winning against Mario." (it really doesn't. Seriously. It. Really. Doesn't.)
Now, I know you are probably going to lie. You are probably going to "backhand" destroy me with another 8000 character argument. But you'll spend too much time rebutting all the 52 reasons why you can't win to respond to this argument.
I know, I did seem to go a little easy on you. I could have put "I have more experience than you, with 36 debates under my belt, and you only have 8", but I didn't. I was nice. I said "no offense" so I wouldn't get flagged, banned, and hated forever by everyone. I didn't want to risk losing the factor that I won conduct.
So really--this wasn't a true social experiment. And in reality, this debate in truth doesn't matter. 1,733 can't go much lower. This debate was really just a reminder to the poor noobs or busy workers to only accept debates that they have time to reply to, and not forfeit. Because, people, it is nearly impossible to win a non-troll debate with even only one forfeit.
Today you all learned something, and I'm glad of that. If you already knew, good for you. It's just a harmless reminder! So remember, everyone, don't forfeit. Please stop the forfeiting.
your faithful debater

P.S. this does not mean I concede. This only means con has a heart-warming lesson to counter. :P


Thanks Pro.


My opponent seems to agree on the resolution I was arguing for, as he provided no rebuttal towards this. Therefore I assume my line of argument is valid.

Space & Character Usage:

As anticipated my opponent has used a mere 6,041 of a potential 16,000 (38%) characters total over two rounds in order to make his rebuttal and closing statement. This should cue voters in on the strength of my opponent’s (weak) resolution. My opponent’s total character count over three rounds was 7,267 characters, exactly 100 characters short of the 7,367 I used in just my opening statement. Therefore on brute volume, I have neutralized my opponent’s ‘forfeiture’ advantage.


Pro makes argument that GCL & Rational_Thinker9119’s debates do not demonstrate situations in which conduct can be earned even in the forfeiture of a round. This is at best an argument ad ignorantum especially with indirect evidence being the only thing presented so far in this debate. Pro makes an anecdotal testimony that he’s never lost a debate in which he has has even one round forfeited against him. I would like to remind voters that most of these forfeiters simply made no arguments whatsoever and went AWOL. Furthermore his own anecdote does not represent DDO as a whole, especially given many of his debate topics are generally of a less-serious nature (regarding fiction & anime/games etc) than other topics debates (religion, etc.).


Pro should automatically lose conduct points for this unethical tactic, against an opponent who is already pressed for character space to address even two normal rounds of arguments.

Fortunately this Gish Gallop was very poorly done. The following points were all ad hominem fallacies[1], and do not address the resolution that I will lose the debate, and instead addresses the resolution ‘Why my opponent is more likely to lose the debate’. Even this resolution he fails to demonstrate.

P.S. Thanks a lot to my opponent for conveniently numbering his list of gallop arguments, which saved me a significant quantity of character space.

Since my opponent openly admitted that he was Gish Galloping, and admitted his arguments were indeed all half-truths/lies, then we can safely disregard all of them out of hand! Furthermore, on examination, every single argument is either a non-sequitir or an ad hominem [1] fallacy with the exception of 14-18, which was instead a fallacy of equivocation.

Also my opponent hade a number of claims without providing any evidence, to which I can dismiss without evidence with Hitchen’s Razor [2].

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

My Credentuals/Credibility:

My opponent cites my inexperience at debating, which is true. Although my field in science has made me no stranger to arguing my case and writing in an objective manner, which is a trait my opponent seems to not yet possess given by the three rounds already posted.

Furthermore, I have several active uncompleted debates so far (plus this one as soon as I press the submit button) which will soon bring me up to ~12 debates, a 50% improvement on my existing record. 2 of my 3 losses are indeed a result of my forfeiture, but I showed that I also have a win where I forfeited at least one round. If you ignore the losses due to forfeits I actually have a very respectable 83% win ratio in the debates I put any effort into. And even my current 62.5% in ratio is higher than Pro’s 43% ratio (!).

Pro is still under the impression he still deserves the conduct point, presumably due to forfeiture, but he has provided absolutely no rebuttal to my opening statement which described exactly why this is false.

Unaddressed Arguments:

Pro has not addressed any of my arguments regarding Pro’s spelling & grammar & sources. Nor did he justify his position on the conduct point, and in fact seemed to concede the point in attempting to soften his second round rebuttal in order not to lose them. Further still Pro has not sourced any of his assertions, despite my requests to do as much.


Finally, I accept my opponent’s graceful concession, and his remark about people forfeiting debates and wasting other’s time. But this is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate, and can be ignored on analysis.


I hope I have shown why I and others can win a debate even whilst forfeiting a round, and I hope I have educated the audience in a few areas into what decides the winner of a debate. Pro makes an agreeable point that forfeitures should be reduced/discouraged, it’s a shame Pro neglected to apply the same level of effort in the remainder of his arguments.

Closing Remarks:

I would like to thank Pro for offering this debate and for following through on his role in it. I hope we meet again in future. The resolution is negated, vote Con!




Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
I was gonna post this in round 2....
unfortunately I forgot to.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Lol, Pro.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
*Cracks Knuckles*
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
This seems so cool... PM me when it's done to vote please!
Posted by draxhunter 2 years ago
Win against what? What's the topic?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty clear win for Con. Would've been a lot closer if Pro had pressed his advantage in character space and used all 8k of his characters in every round, but both of his rounds were really short. I don't even give pro conduct because he never responds to Con's arguments as to why we have to default give pro conduct. I *would* give conduct to con due to the whole "Gish Gallop" thing, but he does such a sh*tty job at it that I don't out of sheer pity.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's Gish-Gallop. S&G to Con (obvious). Arguments to Con as he made a genuine effort to seriously debate the issue, while Con basically conceded. Sources to Con (obvious).