The Instigator
littlelacroix
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
trendem
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Instigator should always set the ground for a debate

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,386 times Debate No: 6993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

littlelacroix

Pro

In any debate, the Instigator should be the one to set the ground for debating. By this, I mean no one should start a debate and say "I will let my opponent start." The topic is usually broad, for example, let's say "Abortion." By making his stance Pro, does he mean that he's for legalizing abortion or is he saying that he's for abortion in the instance of rape and incest only. When I join a debate, I want to know what I'm getting into in the first place and not being surprised when they respond by saying, "this is what I meant." Even if someone is willing to argue against all aspects of a topic, they should at least explain themselves instead of leaving any possible opponent in the dark.

Thank you
trendem

Con

I will argue that: "Sometimes the Contender should set the ground for debating." (That statement negates Pro's contention.)

My positive argument:
Some Instigators are prepared to argue any portion of a topic, and so they allow the Contender to choose a specific area of focus. This saves the Instigator the work of outlining all the possible interpretations of the topic in his first post,and allows the Contender to choose the interpretation s/he is most comfortable with.

Responses to Pro's arguments:
i) There are sometimes topics that are very specific, as for eg., "Resolved: the US federal Government should submit to the jurisdiction of ICC.", or, "The US Federal Government should legalize abortion." The intent of both of these topics is patently obvious to most people; hence, Contender can satisfactorily negate them and set up desired grounds.
ii) If the Instigator at a later time resorts to "this is what I meant", the Contender can say: "You didn't specify it earlier, and I have already set the definitions for this debate. You were given a fair chance, and you missed it. Any attempts to change definitions now would be a good reason to vote Con!" Thus, the Contender can use topic vagueness to his own advantage, by setting up definitions that favor him!
iii) Contenders know what they're getting into when they enter a debate. If they're too "in the dark" about the meaning of the resolution, they can reject the topic. So Contenders suffer no harms because of topic vagueness, because they enter the debate only if they like it.

For the reason that Contenders exposition can save time for the Instigator, and allow the Contender to set up preferred parameters for the debate, and because it carries no harms, I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
littlelacroix

Pro

Starting with Con's "positive" argument

I already said in my last argument that if the Instigator was willing to argue any aspect of a topic, it's okay, just as long as they explain it. By simply saying "I will argue any aspect of this topic," the Instigator is setting the grounds for the debate and preventing the Contender from having any trouble trying to evaluate the intent of the Instigator. Without this, it may leave a vague topic difficult to argue and may lead to confusion later in the debate.

Pro's arguments

I) In this argument, you are basically saying just because the Contender can, he/she must set the grounds for the debate. If the Instigator comes on this website and wishes to argue something, the Contender should know what they are going up against. If the Contender wanted to start the arguments, he would've started the debate himself.

II) This website was created for debaters to properly debate, not just to bulk up our profiles off bogus debating. If I wanted to bulk up my profile by debating like a weasel, I could just as easily cheat; but I don't want to have to tell the Instigator "it doesn't matter if that's what you meant," because I want a good, clean debate. I think most people on this site would agree that it's better to lose in a good debate than to win a stupid one.

III) This is an argument that could easily just be solved on the Pro side. If the Instigator were to start the debate, even with a brief statement giving their argument, it would avoid any possible "darkness" the Contender may have. Yes, it is possible to reject a debate, but why should we? It's the fault of the Instigator and it would make the website better if every debate in the challenge period were properly explained.

By the Instigator simply explaining themselves or giving their argument, we would be making for a better debate and that is why I believe the Instigator should always set the ground for a debate. Thank you and please vote Pro!
trendem

Con

trendem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
littlelacroix

Pro

I was really hoping that I could go an entire debate without my opponent forfeiting, but I continue my stance that the Instigator should always set the ground for a debate. I hope any voters look upon this debate and see who actually put the most effort into debating. Thank you
trendem

Con

trendem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
I don't actually agree that this needs to happen everytime (necessarily). For example, the Instigator could say "open debate", but then again, this would be 'setting the ground' so to speak. But overall, the Contender forfeits 2 rounds, thus I will always vote in opposition of this person (PRO!).

Johnicle signing out!
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'm sure most would agree with this, but who knows.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
littlelacroixtrendemTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
littlelacroixtrendemTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
littlelacroixtrendemTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
littlelacroixtrendemTied
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 Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
littlelacroixtrendemTied
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