The Instigator
crapcarp
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Dik_Dawg
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Star Wars prequels were not as bad as everyone says they are.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Dik_Dawg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,176 times Debate No: 22542
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

crapcarp

Pro

The Star Wars prequels aren't as bad as everyone says they are. If anyone would like to challenge me on this, go right ahead! I'm hoping to change a few people's minds on the subject, or at least give them a new angle to see the films.

Without further ado, here are the rules:

The first round is for the opponent's arguments against the Star Wars prequels(be sure to follow this rule). The rest of the rounds are for our counter-arguments. That's all there is to it!
Dik_Dawg

Con

According to the topic, I must argue that the Star Wars prequels ARE as bad as everyone says they are. I define the Star Wars prequels as the set of movies that contain the storyline before the main story. I define bad as negative, and in this case, something that no one would want to watch. However, it is when it comes to everyone that my main arguement comes into place. Everyone can be defined, in this case, as all the people I have received opinions from. As my oppent has given no definition, I am allowed to use this one. Everyone who has shared their opinion with me says that the Star Wars prequels are not bad at all. That is to say that there are no negatives. In this way, as star wars is not bad according to everyone, I must prove nothing. Therefore I win!!!
Debate Round No. 1
crapcarp

Pro

A troll, huh? Well too bad I'm a troll assassain and will have no difficulty or annoyance in ripping your so-called "argument" apart. You seem desparete to get an easy win, and have probably not realized just how flawed your argument is. By being a smarta** and deciding that he doesn't have to prove "everyone" doesn't hate the Star Wars prequels, that must mean he must prove nothing and that he wins.

Really, Con? You couldn't take this debate seriously? No, you just HAD to be a smarta** and use the term literally(or just give your own term) instead of taking the debate seriously and in good faith by mearly arguing a point against the Star Wars prequels. I honestly thought that you could be civil and at least trustworthy enough to debate the topic seriously, but it seems my hopes were in vain due to Con's decison to be a smarta**. How pathetic, I am sorely disappointed in you.

Regardless, if Con wishes to debate like this, I will give clear cut definitions. And Con, before you think you can argue that you were allowed to use the definitions that you did, I will say this: It's my debate, I can change the rules, so there, a taste of your own medicine. How does it taste going down? Bitter I suppose, but you forced my hand, so it's your fault.

But I digress, onto the clear cut definitions: By "everyone", I mean anyone who is of the opinion that the Star Wars prequels are bad. By "bad", I mean of poor quality in any aspect of the films. By "Star Wars prequels"(because obviously I can't trust Con any more than I can throw him/her), I mean Star Wars episode 1-3.

It's over to you Con, I hope you can be civil about this and debate seriously, if you decide not to, I will be forced to cancel the debate. So please, for the sake of arguing this topic, please debate the actual topic.
Dik_Dawg

Con

I am not a troll, as con has stated, but was looking forward to a bit of an alternative debate. No definitions were provided by pro, so I gave my own. However, pro has decided that as he can not refute my argument he has decided to become uncivil and rude. I beleive he has ruined the debate by doing so, as it is poor conduct on his behalf. I was hoping he could think of an intelligent response but gas ended up slandering me.
I did use the term literally, as you gave no defenition I saw no reason not to.By changing the definitions, which apparently he has decided he can, he has completely changed the argument.
As my opponent has stated no new points there is nothing to rebut. My original argument still stands.
Voters have pity on me. I wanted an interesting and intellectual debate but got trolled. Many assume I am the troll because of my username, but that is certainly not the case.
Debate Round No. 2
crapcarp

Pro

Copycat tactic, really Con? Uh huh, okay, do whatever you want, I couldn't care less. You obviously don't wanna to debate the actual topic and instead decide to do more trolling. Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm also saddened. Afterall, I thought you would enact upon your potential and decide to debate the actual topic, but it looks like my hopes were in vain. Looks like I can't reason with the troll, so I'll simply not feed it. Still, it's quite disappointing.
Dik_Dawg

Con

Why is pro attempting to make me look like the troll? I simply wanted an interesting debate, yet my opponent slanders me. All I have to say is I am greatly dissapointed with pro. I recently joined ddo as my friend said that it was intellectual and had a good community. I am disheartened to find out that he was wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
crapcarp

Pro

crapcarp forfeited this round.
Dik_Dawg

Con

Dik_Dawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dik_Dawg 4 years ago
Dik_Dawg
Thankyou for your insightful and correct comment good sir.
Posted by DarthDefault79 4 years ago
DarthDefault79
I'm actually agreeing with the both of you. I agreed with you as soon as I saw your post; the prequels aren't as bad as a lot of people make them out to be. I also agreed with the conclusion The Contender came to, after reading it. For whatever reason you believe Con to be a troll, is irrelevent to me. To me, Con was just having some fun with how you presented your debate, and basically came to the same conclusion as you did, in their own way.
For whatever reason you believe Con to be a troll is irrelelvent to me, but I do believe they were just having fun, and ended up basically agreeing with you.
Instead of continuing the debate, you insult Con, insist that you can change the rules mid debate, and only then, do you tell anyone what constitutes "Everyone".
Since at first, it wasn't clear, was "Everyone" the people talking bad about it, or just "Everyone" you have asked so far? I think that's where Con was having the fun at first. But, in the first response, it was clear, Con also enjoyed the movies, but was just having fun with it. Instead of clarifying, you insult Con, and 'change the rules' to 'give them a taste of their own medicine'. I was not aware that was allowed in the debates.
Posted by crapcarp 4 years ago
crapcarp
DarthDefault79, why are you siding with Con? Con's argument, or should I say his argument was supposed to be, why the Star Wars prequels are as bad as the general consensus states. I was for the argument that they weren't as bad as the general consensus says. So your comment is rather confusing.
Posted by DarthDefault79 4 years ago
DarthDefault79
I'm going to side with con on this one as well. I thought they were crap til I saw them. I still don't think they're great, but not as bad as the general consensus tells us. How many times do we hear about how bad a movie is, or how much people dislike it, only to later discover on our own, it really wasn't too bad, or it's suddenly 'a classic.'?
Posted by Dik_Dawg 4 years ago
Dik_Dawg
Exactly. Vote with Con
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
No, they're not as bad. They're much worse.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 4 years ago
renji_abarai
crapcarpDik_DawgTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF the last two rounds. Better manners. better grammar and spelled words. Neither had sources
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
PeacefulChaos
crapcarpDik_DawgTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think anyone deserves to win this. People should only really use semantics either on: A) Trolls or B) Debates that are made so that the instigator obviously has to win. When Con defined everyone in such a way that he would win, he was using semantics, which is a loss of conduct points. Normally, I would side with Pro because of this, but then he began to slander Con, which is unacceptable. From there on, there were no acceptable arguments; thus, I am tying this up.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 4 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
crapcarpDik_DawgTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: What is this?...... Anyways, Arguments go to Con. Con effectively showed that "everyone" is those he has received opinions from. Pro could not refute this, and instead opted to curse out on Con, which gives Con conduct as well. Not only that, Con said it's his own debate. WHAT?! It is also Con's debate since he's debating it anyways.