The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Losing
53 Points

The users known as Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r and s0m31john ought to play the next mafia game

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/25/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,780 times Debate No: 7104
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (22)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Full resolution: The users known as Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r, s0m31john and leethal ought to play the next debate.com mafia game.

Like my other debate topic, the first round will be the greeting round (unless I edit my first round and put in my argument). The second round will be where I start (my opponent is free to provide an argument beforehand if he/she wishes).

Definitions: We're referring to the users who frequent this debate site and go by those names. The "next mafia game" is defined as the one I titled "Debate.com Murder Mansion" mafia in the miscellaneous forum.
PoeJoe

Con

Alright, prove it.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Gladly.

===========================================================================
#1. Leethal ought to play because he has claimed he wishes to play
============================================================================

First, in regards to leethal, we must note that he has already suggested the game sounds fun and that he wishes to be counted in . . . as we can see in the comment section(1). Thus, I argue that he ought to play based on the value of hedonism (though not to be taken heavily) He ought to do anything that enables him to pursue self-pleasure while using this website.

============================================================================
#2. None of the aforementioned users have participated in a debate.com mafia game, thus should give it try
============================================================================

To quote a famous line from an equally famous individual, "You never know until you try." Although it's arguable that these users may have been able to observe the three games which have already taken place on this website, none of them have actually ever participated. Through participating in the game, they'd have a better idea of whether or not it was something which could entertain them. The best part about this line of thought is that there is nothing to lose. If any one of them didn't like the game as they were playing it, they could simply drop and allow other members who may be interested to take their places. Granted that other members often appear midgames interested in playing, they would easily be replaced even if all five of them wished to quit.

============================================================================
#3. Mafia helps increase website activity, hence serves to benefit debate.orgs welfare
============================================================================

If we are to take note of the Miscellaneous forum on this website, we should note that there have been 7309 posts contributed in the section. Of these post, 2,858 are solely made up on the three mafia games which have taken place on this site (the first one being relatively short due to being a newbie version and the third one with a large amount of the players being killed of quickly due to the style the game was set up in). If we crunch the numbers, that's 40% of the miscellaneous forum right there. To add, if we consider all of the posts on the forum, mafia makes up 12% of the posts made(2,858/22,266). All of this from merely 3 games. We must note that this doesn't even take into consideration the amount of website hits produced, but they are surely far greater than the amount of posts.

Now, I've pointed out this statistic for one very good reason: Debate.com is a rut at the moment. The site's own webmaster has confirmed that he shall not be able to do much about the many website problems, until there are more users. For you see, the more users, the more website participation. The more website participation . . . the more hits produced. And the more hits produced, the higher website ad revenue is. The webmaster's claims can be confirmed below .(2)

Moderator: "You guys and your conspiracy theories crack me up...LOL. Here's the reason for the change. This website doesn't make any money...maybe about $5/day. Yeehah! As such, it doesn't make good business sense to keep paying big bucks every month to lease the domain Debate.com. Instead, we purchased Debate.org, and now this site can stay up forever. You still won't get better customer support (sorry), but at least this site will still be up and running."

If we are to take into account that it is easy to conclude that Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r and s0m31john are highly interested in this website as evident by their high account activity which can be confirmed by their number of debates and/or forum posts (especially PoeJoe, my very opponent, considering that he created a website devoted this one[3]), then we can reasonable conclude that they are interested in this website's welfare. Seeing as how mafia is empirically proven as being beneficial to debate.com's welfare, it would only make sense that the following users lend a helping hand. And once again, they would be lending a helping hand to their own convenience and entertainment.

To add: I'd like to point out that each of these users could be recognized as debate.org top dogs due to their activity. Essentially, they could be considered celebrities here. What better way to get more people to participate in mafia games (hence benefit debate.org's welfare) than for this site's very celebrities to be playing as well?

============================================================================
Conclusion
============================================================================

For a brief overview of this round, the resolution ought to be affirmed based on the fact that leethal himself has admitted interest in the game, that the users mentioned in the resolution would have allow themselves an engaging opportunity at which they have nothing to lose and plenty to gain and that participating in a mafia game which contribute to debate.org's welfare (which all of them are evidently shown to be interested in.

And that'll do ii for now.

SOURCES:

(1): http://www.debate.org...
(2): http://www.debate.org...
(3): http://debatefans.com...
PoeJoe

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this wonderful debate. Considering the greatness of his skill, I know this will be hard. I would also like to thank the readers for taking the time to read this. Formalities aside, we proceed.

---- Claims / Counterarguments ----

(Quick definition -- DDO: Acronym standing for Debate[Dot]Org.)

RE: Leethal ought to play because he has claimed he wishes to play.

Not necessarily so. One's want for something is not justification for that something. A toddler can want a cool toy s/he saw on T.V.; that is not justification for the toddler to have the toy. Many teenagers are pressured to take drugs or have sex; that does not necessarily mean they should take drugs and have sex. I, personally, wish to have a million dollars; it doesn't mean I ought to have it, for I would spend the money on useless, non-contributive waste from China.

Not to mention, leethal is not relevant to this debate. The resolution reads, "The users known as Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r and s0m31john ought to play the next mafia game." There is no mention of leethal anywhere in that resolution. I ask my opponent why he mentions leethal as his introductory point. Could it be that this is the second carnation of this debate, the first of which my opponent threw out because leethal displayed confusion with, "That looks like fun, but confusing if you don't know the rules"? I kindly ask my opponent to explain.

RE: None of the aforementioned users have participated in a debate.com mafia game, thus should give it try.

Nor have any of the aforementioned users done a multitude of other activities. As I will claim later on, these mafia games weigh negatively on balance. Unless my opponent can claim that the aforementioned users ought to try and do every negative activity possible, this point does not stand. Sure, my opponent claims that there is no possible loss, but he forgets the time that will be wasted. Indeed, in a forum thread, three "celebrities of DDO" (including one included in the resolution) have told of the massive burden of pre-spring break work.[1] Time must be spent wisely for these high-school/college students. Indeed, as brian_eggleston claims, a mafia game requires persistent time attention every day.[2]

RE: Mafia helps increase website activity, hence serves to benefit debate.orgs welfare

But at what cost? Imagine if these mafia games had not existed -- had these seven-thousand-three-hundred-and-nine posts not been created, had forty percent of all posts in the miscellaneous forum, had twelve percent of all forums posts not been on mafia threads. As my opponent alluded to in his second point, mafia games do not contribute to outside observers. One must actively participate. So imagine if all the time spent on this random guessing game had been spent on informative/funny forum threads, on serious/comical debates, and on improving one's profile. Surely then the welfare of DDO would have been much better improved -- for my opponent forgets that mafia games only service those few who participate, and DDO receives half a million views a month.[3] I say, give the majority of these people who contribute to this five-hundred-thousand-page-hits-a-month statistic something THEY can enjoy; forget those few if DDO's welfare is truly your criterion.

RE: Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r, and s0m31john want to help DDO's welfare; therefore they ought to play.

I agree that Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r, and s0m31john want to help DDO's welfare; however, playing mafia does not help DDO's welfare. Playing mafia makes DDO an even worse website. Besides the fact that time wasted playing mafia could be better spent doing more contributive activities on this website, what mafia is is a forum game. As pointed out by PoeJoe and s0m31john, forum games hurt communities. That's why, as PoeJoe and s0m31john have said, most other forums disallow such games -- it is a bannable offense.

NEGATED.

---- References ----

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://debatefans.com...
[3] http://debatefans.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

===========================================================================
RE (2) #1. Leethal ought to play because he has claimed he wishes to play
============================================================================

In response to my argument on this issue, CON counters me by claiming that one's want for something is not justification for that something. To support, PRO cites teenagers wanting of drugs and sex and points out that this does not necessarily mean they should partake in drugs or sex, however, if we are to take note of my entire argument, then PRO's objection fails for three reaons:

1) I claimed leethal should play based on the value of hedonism (though not to be taken heavily). If the actions were to result in there being anti-self pleasure (such as how the implications from his example suggest), this wouldn't truly be upholding this value.

2) PRO's argument is merely side stepping the issue. Even if we are to agree with his argument, that still doesn't explain why Leethal ought NOT to play.

3) As I had pointed out in my later point, there is really nothing for an individual to lose in playing mafia (contrary to any of what my opponent has pointed out or may intend to point out). Thus, this response of his is utterly meaningless.

As for as Leethal not being relevant to this debate goes, if you'd be so kind as to take a gander back at my first round, I clearly point out the full resolution to this debate (in the very first line) (which includes leethal's name). Debater's on this website often do this given that topics aren't always able to fit all the information they wish to have in it. PRO has failed to give any reason as to why my clarification in my FIRST ROUND should not be counted, but even on the off chance he does so next round, he will have the burden of overcoming this website's precedent as well as the fact that he made no attempt to object to me clarifying on my own topic in the previous round. Both of these factors shall weigh down upon his claims considerably.

============================================================================
#2. None of the aforementioned users have participated in a debate.com mafia game, thus should give it try
============================================================================

In response to my claiming that the aforementioned users would have nothing to lose in playing mafia, CON claims that the aforementioned users will be wasting time. However, this completely neglects the fact that I've already pointed out that any of the aforementioned users could quit the game at any time if it became inconvenient to them, thus, this objection is irrelevant.

As for brian_eggleston's claim, we must note that not only has brian egglestone never played a full game here (thus making any testimony he provides on the matter not credible) but the average mafia day phase takes place over the course of many real time days, thus a user could simply pop in and read the posts at any time (which is generally the case, given that not only does everyone not live on the same time zone, but mostly all of us have lives outside of debate.org). Finally, the mere fact that users have been able to join in mid game in the past should serve as evidence against my opponent claiming that mafia requires one's full time/attention.

============================================================================
#3. Mafia helps increase website activity, hence serves to benefit debate.orgs welfare
============================================================================

CON responds to my claims on this matter by pointing out that mafia only benefits a few posters and that time would be better spent on posters contributing to informative/funny forum threads, on serious/comical debates and on improving one's profile. In response, I ask "Why not have both?" No one is insisting that users to contribute to one thing and not the other. I myself have managed to post in informative/funny forum threads and etc while actually MODDING mafia games.

Now my opponent believes that because each mafia game can merely service a limited amount of players at a time (so far, 20 or less), it is detrimental to this website. However, when taking into account the percentage of website activity which I had managed to show as having come from merely a few games, this merely hurts my opponent's position. In other words, imagine if the game were to grow in popularity. If there were a surplus of users who wanted to contribute, more games would have to be run in order to meet the demand. With more games being run at once, the number of website hits brought about from mafia games would augment considerably. Basically, meeting the demands of the majority is a simple task even when taking into account a game such as Mafia.

Finally, my opponent had alluded to mafia merely being a random guessing game . . . however, this merely reminds me of another benefit to playing mafia and that is that is a game which actually puts players in a position to rely on their reasoning skills. Indeed, as with proper reasoning, townies are able to deduce the identities of the mafia members and mafia members are able to fool the town. A game which provides one the opportunity to improve in this area is certain most appropriate for a website which prides itself on users outmaneuvering each other with pure reasoning ability.

============================================================================
RE: Ragnar_Rahl, PoeJoe, beem0r, and s0m31john want to help DDO's welfare; therefore they ought to play.
============================================================================

First, we've already established the mafia helps haul in website hits and that it's a game which focuses on one's ability to reason (which, again, is most appropriate for this website). In other words, it's a game which clearly has all the means to be beneficial and contributory. Second, CON fails to provide even one reason as to why mafia being a forum game automatically makes it bad. Ergo, you have no reason to consider his objection here until he does otherwise.

And that's all for now due to me being out of time. Till the next round. :D
PoeJoe

Con

Tis both my second debate with L-M and my second debate concession to him as well. Congratulations to him.

Thanks for the debate. I'll join next mafia game. :D
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

Looking forward to it, PoeJoe. :D
PoeJoe

Con

I signed up.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
When looking at the grand scheme of things, yes I suppose. Forgive me if my sense of humor is elusive as it usually is.
Posted by PoeJoe 6 years ago
PoeJoe
Funny?
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Mwa ha ha ha ha! Now that's what I call funny. :D
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I gave you points for joe's concession!!
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I suspect a lot of people . . .

A) Don't like me

B) Think I have multiple accounts and are hence "balancing the books"

C) Just having a good time exploiting a weak voting system. :D
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
This is definately an EPIC FAIL. How could people have voted for someone who conceded?
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
lol. I must be one crappy debater to lose to someone who conceded after the second round of a four round debate. :D
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
This is totally fundamentally different. Here we are debating an actual resolution. Something like "Let's have a competetion on who can find the funniest youtube debate" requires nothing. Here we argued points; we counterargued too. On your debate, you don't create; you find from others, so don't bother.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
I like how poe joe gets mad about all of the other debates like youtube and quotes. I guess it is ok as long as it is about him.
Posted by beem0r 7 years ago
beem0r
If only I'd seen this in time to testify of my loathing of said game.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con was winning initially but then he conceded. Therefore it is my pleasure to give the arguments points to Pro as I love mafia. Anyone who hasn't tried it yet should try it out.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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: Counter vote-bomb CodyFranklin
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of Con's points were already addressed by Pro...For instance, Con argues that mafia games are harmful and consist of random guessing, but, as Pro shows, such random guessing can at least constitute as one of the assets of the game...Con tried to note that wants should not lead to fulfilments of such wants, but even that does not negate Pro's point. Moreover, Pro dismantled much of PoeJoe's arguments, even in a rather embarrassing moment in regards to the (FULL) resolution (for Con).
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterPoeJoeTied
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