There Should be a Greater Effort by the DDO Community to Vote on Finished Debates
From what I have seen, not enough poeple take time to vote other debates, I think it would benifit everyone involved if, as a collective group, we started voting more on finished debates. If anyone thinks that the amount we have now is perfectly ok, then please accept this challenge :P
All in all, the current amount of effort being put in should really be lowered to zero votes.
I will now display to you a quote by the great Karl Marx about this very resolution:
"Surround yourself with people who make you happy. People who make you laugh, who help you when you"re in need. People who genuinely care. They are the ones worth keeping in your life. Everyone else is just passing through." 
There is nothing more beautiful than a place where everyone around you just wants to make you happy, that is the beauty of a family and community as DDO should strive to have. A place where no one is a loser, where there is no number two to a number one.
In the words of the great Chairman Mao Tse Tung (aka Mao Zedung) himself "War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes." This is a beautiful quote by a fantastic politician and political philosopher. Rather than solving disputes through the score of a vote, we should be putting our effort into arming ourselves to overcome the enemy. Debating should be used to recruit people to our armies, not just for the sake of some pointless score! As the great Gandhi once remarked "an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind." and as Karl Marx says, "Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity." so we must fight each other, eye for eye, to become so blind that we consciously can see only what is necessary! Why waste effort on voting when we can use debating to instigate war?
Aside from the fact that voting is such a suboptimal alternative to the inevitable way that humanity always and and always will resolve conflict, the issue of 'greater effort' itself being put in is a big issue. If you try too hard at something it can over stress you, even get you anxious and depressed. Who would want such suffering for DDO's already hard-working voting community with proponents such as Ragnar, Blade-of-Truth, Lannan13 and 9spaceking? DDO already has people putting their blood sweat and tears into the art of voting and you are so ungrateful, so impetuously vile a person that you demand more of them? There is something about people who are never satisfied that really disgusts me, and I'm sure the majority of humanity. DDO has been running since the summer of 2007 and all you can do is say that seven and a half years worth of blossoming and blooming are not enough to satisfy your selfish standard of what you consider sufficient voting quantity?
You really debate for the size of a score? Are the scores on your debates not compensating enough for something else? Deary me, Pro, if you're that insecure about how hairy your armpits are just shave them!
You say you think it will benefit everyone if we ensure more votes occur on finished debates. Are you mathematically challenged? If more people vote on a debate, the probability of it tying severely reduces, thus it follows that the resultant proportion of tied debate son this site will rapidly deplete. If the proportion of tied debates is depleting can guess what's increasing? The amount of losers on this website! Oh you didn't think of that did you? What about their poor Elo scores? On this website you get 2000 Elo after your first debate is fully completed (unless it didn't end in a tie). Losers will, over time, inevitably feel emotionally hurt and cry and that is so cruel. Winners will suffer from egomania and overdose on happiness and that is going to encourage mental illness on both ends of the spectrum. As I already said, we should be using our efforts to rally up troops and kill each other so that the losers do not suffer form their loss as they are too dead to care.
I eagerly await your response, Pro, and wish you all the best in this debate. <3 Let's settle this by a gallant war unless you are willing to concede before the end. No need for voters, eh? :D
 "Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War" (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180. https://www.marxists.org...
Hey guys sorry for the wait, no time to waste, let’s get started…
XIX::: Introduction and the Arguments Concerning War
In his rhetoric based argument my opponent severely contradicts himself, he advocates a world where we surround ourselves with only people who we love and who love us, yet he then advocates that we mount a purge-like war against some vague ‘enemy’. How can we live in a world of peace where we only concern ourselves with ones we love, while simultaneously involving ourselves in a war? The fundamental truth of war is that you are concerning yourself with another person’s activity or vice versa, and therein lies the fundamental contradiction in your argument.
From the source you provide about how war is the ultimate form of settling contradictions I found this quote:
“History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust.”
For this reason it can’t be helped but claim that fighting a war in the name of killing alone is beyond unjust and according to your own source, should not happen.
XX::: An Apparent Misunderstanding
Next, I would like to talk either about the strawman argument or perhaps the misunderstanding of my resolution. In the resolution I never argue that we need to recruit more people to the site in order put the same amount of responsibility on them that is already in place, this would be ineffective in fact it is only you who inquires towards the notion of recruiting people at all. I’m truly sorry if it was misunderstood or poorly worded, but I clearly stated in the resolution, “by the DDO community” this refers to the present tense population within the DDO community. So just to make it clear once more, I do not want to add more people to the site for the ineffective reasons mentioned above. In other words the judges should discharge the following statement within Con’s argument:
“Pro contradicts their own resolution in round 1 when they state that rather than greater effort, per person, they merely want greater number of people bearing the responsibility of putting in the same amount of effort as is currently being put in.”
XXI::: Cap Good Compe good
Now here is where it gets interesting folks, My opponent has some weird ideology that the world should be engulfed in happy rainbows and dancing lemurs while simultaneously implying that we should prepare to ignite war on the enemy and kill as many humans as possible. The first ideology I mentioned is actually the problem within America today where nobody can be a loser, even 7th place gets and award and absolutely everyone has to be equal as opposed to equitable. His view is the reason that America’s educational system ranks so very low:
“On average 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. The reading scores for the United States had to be tossed due to a ‘printing error’.” -http://www.greatschools.org...
The fact is that life itself is competition and the point of a capitalistic society is to inspire competition rather than shoot for a world lacking it. I’m not sure how a “pointless score” exists as my opponent exclaimed earlier but I do know that we often try to rob others of the win and let people get satiated with how they are now, competition is used to inspire development and progress, to strengthen skills and become better people in the end. Do really think that the acclaimed debaters of this cite such as Mikal are only here to indulge in “egomania” in order to “overdose on happiness”? Futhermore, competition doesn’t benefit those who happen to win, one could argue that it actually helps the loser more than the winner because while the winner gets satisfaction and the knowledge that his skills have improved, the loser is the one recognizing that their skill need to be improved and thus losing can inspire passion to become better people, thus eventually making them long term winners. And what happens when they start winning? Others begin desiring that same feat, thus through competition we actually create more winners while strengthening our society as a whole. So clearly you can now see why Con’s points are invalidated.
XXII::: Letter to the Judges on Logical conclusions which Must be Considered
Finally I would like to note that If the judges take Con’s side, they cannot vote for him because then you are adopting his policy of never picking a winner and never having anything more than a tied vote, while the one’s who side with me can gladly give me all 7 points! :P
Thanks for reading thus far, I am curious as to what the possible responses to my arguments are. Back to you Con….
LayersofLols forfeited this round.
LayersofLols forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|