The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
salam.morcos
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Trolls are generally bad evil creatures.

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 3 votes the winner is...
salam.morcos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 77631
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Max.Wallace

Con

So sayeth the politically correct brainwashers.

If you disagree with my stance, do not take the debate unless you are prepare to argue in the first round. I made the statement, argue, or don't take the debate.
salam.morcos

Pro

I reject my opponent's resolution that "Trolls are generally bad evil creatures". I do not accept this resolution, and I consider that this debate commits not only one, but two violations. I am basically running a Kritik on this resolution.

Violation 1: Labeling trolls as "bad evil creatures" is unacceptable

The violation is glaringly evident. No one or any group people should be labeled a derogatory term like the one in this resolution. To label trolls as "bad evil creatures" is setting a stereotype against trolls that can have negative impacts to them. If a good debater somehow manages to win the Pro side, a misguided person may perceive that all trolls are actually bad and evil.

Also there are some fantastic troll debates out there instigated by imabench that made me laugh really hard [1]. At the same time imabench is a fantastic debater winning 427 debates and has an Elo ranking of 4,310 [2] (That's more than the two of us combined). In this sense, this troll debate added value to DDO. I feel offended if imabench was labeled as bad evil creature. I personally was considering doing a troll debate, and I feel offended that I would be label as bad and evil.

Also don't forget the psychological negative impact of labeling someone as bad. Labeling someone as evil has led to people killing people for that reason [3]. It can lead to verbal abuse which has massive negative impacts:

"fear and anxiety, depression, stress and PTSD, intrusive memories, memory gap disorders, sleep or eating problems, hyper-vigilance and exaggerated startle responses, irritability, anger issues, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, self-mutilation, and assaultive behaviors." [4]

I can go on and on. Labeling someone as "bad evil creatures" should not find a place in DDO. If my opponent was trying to defend trolls, he should have been careful and labeled the debate as "Trolls are good people" or "Trolls should be able to debate".

Role of the Ballot is how a voter should evaluate the debate. A debate is an attempt to "to foster international understanding, cooperation, and a free and lively exchange of ideas" [5]. This also involves fun debates. Jon Stewart vs. O'Reilly was a joke debate, but it was very funny and had value too [6]. This is why I urge the voter to award me all 7 points to set an example to my opponent.

Kritik

I ask kindly that if you don't know what a Kritik is, that you refrain from voting on this debate. However, I hope that this debate serves as a good example on how to run a Kritik. But for the Kritik to be successful, I have to establish 5 elements [7]:

1. Violation - Labeling anyone bad or evil unacceptable
2. Link – The resolution precipitates this valuation because it labels trolls as "bad evil creatures"
3. Impact – I've established many significant impacts, including:

- It undermines trolls and their value.
- It can lead to verbal abuse which has significant impacts as shown before.
- It also may encourage good debaters such imabench to leave the DDO site.
- It would prevent us from good troll debates.

4. Alternative – I've demonstrated an alternative by clearly labeling the debate in a way not to offend anyone. If it's a troll debate, to label it as such.

5. Voter – I've demonstrated the Role of the Ballot and why the voter should vote for me with all 7 point.

Violation 2: Unfair debate

It's extremely rare to find multiple violations in a debate that can be Kritik'd, but this debate actually has a second violation. My opponent is clearly trying to get an easy win by setting a resolution that's outrageous and taking the Con side of it. It's like someone arguing that "We don't live on planet Earth" and taking a Con position. Or, someone who says "My opponent/Jews/Blacks/Muslims/Atheists/Christians/<Enter a group> should be killed" and takes a Con position. These are not appropriate debates if they are not meant to be troll debates. They are considered as "Truism", which "is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning" [8]. My opponent is clearly trying to get a cheap win given his weak record of 22 wins and 104 losses. In the DDO guide, it explains that regarding truisms: "As a debater, never start a debate in favor of a truism. It's a cheap tactic." [9]

As I stated earlier, debates have a lot of value and generates thoughts and ideas. I've changed my stance on the Death Penalty as a result of debating. Engaging in cheap debates just for the sake of winning point should not be encouraged. This is why I ask the voter again to award all 7 points to me.

There are other impacts. Many debaters might end up leaving. They might feel that there aren't many interesting and valuable debates out there. Just this morning, an amazing debater Lexus left DDO because she wasn't able to find good debates. So what my opponent should have done is provide a thought provoking debate that helps the DDO community rather than hurt it. For Truisms, my opponent could have started a forum post stating why trolling is good or why trolls should remain in DDO or necessary for DDO. These are positive messages that he would have shared. Also, he could have explained that it's a troll debate, which he failed to do.

Kritik

Again, I was able to establish the 5 elements related to this Kritik:

1. Violation – Truism debates are bad
2. Link – The resolution pertains to truism
3. Impact – I've established many significant impacts, including:

- It undermines the value of debating
- It can lead to good debaters leaving the DDO community
- They don't provide good value to the reader so it's basically a waste of time
- It becomes all about winning, and not about presenting valuable arguments

4. Alternative – I've demonstrated several alternatives such as using the forums, or labeling the debate as a troll debate.

5. Voter – I've demonstrated the Role of the Ballot and why the voter should vote for me with all 7 point.

Thank you. Please vote Pro.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[4] http://www.healthyplace.com...
[5] http://idebate.org...
[6] https://youtu.be...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] https://docs.google.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Con

I apologize, but your sources are 100% meaningless to me, so those should be scrubbed from your argument, as they are purely propaganda from the sources you chose. Deny that, please. You could find "sources" that disagreed sincerely, and wih as much evidence, if you tried.

You are a political "scientist", no?

Experimenting?
salam.morcos

Pro

My opponent failed to challenge my Kritik of the resolution.

My opponent's comment that the sources are "100% meaningless to [him]" and that "
they are purely propoganda
" is a bare assertion and has absolutely no basis. My opponent failed to present how and why my sources are meaningless. He didn't demonstrate that my source (for example) were unrelated, unreliable, fabricated, biased...etc. He didn't even present other sources that contradict my claims. I will also add that my Kritik is logically coherent, and these sources are only there to support my claims.

Therefore, I extend all arguments. I reiterate to the judges the importance of awarding me all 7 points as I've shown that the resolution is inherently unacceptable, and that this type of "cheap tactics" in a debate ought not to be promoted and encouraged within DDO.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Con

My critique of your argument is a reflection of the world's conditions, due to power mongering Ivory Tower scientist's such as yourself. Period. Your argument makes me want to take a dump, so be it. Thanks!
salam.morcos

Pro

My opponent failed to address my Kritik. I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Max.Wallace

Con

So, uh, I am supposed to dispose of common sense and devote myself to understanding the term Kritik, whatever. You have been spoon fed Ivory Tower nonsense IMHO. I will not debate your fantasy of the importance of the kritik. Wanna talk about the importance of learning what people that do dirty work feel like. No, you will run to your high priest ans spout nonsense, such as, "I should win because I know what a KRITIK is!" You need to get some common sense, as less then 1% of the population knows what you are talking about.
salam.morcos

Pro

My opponent failed to address my Kritik. I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Max.Wallace

Con

The DDO rules do not define a winning debate as providing a impervious Kritik anywhere. If a Kritik is the only way to win a debate then vote for the sheppard, not the black sheep. Fduck this world, straight to hell.
salam.morcos

Pro

My opponent failed to address my Kritik. I extend all arguments.

I never claimed that Kritik is the only way to win a debate, but in cases like these a Kritik like the one I presented is warranted.

As I explained earlier, please vote Pro and award me all 7 points as I was able to demonstrate that such debates ought not to be promoted or encouraged. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
hold on pro ill vote 2morrow, and im pretty sure you know who its gonna be for
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I am just contemplating the aspiring lawyer/politician's argument. I am not contemplating the opponents sources, as sources lead to wars about WMD's that were either hidden by...., or did not ...... Sources are cushions for your lies.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
@salam -- that's a theory shell, not a K.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Chain 2 years ago
Chain
Max.Wallacesalam.morcosTied
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: Con did nothing but complain after pro's first post. Con had nothing going for him. Also con ignored the Kritik.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Max.Wallacesalam.morcosTied
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: Pro wins entirely on the Kritik. I found the first Kritik insufficiently explained, but the second Kritik was sufficient to negate by showing that the Neg position is a truism, and truisms cannot be debated fairly. Con drops all Kritiks, so I am obliged to vote Pro on basis of the Kritik. Con fails to make an argument of any sort. Ergo, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Max.Wallacesalam.morcosTied
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: Pretty awful conduct from Con throughout the debate, just generally maligning Pro and debate in general in an effort to avoid answering the Kritiks. In that effort, he doesn't even take the time to partially address the Kritiks. I think both had very reasonable points to attack. Con could have even just stuck to his case and taken the time to expand upon it. Maybe that would have garnered him a vote. But given the complete lapse in both departments, and given Pro's extensive analysis and voters, my vote must go to Pro.