The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

VIDEO DEBATE: WriterDave should leave debate.org

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 16 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,293 times Debate No: 23560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (86)
Votes (16)

 

Koopin

Pro

This is a video debate only. No semantics. Resolution is in title. First round is for acceptance. All seven points go to who makes the best arguement. Video can't be over ten minutes.
TUF

Con

****FRAMEWORK*****
Please view link, as my opponent has restricted the character limit.

http://www.debate.org...


With that said.... Gotta put this meme in every debate challenge I accept now...

Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

Sorry, if I seem rushed.
TUF

Con






I did this speech impromptu, so any speech slurs you notice, that's why!

Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. However, as I said before, this is a debate about if he should leave or stay, not about a ban. I said this in round one and round two. I ask my opponent to make a video responding to my points, and voters may choose for themselves.
TUF

Con

Wow... Didn't expect a forfeit.

*****CONCLUSION*****

Anyways, whether it is banned or him leaving, my points still apply to both. My opponent, whether out of laziness, or knowing that my points were more correct than his, has simply failed to respond.

It is strongly abusive of my opponent to say I have not responded to his points, as I thoroughly touched on each one. He strictly said the use of "semantics" should be voted against. Well, saying that my points are not valid over the difference of one word, when they still obviously apply, is a strong use of semantics.

My opponent has forfeited, and violated his own rule. Thus you can extend each argument that I have made.

I thank the viewers for watching.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
86 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
OK I looked up some of his debates, he seems like a nice enough guy.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
I have not run into this WriterDave but he sounds like a paranoid version of askbob.
Posted by Calvincambridge 4 years ago
Calvincambridge
Koopin you sound like Sheldon.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
What WD is doing on DDO: http://i50.tinypic.com...
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"Pro stated all 7 points go to whoever's ARGUMENTS are the best. As a rule. I usually would vote TUF for conduct point but TUF violated the rule of having videos under 10 minutes which results in a tie. Koopin's argument was that WD's mental health was hurting him if he continued at DDO whille TUF's argument was he had the RIGHT to stay at DDO. Resolution arguments. It wasn't about a ban but instead about if he should or should not. If TUF did another video, my 7 points would go to him. NOT A VB!"

How does a vote on conduct transition into that of arguments, VK?
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
Oldfrith
cfk
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Kfc
Posted by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
<em>What really sold me was the turn on site degradation. TUF points out that many people who trolled Dave are actually degrading the site more than Dave is because, while they resorted to insults, Dave was very respectful throughout the entire process and did not resort to any personal attacks. Dave is well within his rights to report offenses that he deems to be corrosive.</em>

This.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
People did not listen to the entire debate; most of TUF's points discussed why WriterDave should not leave DDO voluntarily; only a few discussed why he should not be banned (and since being banned would make WriterDave leave, and Koopin did not specify that this debate was only about voluntary action, Koopin has no grounds to complain about these points since they fall within the grounds of the resolution. I will ignore them, however, because Koopin loses anyways.) TUF used the rights analysis (he has a right to do as he pleases even if it harms him because he is only harming himself, which was proven through the analysis of the TOS) as well as the argument that he is entitled to express his opinions to liquidate Koopin's case. What really sold me was the turn on site degradation. TUF points out that many people who trolled Dave are actually degrading the site more than Dave is because, while they resorted to insults, Dave was very respectful throughout the entire process and did not resort to any personal attacks. Dave is well within his rights to report offenses that he deems to be corrosive. This was a clear win for TUF. I am giving conduct to TUF for the forfeit.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 4 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Arg big difference between Dave should leave as in on his own volition as in Dave should leave as in getting banned.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
KoopinTUFTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VK. Having a video go over 10 minutes doesn't mean that the argument is worse. Giving Koop conduct though.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
KoopinTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated all 7 points go to whoever's ARGUMENTS are the best. As a rule. I usually would vote TUF for conduct point but TUF violated the rule of having videos under 10 minutes which results in a tie. Koopin's argument was that WD's mental health was hurting him if he continued at DDO whille TUF's argument was he had the RIGHT to stay at DDO. Resolution arguments. It wasn't about a ban but instead about if he should or should not. If TUF did another video, my 7 points would go to him. NOT A VB!
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
KoopinTUFTied
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 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: See comments
Vote Placed by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
KoopinTUFTied
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: From the resolution, it is quite clear that "WriterDave should leave debate.org" PRO meant that WriterDave should leave voluntarily. CON asserted that WriterDave has the right to remain on DDO and should not be banned. However just because one has the right, does not mean one should. TUF even conceded that DDO is likely harmful to WriterDave's health and is not the right place for him, which gives PRO the win. PRO loses conduct points for not doing a video in the last round.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
KoopinTUFTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate was a mess. See comments.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
KoopinTUFTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made his arguments against the resolution based on a misunderstanding thereof, but extended his arguments to apply to the resolution as Koopin construed it. All of these arguments applied, and Koopin did not address them. Con therefore wins on the arguments. I also feel that Pro should lose conduct for instigating the debate in the first place, but I know that'll just be countered by someone who'll say I'm being subjective.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
KoopinTUFTied
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 should have mentioned the discrepancy in a video. In his flippant dismissal of Con's arguments, he concedes most of Con's points. A debater can't name one flaw in an opponent's multivariate case and expect to win as a result. TUF should get conduct, but at the same time, Koopin made some great points, so I'll spare a point.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
KoopinTUFTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
KoopinTUFTied
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: [Disclaimer: This is not a votebomb/counter. I read the entire debate.] Koopin's point on WD's popularity was subjective and violates no site rules. WD's misunderstanding of member interactions and slang may be irritating, but he clearly has some compelling reason to stay. The site being a danger to WD was Pro's most compelling argument. However, as Con pointed out, this talk has lessened of late and WD has noted that the site has actually taken steps to improve his mentality. Args to Con.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
KoopinTUFTied
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: Con misunderstood the debate (conduct). Pro gave better arguments. WriterDave should leave for his own mental health. Also, he's threatening to sue the site. Obviously he doesn't like it. He should leave.