The Instigator
MisterDeku
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 35425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

MisterDeku

Pro

= Disambiguation =
Pro will argue that individuals who practice veganism on a a moral principle should prefer freeganism as a morally superior diet.

= First round =
This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate.

If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate.

= Rules =
1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be one clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round.

2. The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast.

3. No semantics!

= Definitions =
[1] Vegan: "a strict vegetarian; someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all"
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] Freegan / Freeganism: "Freeganism is an anti-consumerist lifestyle whereby people employ alternative living strategies based on "limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources"."
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
RedDebater

Con

I accept and wish my opponent good luck. To clarify this argument, it is simply one asking which dietary lifestyle is morally superior to the other. Pro is arguing for freeganism and I for veganism.
Debate Round No. 1
MisterDeku

Pro

This debate is over. Con has forfeited all 7 points by posting something other than the phrase 'I Accept.' in his first round. Had Con really felt the clarity he provided was necessary to the debate, he had means of adding this clarity by posting it in the comments prior to accepting. Because he chose to do otherwise he has lost.
RedDebater

Con

This could have made an excellent debate, though my opponent seems too afraid to pursue, instead turning to minor inconveniences to clarify a win over me. I'll admit to not following the strict rules completely, but I do not think it fair to call this a loss. I say a tie and a rechallenge between the two of us would be a better grounds than to part on trodden ground so to speak.
Debate Round No. 2
MisterDeku

Pro

Con, you're the one who broke the rules in the first place. I don't appreciate you calling me a coward because you decided that it wasn't important to debate in the manner the instigater specified.

I will not concede to a tie. I have no interest in messing up my debate record because of Con's mistake. I've re-issued this challenge and it is currently in the open debate section. If Con would like to accept it instead of talking smack about me, I would be more than willing to debate him again. I wouldn't have issued this challenge in the first place if I didn't want to debate this resolution.
RedDebater

Con

I apologize for appearing to have insulted my opponent. The afraid bit was more of a bit of humor than a serious accusation.

I would like to clarify that I did want to take this debate seriously (being a vegan myself). I'd also like to point out that a tie has no impact on one's debate record (a look at my profile will prove that). Only losses pull down a 100% streak. Also, my opponent cannot predict the future and expect only wins, so I'd advice him/her to be a bit more open to loss.

I'd love to redebate with my opponent, but I cannot debate him again due to me already being engaged in a debate. As such, we'll have to complete all rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
MisterDeku

Pro

Guys, I'm not going to dodge this issue. I don't really care to have a pointless tie debate on my record because my opponent didn't follow the rules. I am more than willing to have this debate with him; but he's going to have to follow the rules. I get that this issue isn't a big deal to him, but it is to me.

I realize that at some point in the future I'm going to lose. I've been debating for a good number of years now and I'm not going to throw a fit because I lost a round. That said, who actually wants to lose? And for that matter who wants to have a tie? Both of those things kind of suck no matter how used to them you are, and I don't have any desire to tie a debate because my opponent doesn't want to lose.

Further, whether my opponent meant his statements as a joke or not are irrelevant. When you make those kind of statements on the internet devoid of any context, they can come off as offensive and/or immature. But it's not even that there was no context For me, they came off as an attempt to bait me into debating despite Con breaking the rules I set out for this debate to operate under.

Anyway, like I said in the very first round, posting anything other than the phrase 'I Accept' in the first round is grounds for a full forfeiture of the round. Hopefully Con will take this as a lesson and make sure to fully read the rules for a debate before accepting it. I've recreated this debate and it is currently in the open debate section. I welcome my opponent to accept it and try to give me this loss back.

But for now, vote Pro.
RedDebater

Con

My opponent and I come from different backgrounds so evidently that's how it is in perception. He cannot impose his values/beliefs upon me and expect them to be fully followed. Would anyone give up their freedoms for someone they have never met/do not know?

My opponent makes a claim that he's been debating for years, yet if you look at his profile you'll see that he only joined 2 days ago. Whether or not he meant on this site is irrelavant as he is only concerned with his image on this site. My opponent fails to realize the old-fashioned trait that winning is everything is false.

I'm don't claim to have lost and I won't. But unlike Pro, I'm not claiming to have won.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
I don't want to have this debate deleted, especially when I do not believe I deserve to have tied it. I think it sucks how the community is responding to this debate, but it looks like I don't have much of a choice. That's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

I fully contend that the Instigator's right to frame is important, and justified whatever negative conduct I have supposedly shown in this round. If this debate ends as a tie with all of these condescending RFDs, then so be it. I disagree with them wholeheartedly, but I've learned by now that how it is sometimes.

DDO gives us a fantastic platform to debate online, and it also gives us the opportunity to appeal a vote we disagree with to the community. This time it didn't work out so well for me, but I'm not going to have a debate deleted because I don't like the way it turned out.

I don't want this debate deleted, but I don't support this abuse of the voting system as it has happened either. I broke no rules, and I cannot see what was wrong with my conduct by enforcing the rules. I've heard arguments say theules seemed strict, but since when is that a justification for outright ignoring the rules of a debate because you don't like them?

And RedDebater, regardless as to whether or not you intended to abuse the framework of the round in this way, you still violated my right as the instigator to frame the round. That's my big problem here. I wanted to avoid that framework debate in the first place. That's why I posted that rule. I created the debate, and I had the right to frame it the way I wanted to. I would have had to spend much more character space than I had allotted to me in this round to defend that right had I disagreed with your clarification.
Posted by RedDebater 3 years ago
RedDebater
F-16, I'd like to clarify that I had no intention of "sneaking in points" and I honestly don't understand that tactic either way lol.

Yes, you have my full consent to have this debate deleted if it will resolve this whole issue once and for all.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I think you make some good points with regards to contenders sneaking in points to create their own framework. I think you can have the debate deleted with the consent of your opponent by PMing Airmax1227. If both debaters agree, Airmax generally agrees as well although it is up to him. Perhaps you can have the debate deleted so it doesn't show up on either of your records. I am sure neither of you want this tie anyways. Once the do that, perhaps rechallenge your opponent who I am sure would have learned by now to only post "I accept" in his opening.
Posted by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
F-16, I will gladly explain.

Since the on-case clash never happened I couldn't tell you exactly whether or not his analysis would have been a problem. I don't know how I would have taken this debate as I hadn't written my arguments yet. I've re-started this debate with Noumena, and in that debate I did follow a fairly similar line of reasoning where the two diets were in conflict.

Regardless of how I wanted to interpret the round, the issue here is that Con blatantly ignores the rules, and in doing so violates my right to frame the debate in my first round. If I had intended for a different kind of argument to take place, I would have had to waste character space on a meta-debate I wanted to completely exclude in the first place.

The contender is making framework arguments before I get the chance to do so. I've seen time and time again where the contender to a debate will post these kinds of sneaky framework arguments in the acceptance round, and skew whatever the intent of the instigator was. This happens when the contender posts statements about the nature or rules of the round before the debate actually starts, and that's exactly what Con did in this debate.

There was character limit of 4000 per round in this debate, and int he even that his clarification wasn't in line with my original intention, I would have had to waste a lot of space correcting Con's false assumption.

That's why I included that clause in the first place; the intention behind the analysis is irrelevant because no matter what it takes away the instigator's opportunity to frame the round. I didn't want to have to deal with that, and so on principle I didn't debate the round after Con broke the rules.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MisterDeku, can you explain how your opponent's clarification hindered your ability to debate exactly what you wanted? Do you disagree with his clarification? I am a big fan of holding the instigator's first round to be completely non-negotiable so I'd have happily given you the points if you had pointed out what your problem was. I won't at this point since you didn't do it in the debate but I am still interested in knowing why you had an issue with his clarification.
Posted by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
Explain how I was harsh for enforcing a rule? Whether it was innocent or not I shouldn't have to cover for his failing to read the rules.

Aside from what about the fact that Con actively baited me after I called him on breaking the rules?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Deku, I can't vote on this because I think you were to harsh on your opponent for breaking the rule, it didn't really interfere with the debate apart from making a statement on how he would like to proceed, this could have been easily resovled....I am sorry man but it seems like a cheap shot.
Posted by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
Just because you don't assign points, doesn't mean you aren't voting.

If you want to debate me send me a challenge. I'll be happy to oblige. I'm already redoing this debate with Noumena, but if you're set on this resolution I'll gladly have it a third time.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Which category did I vote on? Looking over it I can't seem to find it, not argument; sources; S&G; or even conduct. Your clause saved you from winning conduct, but losing argument; as neither side won.

You want votes, debate something. Heck challenge me to a debate on if this was a fail debate or not, it'll be a great chance for you to quote your arguments in support of the resolution.
Posted by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
Ragnar, do you realize you just cast a vote while quoting a clause in the debate which states that no vote should be case in the event you think the debate to be a tie? What I did was in no way wrong. I posted explicitly that the only thing which should have been posted in Con's first round was 'I accept', and that by posting otherwise would constitute a full forfeiture of all seven points in the debate. Why is it justified to vote otherwise simply because you don't like how I set this debate up to operate?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
MisterDekuRedDebaterTied
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: CVB
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MisterDekuRedDebaterTied
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: FAIL (neither side seemed to stay anywhere near the resolution)! "The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast." This debate could have been interesting if pro had been interested in debating it, instead of attempting to gain a free semantics victory.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
MisterDekuRedDebaterTied
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: The rules are self-contradictory. It states that clarity is allowed, but that only the phrase 'I accept' should be posted. Since the rules are self-contradictory, they are irrational. Ergo, they should not be imposed on anybody.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
MisterDekuRedDebaterTied
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: Pro states that Round 1 is for acceptance and clarity. Since Con didn't use Round 1 for anything other than acceptance and clarity, despite not posting exactly the phrase "I accept" Pro's response was excessive and unjustified. Similarly, however, in accepting the debate Con should have explicitly followed the rules - making clarifications in comments or PM. Neither Pro nor Con deserve conduct. If Pro wished to avoid a tie on this debate, he should have followed through with arguments, pointing out the conduct violation.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
MisterDekuRedDebaterTied
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: Pro, this was UTTERLY ridiculous. I'm not giving you your seven points on the grounds that your response to this situation was disproportionate, needlessly aggressive, and downright rude. Any capital you gained from Con (accidentally) disobeying your rules was reversed by your reaction to the situation.