The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

When Mastery Starts a Debate, It is Hard to WIn

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 51190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I argue that when Mastery starts a debate, it is hard to win, because although con gets to "choose the topics", Mastery himself narrows it down to his most knowledgeable topic. With all his crazy rules that if you don't follow you lose points, it is hard to win against him when he starts debates.


I accept.
State your case! I want a proper argument and sources to refute them. What you have offered so far is pure conjecture.
Please do me the favour to lead this like a proper debate.
Debate Round No. 1


This man is mastery:
He has started all debates except one, which he accepted (which he also tied.)
I argue it is hard to win against Mastery because he has won 12 debates, tied 3 (two of which were not voted on), and lost 5. His win against lose/tie is very high, and his newest "Opponent chooses topic" debates are extremely effective, him losing one only due to forfeit. His elo ranking is relatively high, being in the 97 percentile, and he is very knowledgeable in all the debates he started, even the ones he lost, he provided lots of information and sources to support his claim.
His biggest lost (other than the one he accidentally forfeited on) is merely 9 points, (and that was probably his first debate, being very "noob" as commented) the others being 3,2, or even 1 point difference. As you can see it is very difficult to win against Mastery.
Even if there was a random chance of winning against Mastery based on his current status, the opponent would Win only 25 times out of 100. That's a very small ratio!
In conclusion Mastery is hard to win against. (Especially if he starts a debate. Then he ties only two!)


My argument:
Winning one debate is never harder than winning another. Especially on this site with its voting system. Debates are won by a majority vote.
This means that it is not necessary to convince a professional jury. It would actually suffice to have a bunch of friends whom you point to the debate and who will then vote for you.
It is highly important to find people willing to vote, which is why a forum thread exists for this here:
And while voters SHOULD not vote based on their sympathies, it would still be sufficient for an easy win if they did. So, winning is easy, even if not morally sound.

This means it is always equally easy to win a debate on this site, regardless of your or your opponent's skill. The difficulty in winning reduces with the number of loyal friends you have.

In the particular case of Mastery, if I follow your own link, I see that there have not been a lot of votes on his debates. So winning against him should be fairly easy, as opposed to winning against someone like Mikal ( ) who has up to 35 people voting on his debates ( ). In that case, you would need a high number of friends voting in your favour.

Logically, it is never hard to win a debate. Simply connect generally accepted facts to a chain of proof and find a contradiction in your opponent's chain. Just stay true to the closest approximation of truth possible, and you "win" by simply delivering the best argument.


In your initial resolution, you wanted to debate only a particular set of debates that Mastery started:
"when Mastery starts a debate, it is hard to win, because although con gets to "choose the topics", Mastery himself narrows it down".
So we are discussing his "Opponent picks topics"-series he has begun as of late.
When I asked you to state your case, however, you EXPANDED this to include all debates he started. I will not accept these additional cases, especially since they do NOT contain any "crazy rules":

As for these debates:
At this very moment, Mastery is LEADING in only ONE of these debates:
In this debate, his opponent forfeited. This means this debate is NOT evidence that it is hard to beat Mastery, as it was only easy to lose to him, by simply not responding.
In the other cases, Mastery has fallen behind since your last post. This was easy to achieve: I voted him down, and justly so (see below). So, it was quite easy for his opponents to be on the road to victory: All it needed was my vote.

As you can see, Mastery has won only 9 of his 20 debates.
Of the ELEVEN debates where his opponent chose the topic, he has so far won only ONE, which is still in the voting period like six others, the rest still being in the debating period or the challenge period.

He WAS leading in three more of these discussions before I voted, but he was in ALL cases only in the lead because his opponents forfeited. This means he might still have been easily beaten in a finished debate. So your evidence is not conclusive.

As for his debating skills: I voted against Mastery, because his "crazy rules" - as you put it - contained a clear mistake, making it actually impossible for him to win, had the other voters read his rules:

"3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments."

"YOUR arguments" is his OPPONENT, not MASTERY, as he refers to himself as "I" in the same post.
He has forbidden himself from providing arguments beyond round 2, yet he kept posting, thus breaking his rules, resulting in a clear 7-point-loss as he himself demanded.

Mastery has confronted me about this. I was able to point him to this contradiction, and he conceded:

"I'll be fixing that in the next version."

He has thus admitted that it was a mistake on his part, or else it wouldn't need "fixing".

I have thus beaten Mastery in a debate, causing him to admit defeat in four debates. I didn't break a sweat.

Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that winning against Mastery is fairly easy.

As for your appeal to probability: that is a classical fallacy.

Mastery is so far winning only ONE of his debates where his opponent picks the topic, he's losing 8 and tied in 3 of 20 debates, marking him as an average debater at best, and he has conceded a critical mistake in ALL of his previous "Opponent picks topic"-debates, which means he's actually lost all of those.

And I wasn't even officially debating him.

So, it is evident that winning against Mastery is not a hard thing to do.

Debate Round No. 2


I argue that because of the few people that vote on his debates, Mastery simply has to ask a friend to vote for him and he would turn the tides around. You unfairly vote against Mastery, and if you examined his arguments they are actually quite strong.
You have good points though.
Looks like I lose again!



"I argue that because of the few people that vote on his debates, Mastery simply has to ask a friend to vote for him and he would turn the tides around."

I consider this a concession that it is ALWAYS easy to win a debate by just asking a few friends. So you accept that Mastery can easily be beaten this way. It is thus conceded that it is not hard to win against Mastery.

"You unfairly vote against Mastery"
I did NOT. He set up the rules, and he admitted they need FIXING, acknowledging they are DEFUNCT. If he starts a debate on defunct rules, he is in break of conduct and that earns him his 7-point-loss which he himself demanded. I consider this absolutely fair.

However, even if it WAS unfair - which it is NOT - it would still be easy.

"his arguments they are actually quite strong."
Well, that doesn't mean they cannot be as easily disproved as others. The deductive method is fairly easy to apply.

I wish you the best of luck, and we hand this over to the audience, then.

Thanks, this was fun.
Thanks all, take care!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
Oops, last word was cut off:
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
As I said, I debated Mikal on the fact that his proposition on a topic was contradictory, and he conceded.
All debates are alike. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
It's not my fault if some people mess up the simple job of delivering a chain of proof and lose more often than others.
And if I say winning here is not harder on any debate than on another, that naturally goes both ways. It's easy for the other party, too.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear: Winning a debate is not a complicated matter. Much like opening an unsecured door.
That doesn't mean it will always work. You can always fumble.
In debates, winning or losing are only an inch apart, as it is an almost dichotomous problem: both cannot win, winning is exclusive. But debates are only TALK. What's hard about that? It's like two people trying to be the first to take a free seat. Only one can have it, but placing your behind on a square space is not a hard thing to do.
Will one party lose? Obviously, unless both stand down or lose to a third party.
So, you would argue that it's a hard thing to sit down only because others want to sit in the same place.

We're talking about different scopes here.
Winning a debate is an easy thing as it does not involve complicated things like building a jeep out of a can of tomatoes and a piece of butter. It involves talking/writing. Basic communication, thus. And a bit of common sense and a little research. And of course it doesn't matter whom you are debating. Your task is to build up a strong case as best you can. If you build a flawless proof of chain, what does it matter what your opponent argues? A debate is not about your opponent. It's about winning the jury/audience over. You can hardly expect to change your opponent's mind. They have decided their side long ago. But winning over the undecided audience, that's the thing, and there's a clear-cut method for it.

Now, building a spacecraft, THAT is a hard thing to do. Or fixing a broken rela
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
"No debate is harder to win than any other"?

Please. Try debating Danielle on any social topic, especially having to do with gay rights or women. Try debating Popculturepooka on theology, or RoyLatham on anything at all.

Perhaps debate topics are all alike when you are debating with small fry. Try debating someone who knows what they are doing, and then come back to say that no debate is any harder than any other.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
1. I said beating Mikal is "harder" than beating others because of how many friends they have. However, having friends is not an achievement, so the term "hard" doesn't apply to the debate, only to the VOTE.

2. I beat Mikal LOGICALLY in the COMMENTS of one of his debates:

Mikal had offered as resolution that "Prostitution should be legalized".
I showed him that it was already legal in several places, he conceded by changing the resolution. I didn't even have to try hard.
Mikal has won a LOT of debates by forfeit of his opponents, he engages a LOT in "noob sniping", picking easy targets.
On the drawing debate, he and his fiancee shied away from going against a pro.

Mikal is not hard to beat. Logically, a lot of the things he does don't hold.
Practically, it's only necessary to have more friends than he has. That is not per se a hard thing.

So, you see, no debate is harder to win than any other.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
Uhhh... winning one debate is NEVER either as easy or as hard as winning another. You can beat SONOFGOD but not Mikal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
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: Con provided good points that caused Pro to concede and admit defeat.