The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Who Really Won in That Other Debate?

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 2 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 457 times Debate No: 85152
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Round one acceptance.
My opponent shall choose a debate (in the first round), that of which can be located on debate.org.
My opponent may not choose a debate that has not begun, or has not ended, before he accepts (in other words, he cannot choose a debate that no one has accepted yet, or not all arguments are posted before this debate begins).
My opponent also, obviously, cannot choose this debate, if that was unclear in the previous sentence.
Neither participant in that debate could have forfeited or conceited, and that debate shall not be a live debate (I.E., video debate), nor shall it be a truism (such as, the earth is round), nor a troll debate. It also cannot be a talent debate referring to skills such as piano, music, or any other talent that is not debating.
That debate chosen cannot only be one round, and neither can it only have merely one round of arguments (round one acceptance, second round post.....).

My opponent also cannot choose any of my debates, because I don't like analyzing myself and I know that my opponent's arguments (usually) are stronger than mine.

The debate must have at least one vote, unless both participants are above 3,000 elo, in which case the debate needs no votes (because I trust those guys :P).

My opponent will choose a participant in the debate to analyze arguments upon, and argue that the particular participant's arguments are better than his/her opponent's. Logically follows thus, I will argue the other participant had stronger arguments. If he chooses the loser, and the loser has lost by more than 10 points, then he instantly gains the conduct point (or another point) for free regardless of the true winner of this debate. On the contrary, if he chooses the winner who has won by more than 10 points, then I will instantly gain one point for free.

My opponent also may not choose any debate which he has posted RFD's (Reason for decisions) with more than 10,000 characters in total (all parts together).
Wylted

Con

I assume round one is acceptance. I think mouthwash won the following hall of fame debate against Daniellehttp://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

Mouthwash obviously lost the conduct point. There is no doubt about it with the 21K+ character round bringing unfair advantage to him. Despite such, most of it is quotes and is in reality quite weak--weaker than Danielle’s arguments. I will put his arguments within four categories: The unclear ones, the irrelevant ones (if any), the ones with poor evidence, and the ones with stronger counter-arguments. I will list his main accusations especially within round two as it is practically all his arguments:

“Danielle's first tactic was the resolution exploitation…...This is quite obviously lawyering.


Her second exploitation was to say that same-sex couple could raise families more effectively than SINGLE-PARENT families...


She lied. ...

Here's another golden argument: ….

anectodal evidence...

This is an obvious smoke-and-mirror tactic.


Danielle then made this argument: "On that note, much like adopted parents, gay parents typically have to go out of their way to have kids (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Meanwhile 50% of heterosexual babies are unplanned. Psychologist Abbie Clark explains, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement"."

...

This is not only another blatant smoke-and-mirror tactic, but also a strawman because I can't recall using anecdotal evidence to show that gays suffered from depression at all. I...


Next, she repeated pointless arguments that I conceded and had no bearing on the debate.


...

Now, this isn't irelevant if you're arguing whatever resolution she thought she was arguing, but not this one. We were talking about children being raised by a same-sex couple. Obviously what they do in bed is completely irrelevant to whether they have a stable, healthy relationship or whether children need both a mother and a father. She simply repeated herself and pretended that she had won something.


More: ...She was essentially saying that any role model, whether an uncle, friend, teacher, babysitter, or just a guy down the street could replace a father. I pointed out how ridiculous that was because fathers have a paternal instinct and in general care for their children more than someone else would. ...It was an attempt to distract me and the voters and avoid giving a genuine response. ...

I destroyed this semantic in the final round: "... I was establishing that there was a difference between being gay and having a gay relationship or raising kids in a SS home. I was avoiding semantics... because you literally said "Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior."


Still not enough:

...

Why did she bring it up in the first place? I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake. She pretended to have gained victory over some irrelevant point so that the less attentive readers would vote for her. She just repeated herself: "Con dropped this." ...

My response: "Here Pro tries to divert attention away from my actual argument. ...Again, classic strawman."


In her final round she made the bizarre claim that I should lose the sources point because "[Con] cited the same source 3x in the last round."

...


It honestly sounds desperate at this point. I can't imagine how that could affect anything even if she were right.

...After giving her my studies [http://www.debate.org......], she ignored them and pretended that they didn't exist. Not an exaggeration. Take a look.

...

That's it. Nothing else. She lied and pretended I hadn't given any sources because she couldn't refute it. The level of dishonesty and lawyering seen here is almost beyond comprehension.


And now, we have to address another important point: Why did everybody vote for her?


To be clear, I am not arguing that I should have won, but explaining why people seem to have almost unanimously voted in her favor when the cheating seems so obvious.


My opponent's primary tactic here was the "Gish Gallop." ...

But back to the original question- why did people vote for her? Becuase my round were constructed poorly and were too long, obviously. ….

Now let's look at the RFDs.

...

I'm just using them to establish that there was a reason why the debate seemed so one-sided.


However, just as Danielle pointed out, most of his accusations were merely quotes. He tried to make us infer why it was unfair, but he didn’t say exactly what made them “mirror and smoke”, neither did he precisely point out how it was lawyering. Even in later rounds, he avoids addressing these pressing questions and merely asking questions, such as round three’s “What exactly did you hope to gain through this argument other than proving that homosexuals COULD have the characteristics to raise children properly?” Mouthwash also focused more on trying to pinpoint the flaws in her arguments and “pushing the burden”. Danielle stated the crucial point in round 4 in that she in her original arguments tried to push her arguments to put doubt in Mouthwash comparing what they could do compared to what they actually can do. She also clarifies her point, saying that “THE STUDY IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING GAY VS. STRAIGHT COUPLES. Instead, the study was about finding specific qualities of couples in general (two parents) raising a child, regardless of their gender or sexuality. The entire point was to prove that like good parenting qualities, none of these qualities (like providing additional resources) were exclusive to one particular sex or sexuality either.” Danielle was also correct that her point about “sex lives had nothing to do with parenting skills.” was not really addressed by either “a) kids needed a mother and a father

b) homosexual relationships (not sex lives) were unhealthy”. (Mouthwash never stated how these were related at all!) In the end, Mouthwash misinterpreted Danielle’s arguments. He thought that the argument concerning parenting qualities relating to homosexuality or heterosexuality was addressed by Danielle, but Mouthwash accused her of strawman while in reality HE was the true one misinterpreting and drawing up and easier argument as shown from above.

Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

I win please vote me
Wylted

Con

Sorry 9space, I just can't find the desire to put any effort into debating lately, and instead of refraining, I accept like an idiot.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
I do not really know, I will not accept,
Understand what your doing I haven't yet,
So I will watch, and then later see,
What exactly you have done,
To another besides me.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
hmmm... does my revision clarify it?
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Well now my brother,
This debate no sense makes,
This debate or another?
Which one for goodness sakes?

What is your theme?
For I don't know what you profess,
Like in that song by that hoe,
You nod your head yes,
But you mean to say no,
What do you mean?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
9spacekingWyltedTied
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: Pro was the only person to make an argument and Con forfeited resulting in the loss of conduct.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 1 year ago
dynamicduodebaters
9spacekingWyltedTied
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: FF.