The Instigator
ConservaPedia
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
intellectuallyprimitive
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Wikipedia should be deleted completely

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...
intellectuallyprimitive
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 66340
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

ConservaPedia

Pro

Wikipedia spreads filthy liberal claptrap it says evolution is widely accepted Wikipedia is biased it shoudl ve deleted
intellectuallyprimitive

Con

Considering my opponents succinct opening statements, I shall attempt to mirror similarly. The resolution proposes that Wikipedia, the internet web site, should be deleted completely. I contest this notion.

Pro supports the proposition with his argument, wherein he states, "Wikipedia spreads filthy liberal claptrap."
It appears that Pro is suggesting the removal of the site is justifiable due to the "liberal" based criteria that is permeated throughout the site. This is merely an assertion. Pro then states that "Wikipedia claims that evolution is widely accepted." This implies that he is not a proponent of Evolution, which is irrelevant, but demonstrates that he himself is not impartial, biased if you will, in regards to criticizing the website. This contradicts his next statement wherein he states," Wikipedia is biased and it should be deleted." Pro seems to neglect that it is him who is biased, which I demonstrated above.

Pro appears to scrutinize the website with a political filter, or lens, which inevitably will obfuscate his ability to impartially analyze the content of the website. Rather than adopt a propaganda based review of the website, which he failed to demonstrate any liberal content within the site, examining the veracity of the content found in Wikipedia would deem a more formidable case to affirm the resolution.

A study conducted to represent the accuracy of Wikipedia as it pertains to drug information suggested that the overall accuracy and completeness was 93.9%. The degree of accuracy qualifies the content as a suitable and accurate source of information.

Over to you, Pro.

(1) https://www.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.plosone.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ConservaPedia

Pro

ConservaPedia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ConservaPedia

Pro

ConservaPedia forfeited this round.
intellectuallyprimitive

Con

No further arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Mike01506 2 years ago
Mike01506
I'm with the contender on this one.
Posted by Mike01506 2 years ago
Mike01506
Pro, Evolution is widely accepted. That's not really a reason to delete all of Wikipedia, that's just you wanting to delete part of it that you feel is untrue.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
It should be deleted, haven't you heard the case where a guy whom lived with his mother edited over thousands of articles on Wiki.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Unless pro begins to have a case in R2, this is already over.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 2 years ago
kawaii_crazy
ConservaPediaintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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: Pro FF, Pro uses unprofessional language, Con only has one or two grammar mistakes while Pro's whole sentence is a Grammar Nazi's nightmare, Con provided valid sources
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
ConservaPediaintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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: The only vote I'm giving to Pro is for the use of "claptrap". Awesome word!
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ConservaPediaintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
ConservaPediaintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
ConservaPediaintellectuallyprimitiveTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.