The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
JediDude6205
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

You are not Obligated to Win a 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 1 vote the winner is...
GoOrDin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2016 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 87815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

IN a debate, " You are not obligated to win."

"You are obligated present a case you believe in, provide facts, dispute false contributions of your opponent, consider all content and context appropriately, and Always yield to the truth.

There is no dignity or honor in Stealing a debate by being an impudent troll who disregards context, disillusions the subject matter, lies to himself regarding the accuracy of his opponent's claims, etc..

YOU have no obligation to win a debate that you Lost by default or otherwise.

You are only obligated to present the case of the opposing idea and defend it as rationally as possible tot he best of your ability without dishonesty or insolence -

- A DEBATE"

Duh. so let's see some, _ Lack of Opponents on this one.
JediDude6205

Con

Contrary, a debate is all about deciding a winner. Whoever makes the most logical sense should be the winner, and it shows what stance has the one up in that specific subject. If there was no winner, then there would be no point in having an argument, and the whole debate would just fall apart from lack of structure.

However I do agree when you say, "There is no dignity or honor in Stealing a debate by being an impudent troll who disregards context, disillusions the subject matter, lies to himself regarding the accuracy of his opponent's claims, etc..",
because that also destroys the point of a debate, but when you say that there is no winner, that ruins the point of the whole debate. That would be like a having a boxing match, without having a winner.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

Am I correct to state that you forfeited?
JediDude6205

Con

JediDude6205 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

So, in conclusion,
we can agree that just because you enter a debate with one view, does not mean you are obligated to continually defend that view throughout the debate.

the function of a debate is to present acceptable facts which can persuade the opponent to admit that you are right.

It is never acceptable in a debate to use impudence and stubbornness as a tactic.

thank you,
everyone for participating in the spectating of this sport, and judging appropriately the content in the appropriate context.

cheers. to winners being on both sides, when we produce clear winners.

(it is also reasonable to note that, the opponent should in the first place believe in his arguments (with factual reasonability) and not insolently pretend to be defending the Clause, whether it be Pro or Con. As both parties are:

Presenting a Case. Both parties have burden of truth. I say, "There is a reason to do this.", therefor you say, "There is No reason to do this." - either way we must both contribute facts and defend our claims, not banter the opponent nd make things personal.)
JediDude6205

Con

JediDude6205 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
thanks Jedidude6205. I had fun.

on a side note. what is your favorite part about starwars?
Posted by randomman22 1 year ago
randomman22
First of all, you forfeited two rounds in our debate. You refused to insert a conclusion until you were given credit for your argument that was posted LATE. You then created an entire debate around someone being obligated to win a debate. I did not feel obligated to win the debate, but it seems that YOU felt obligated to get credit for your second round argument even though credit was not due. If would have simply posted your argument on time, I would have graciously accepted a defeat in the circumstance of me losing.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
alright. don't sway my opinion @randomman22

explain to me what you mean. give an example. And define "my own ignorance" via reference and illustration of facts.

this will be interesting. Considering my opponent forfeited.
Posted by randomman22 1 year ago
randomman22
It's sad that you made an entire debate around your own ignorance. I agree that no one is obligated to win, but when you continuously bring up the same point and "hold on to one sentence," you are pretty much contradicting yourself. I would continue but I don't think I could sway your point of view.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
:) and the winner is?
Posted by JediDude6205 1 year ago
JediDude6205
Nvm, I read that as there is no winner. lol.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
You can loose with dignity and not dragon 5 rounds.**
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I nvr said there is no winner. change your thesis here or you loose by default.

I said , " You are not obligated to win. / **No pulling teeth to stuff your ears with and prevent yourself from listening tot he crap filling up your own mouth, in an attempt to Win for no reason other than impudence."
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
he is actually pro homo and being a SH*t disturber. that's why.
Posted by Mr.Muffin 1 year ago
Mr.Muffin
Yeah I think it might be a little bit difficult to get an opponent. I do totally agree with you on this subject. I'm currently in the voting section of my own debate against someone who held on to a single sentence, didn't even make a debate, and said that all homosexuals should die because the bible said so. He then refused to make a legitimate debate at all. I agree with the fact no one is obligated to win, but rather that is based on your displayed facts and opinions that allow you to win a debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
GoOrDinJediDude6205Tied
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: conduct for forfeiting. Con conceded that winning is not everything, that trolling to win is not okay, which seems to contradict his point that a debate is ALL about winning. So overall, Pro's arguments were not really opposed, even though they were kinda weak. This is a really interesting topic.