a microbe had a discussion with a bacteria, it lasted 5 rounds
Debate Rounds (1)
cant ever get to the positions so its impossible to ever get anywhere in the "discussion".. troll default
I'll accept vi_spex's challenge.
I might be one of few that understands what vi_spex is saying. So, I'll translate this as I interpreted it.
The title is "a microbe had a discussion with a bacteria, it lasted 5 rounds". vi_spex tends to use metaphors a lot, this being no different. 5 rounds is the maximum amount of rounds on DDO.
So I believe the resolution is actually "There should be a change in the number of rounds in DDO".
As this is a debate, I can't leave my opponent's statements unexamined. Let's see what vi_spex said.
"5 round is retarded.. should be 500 as a minimum" I don't think vi actually wants 500 rounds. This is probably just an example number.
"cant ever get to the positions so its impossible to ever get anywhere in the "discussion"" vi_spex thinks we're unable to be 100% certain about our ideas.
However, I find this false. vi_spex wouldn't have posted this debate had he not been certain about his position. And I wouldn't have accepted if I wasn't sure that 5 rounds is good.
vi_spex did post this debate, so he's confident that his position is correct. I have also accepted this debate, so I'm certain that DDO's 5 rounds is a good idea. This simple fact alone counters vi_spex's claim.
If vi_spex is uncertain about the position he took, then why post? It doesn't make much sense.
I don't think I have to make an argument, since status quo and whatnot. But I think it would be best if I addressed why the resolution is false.
The Pro and Con;
Every debate has a Pro and a Con. Pro's job is to show why the resolution is true. Con must show the resolution as false. However, you're not always going to be certain that you're arguing a good side. Suppose you're in a debate tournament, where they choose your topics, and what side you're going to be on. I could enter, and get the topic of "Is Donald Trump good?", which I'm not really interested in. But I would do research in that scenario, so I could try to win that round.
Debates aren't always about winning, though. Some people might start up a debate so they can learn what the opposing side has.
Suppose I wanted to learn about whether Abortion is moral or not. I wondered if it was moral. I would post a debate as Con, so the opposing Pro could make an argument, and I'd be learning about why abortion is moral by reading his/her argument.
Conclusion: I know vi_spex likes making 1 round debates, so I won't call him out. But I want to say this to the voters: Make sure your debates are at least 3 rounds long, so you can respond to the contender.
Other than that, you guys can decide the winner.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.