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

acceptance only for first round is usually a waste of time

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: 7/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 77477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




it might serve some people a specific purpose. but usually it is better to just start out with an argument, let them respond, and so on.


Pro claims that acceptance is a waste of time in debating because "usually it is better to just start out with an argument, let them respond, and so on."

Why is it better to start out with an argument? You only assert that, but you do not tell me WHY this is the case.

This resolution is incredibly weak, and needs to be backed up with reasoning of your own.

I must make a point of my own: The acceptance round helps you clarify what you're debating. You can put rules and definitions in the 1st round, and the opponent will just say "I accept". This way, a troll cannot change your debate. The acceptance round gives you a chance to prevent trolling by putting in rules. Also, it's unfair for people to simply put in claims, and have the opponent quickly rebut it so that he blatantly wins the debate. (like this one) Also, the opponent would get more time to actually argue. Posting an acceptance round allows you to simply clarify on your topic, and then argue to keep it simple.
Debate Round No. 1


i dont think i needed to add much more, but i will say when you make arguments then they respond and you respond and so on, each person had an equal amount of times to say something.

when you just say "i accept" as con argues, they are just accepting rules when it could be stated from the get go that the opponent must abide by the rules. it may serve a limited purpose to clarify things, but usually this doesn't happen.. it's more like "i accept" and that's basically all.

at best, con showed how some might want to use acceptance only in limited situations. in reality, he showed weak examples of using it.


lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


You showed weak examples as well. You had extended your main argument and told me that I had weak examples without really telling me why. Don't vote for Pro, seeing as he couldn't even give me a proper rebuttal.

Acceptance round is very useful to clarify the debate and save more space for an actual argument. One may not be able to fit an argument into the 1st round. Also, somebody may need to gain more time for an argument, so they may use the acceptance round to buy them time. I apologize for the ff, although, you haven't posted a solid rebuttal that clashes with my case head on, not to mention, your resolution was very flimsy.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IsaacBigEars 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This debate is not so bad, con's arguements are more convincing. Con has ff but instead of pro using the advantage, he just described ff. Neither used sources.