acceptance only for first round is usually a waste of time
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IsaacBigEars 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
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.