The Instigator
aoibhinn
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

chsTG has epically failed as a debater

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 6 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,616 times Debate No: 10854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

aoibhinn

Pro

chsTG forfeited a rap battle with theLword, an L-D round with me, and epically failed as debtor. End of argument
wjmelements

Con

This debate is assumed to be about chsTG's debating at the point at which I accepted the debate, and so all my references are up do date as of that point.

I negate that chsTG has epically failed as a debater.
Definitions:
epic- of unusually great size or extent http://dictionary.reference.com...
fail- to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved http://dictionary.reference.com...

Obviously not a failure:
-The user chsTG has won two debates [1] while losing none [2].
-One of his opponents admitted "I know I lost this one." [3]

Clearly, the user chsTG has succeeded as a debater, and therefore, he has not epically failed.

My opponent has asserted that forfeits constitute a failure. However, one that has not been online cannot be expected to post an argument. Therefore, the lack of an argument does not constitute a fail. Further, even if it did, such a failure would not be of epic proportions, for it was expected.

As a debater, chsTG has clearly succeeded, having lost no debates and having won multiple. The resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.debate.org... "chsTG has won 2 debates. Showing 1 through 2 records."
[2] http://www.debate.org... "chsTG has not lost any debates."
[3] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
aoibhinn

Pro

Now when looking to chsTG as an individual, or further more to his account in the ast two weeks, a consistnat pattern becomes apparent.

When chsTG accepted the debate challenge on the Nov/Dec L-D topic he acted all high and mighty stating that

"I had to accept this because your misunderstanding of Maslow is nausiating. To all you kids out there still using this crap as a criterion... let this be a lesson to you."
(http://www.debate.org... look at the comments posted)

Just analyze that one last sentence "let this be a lesson to you", almost reaching the connotation of a threat. After waiting two whole days for chsTG to post his argument for R1, he finally got online 20 minutes before the his debate expired, off course, given the consistent pattern that surrounds this particular individual, he had not the gall to post his R1 speech.

Looking to his debate with theLwerd, he was also online 40 minutes before his deadline with that debate, did he post.....NOPE. Not only did he not post a round one argument, but he completely disregarded the entire sch-peel, and refused to post one debate-rap.
(http://www.debate.org...)

Now lets look to my third and final example before i address the supposed logical issues with an affirmative stance on the resolution. chsTG vs Orele. The first two rounds involved a quite invigorating discussion, but after that chsTG stopped posting all together, refusing to respond to any of his opponents arguments whatsoever.
(http://www.debate.org...)

It is interesting to note that throughout this entire event, chsTG has remained consistently active, his most recent online login being 2 days ago. Thus the only way that chsTG could possibly have failed to post even a simpleton argument is of direct will, nothing else.
(http://www.debate.org...)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponents justification for negating the resolution is that it is
"Obviously not a failure:
-The user chsTG has won two debates [1] while losing none [2].
-One of his opponents admitted "I know I lost this one.""

But this simply is not true, for chsTG HAS lost one round of debate and will shortly lose another one in the future, not to mention the fact that he failed to post ann argument against me R1 thus negating the debate in its entirity, so chsTG HAS, according to the definitions provided by my opponent, "fallen short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved" in great size and extent. For he will, in several days, have achieved a win-loss record of 2-2, easily of great proportions due to the fact that this is a 100% increase in debates, significantly reducing his w-l record.

My opponent continues:

"My opponent has asserted that forfeits constitute a failure. However, one that has not been online cannot be expected to post an argument. Therefore, the lack of an argument does not constitute a fail. Further, even if it did, such a failure would not be of epic proportions, for it was expected."

Due to the fact that chsTG HAS been online during such periods of failure is can be assumed that said failures were of his direct will, and not out of negligence. Also, sine one is expected to post arguments when debating on this website, it would be expected for one to do so. Thus achieving the definition of failure, per my opponents definitions.

My opponents final statement is thus:

"As a debater, chsTG has clearly succeeded, having lost no debates and having won multiple. The resolution is negated."

Oh contraire, chsTG has not fulfilled his duty, and his obligations as a debater by willingly failing to post arguments, not once, not twice , but four times, each debate having an expiration period of 3 days, d to the fact he was online last 2 days ago, perfectly within the realm of postability, he has deliberately failed (i can not stress this point enough). Also given that he has indeed lost one debate and soon tolose another, he has epically failed as a debater.

Thank you for plodding through my rather lengthy speech,and i urge a strong Affirmative Ballot in today's debate round.
wjmelements

Con

I will now show why each of my opponent's rebuttals are irrelevant to the debate at hand.

First, my opponent brings up a level of arrogance and insult outside of the debating area. This is irrelevant, as the resolution regards chsTG's debating skills.

Second, my opponent again brings up chsTG's forfeits. The majority of the forfeits mentioned occured after I accepted this debate and should not be considered (because the resolution is in past tense). See my first-round clarification. The remainder of the forfeits (there were two), as I have already said, were probably not the result of poor debating skill. chsTG likely just couldn't post an argument in time or lost interest in Debate.Org altogether. This is evidence of negligence, not failure.

My opponent brings up chsTG's forfeit with theLwerd exclusively. That forfeit can be explained by lack of time to post an argument, which is not evidence against chsTG's skill; rather, it is evidence against his commitment.

Third, my opponent states that my facts (The user chsTG has won two debates while losing none) and (One of his opponents admitted "I know I lost this one.") are false. At the time i accepted the debate, as I have quoted, these facts were entirely true. This is all that matters within the context of this debate. Future losses are entirely irrelevant. The resolution is in past tense.

Fourth, my opponent has asserted that the past two forfeits are failures. However, such forfeits are not indications of chsTG's skill at debating. Even if for some reason they were, they'd have to be weighed against his 2-0 debating record, which means that he can not be considered an "epic" failure.

In conclusion, events that occur after the start of the debate are irrelevant within the context of the debate, chsTG cannot be considered a failure AT DEBATE of epic proportions, and negligence is not an indication of skill.

Thank you. I ask for negation.
Debate Round No. 2
aoibhinn

Pro

aoibhinn forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Within the context of this debate, chsTG cannot be considered an epic failure at debate, for he has won two debates and lost none. His few forfeits are rounds, while his two wins are debates.

Therefore, on balance, chsTG has not epically failed as a debater.

Thank you, and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Yes.
Posted by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
me?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Justify your conduct and grammar votes.
Posted by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
Sorry for the forfeit, i was away at a debate tournament over the weekend and had no opportunity to post my concluding rebuttal.

On the plus side i made it to quarters, and our squad (only of 8 debaters, with no forensic involvement) took power sweepstakes!!!
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"However, one that has not been online cannot be expected to post an argument." - Con

Actually, he was online 7 hours before he forfeited his debate with theLwerd. He could have posted but chose not to.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
nice approach wjmelements haha
Posted by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
chsTG nice forfeit right there man....
Posted by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
I have to say, i apologize for any misinterps, its a work in progress, so any changes that come out at the end of the round will be greatly appreciated. Looks to be very interesting indeed.
Posted by 146190 7 years ago
146190
This should be interesting...
Posted by chsTG 7 years ago
chsTG
I have to write a case. But i'm seriously doing this debate to prove a point so here is the order.

1) Biopower Kritik.
I'm going to go for the K in the whole round.

2) Overview: Civil liberties always come first rant.

3) Case (I haven't written it yet) but I assume it'll be something like you've seen before... I can't decide if I should go with the Social COntract or with Nozick. Or the harm principle. PRepare for any of them.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
aoibhinnwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05