I accept. I am new to this site. This is my first debate. I have read some of the other debates and looked at the forums, so I have a general idea of now the format works. From what I can gather, I am contesting the claim that “the demographics of this site” reveal a bunch of liars, liars that are cowardly. However, I have looked at many of the debater’s profiles, especially those with the top ELO rankings and can find no definitive evidence that they are liars and definitely not “cowardly liars.” Therefore, while there may be liars and there may be cowards on debate.org, I find clear cases of “cowardly liars.” What people specifically on this website can be consider among the “bunch of cowardly liars?” How do we know for sure? I can find no evidence of cowardly liars or understand what methodology to use for this.
Based on the arguments put forward in the last round as well as the introductory round, it seems that it is impossible to discern a method for proving whether DDO users are liars. Even if that could be gleaned from analyzing the demographics, it is impossible to state definitively whether DDO users are also cowardly. Here is Con’s question: if the contributors to the site are liars, then how can we be certain that are cowardly, perhaps the cowardly part is only a part of the large lie, only a persona used to by a clever DDO to dupe another. While I concede it might be theoretically possible to analyze (although so far Pro has not provided clear methodology for how to analyze) and say that there are a bunch of liars on DDO (although again, Pro has not stated for the debate what a “BUNCH” constitutes) it appears impossible to state with certainty that DDO users are cowardly. Again, I will let Pro address these questions. However, to emphasize the most important point: if they are liars, then whatever we find out that makes us believe their also cowardly is unreliable, right? I would like to thank Pro for the debate. I will change the text and I apologize profusely for an unintended or implicit offense that was not my intention. Again, thanks for the debate. I am having fun.
I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate, and allowing me to finish my first real debate. Since there does not appear to be a point to rebut from the last round, I will simply extend arguments from previous rounds because Pro never addressed them. Thanks again for the debate. I had fun.
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the debate as arguments were presented while Pro just made three one line claims with no evidence. This was not even an argument it was just personal assertions, this does not make a debate argument. Additionally, I am awarding conduct to Con as Pro made Ad hominem attacks. Lastly to Con, try not use bold, its really hard on the eyes.
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct should be clear. As to arguments, Pro presented no real coherent case--merely single sentence nigh-nonsense. Con actually responded to the resolution, and as such gets the arguments points. As always, happy to clarify this RFD. Also, welcome to the site, Con!