Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

How much effort

RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:51:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
should you put into a debate if it's accepted by someone who pretty much just trolls it?

http://www.debate.org...

I wasn't expecting someone to accept my debate and then treat it the way it was, and I really didn't think there was any point to formulating extensive arguments against "This is agreed upon by most people. So, HE MUST'VE created it."

But so far it looks like I was wrong. Is this a common level of argument used in debates here? I was voted against because 'quantum physics isn't real physics', even though that was never addressed by my opponent.

I'm just a little confused here.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 1:28:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:51:54 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
should you put into a debate if it's accepted by someone who pretty much just trolls it?

http://www.debate.org...

I wasn't expecting someone to accept my debate and then treat it the way it was, and I really didn't think there was any point to formulating extensive arguments against "This is agreed upon by most people. So, HE MUST'VE created it."

But so far it looks like I was wrong. Is this a common level of argument used in debates here? I was voted against because 'quantum physics isn't real physics', even though that was never addressed by my opponent.

I'm just a little confused here.

Yes, always put in effort to the debate. No matter who.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 1:40:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:51:54 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
should you put into a debate if it's accepted by someone who pretty much just trolls it?

http://www.debate.org...

I wasn't expecting someone to accept my debate and then treat it the way it was, and I really didn't think there was any point to formulating extensive arguments against "This is agreed upon by most people. So, HE MUST'VE created it."

But so far it looks like I was wrong. Is this a common level of argument used in debates here? I was voted against because 'quantum physics isn't real physics', even though that was never addressed by my opponent.

I'm just a little confused here.

If I'm not sure that the person that accepted the debate will put in the effort, I'll tend to make a much shorter R2 with the intent of leading the debate and then get into it in R3 should they show up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"