The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

1 Round debates should not be an option on

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Metallicasucks has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 102298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I never really enjoyed 1 Round debates, since there's not really any point to having them. So I've decided to make this debate so maybe I could understand the benefits of 1 Round debates.


1 Round debate; A debate on that only lasts 1 round. Once the Contender posts the Round 1 argument, the debate goes into voting.


1) Running out of time is not an option. If you can't come up with a rebuttal or arguments, just pass the round and promise to come back the next round.

2) No trolling, semantics, etc.

3) Round 1 is acceptance only. No arguments will be posted in Round 1.

I'm looking forward to a challenge.


lets get this over with
Debate Round No. 1


I welcome Metallicasucks to Allow me to show you why you're better off not creating 1 round debates.

1: Lack of Debate

In a 1 round debate, the Instigator (the one who created the debate) posts 1 round, and the Contender (the one who accepts the debate) posts for Round 1, and the debate's over after Round 1. There's not much going on, not much debate. The Instigator, unable to respond to the Contender's argument, can't refute their opponent's argument, only relying on their own argument. Because the Instigator can't defend their arguments from the Contender's rebuttal, the majority of the time, the Contender wins the 1 Round debates. My point is, there's no reason to make 1 round debates because you're probably not going to win.

2: No experience to gain

With the lack of debate going on, you aren't going to get any better if you make 1 round debates. In order to improve in debating, you need to clash with your opponent. By "clash" I mean the process of refuting your opponent's arguments while defending your own arguments. An experienced debater can easily detect flaws arguments, since they've either improved in percieving flaws, or they already encountered an argument with a similar flaw.

In conclusion, we shouldn't have 1 round debates because there isn't any real debating going on, and lack of debate means neither side learns how to debate better. What do you say?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
First of all, we are so far past 1969, Obama wasn't even our president back then. Saying that "God is your weed" is ridiculous

Vote for me because I plainly and clearly have the better and more focused argument
Check this debate:
Vote for me!
Posted by qwzx 3 years ago
should have made this a 1 round debate.....just to be ironic
Never less, I do agree with you about the stupidity with one round debates
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
I'm Pro for "1 round debates shouldn't be an option", so what do you think? Of course I'm against it!
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
Is your stance against one round or with one round?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.