The Instigator
Syed_Bokhari
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Closing the tap while you are brushing your Teeth

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,287 times Debate No: 111182
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (46)
Votes (3)

 

Syed_Bokhari

Pro

This is the easiest way the help the environment. It is by turning the tap of while you are brushing your teeth.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Syed, for proposing what I'm sure will be an enthralling debate.

Unfortunately, my opponent fails to affirm the resolution.

His argument that "This is the easiest way the help the environment," is not supported by any sources or argumentation, hence it registers as a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy (http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...), therefore does not affirm the resolution.

Since the other half of his arguments involves restating the resolution ("It is by turning the tap of while you are brushing your teeth"), the resolution fails to be affirmed, thus Con wins by default.
Debate Round No. 1
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Envisage// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless the argument is difficult to understand as a result of how it was written, this is not sufficient reason to award this point. A single word switch doesn"t meet that standard.
************************************************************************
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Varrack
Vaarka, voting standards have been this way for the last 3 years.

Here's a voting guide: https://docs.google.com...
Posted by Vaarka 3 years ago
Vaarka
I mean I voted for you too, Zarro. I gave both sides three points, leaving it at a tie. I basically did nothing.

Also, why were so many votes removed?
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
While moderation does not enforce a standard of who holds BoP and why in a debate, we do require that the voter provide some basis for shouldering one side with BoP. Whatever that reason may be, it must be stated or at least alluded to.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
While moderation does not enforce a standard of who holds BoP and why in a debate, we do require that the voter provide some basis for shouldering one side with BoP. Whatever that reason may be, it must be stated or at least alluded to.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Varrack
@whiteflame, is it required that one explain why one side holds the BOP? Generally it's going to be assumed the Pro holds it in this setting, by nature of that side making an affirmative claim, but others might disagree. In fact, someone made a thread recently about why Pro *wouldn't* solely hold the BOP in this case.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sui_Generis// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Resolution, penned by Pro, is a sentence fragment, and is not even a resolution. His first argument also barely suffices as grammatical, but is stylistically devoid of quality. Sources to Zarroette due to her use of an external source for her accusation of a bare assertion.

[*Reason removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain how one side"s argument is difficult to understand as a result of how it was written. Pointing out grammatical and quality errors is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to affirm the resolution, and did not provide sources for his claims. Con wins by default.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter must assess the specific arguments presented by Pro, even if that solely involves pointing out how they fail to affirm the resolution, and explain how that leads to a default win for Con (i.e. that Pro has BoP).
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Yassine// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Self explanatory. Aside from all spelling errors, Pro failed to make arguments or provide sources. Con convincingly points this out as a bare assertion fallacy. Con wins.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain how one side"s argument is difficult to understand as a result of how it was written. Generalizing about spelling errors is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provided sources, the voter is required to explain how those sources were relevant to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Emilrose// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro as Con failed to outline an argument of her own. Example: she only stated that Con committed a logical fallacy, when she should've directly addressed the resolution and presented an argument to the contrary of it. I would like to know why 'closing the tap while you are brushing your teeth' is detrimental, and Con did not illustrate why or provide any reasoning for her position, or indeed state anything regarding the matter. It is disappointing to read a debate in which one opponent disregards the resolution. Conduct to Pro due to Con commenting : 'I'm sure this will be an enthralling debate.' This comment is decidedly passive-aggressive and sarcastic; which sets a bad standard for debate.

[*Reason for removal*] Conduct is insufficiently explained. Unless one of the debaters is clearly insulting, violates the rules, or forfeits a round, the voter may not award this point. While being passive-aggressive may appear insulting in some contexts, it"s not clearly insulting the other debater or anyone else.
************************************************************************
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Syed_BokhariZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that closing the tap while you?re brushing your teeth is good for the environment. It was his only premise, but con showed how pro?s only premise was a bare assertion and not supported by evidence. Pro failed to affirm the resolution, so con wins.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Syed_BokhariZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not engage in the resolution, but did attack Pro's argument in concept. This was done by attacking Pro's BOP, which was assumed through the instigation of the debate. Con argues that Pro's argument was a logical fallacy and should be nullfied and the rest of Pro's argument was a restating of the resolution. By this notion, Con has established that the BOP was on Pro to win the debate and Con only had to attack Pro's arguments. With Pro's only argument being a logical fallacy, negated via itself being one, and Pro's other argument only restating the resolution showing that Pro doesn't have any arguments and thus cannot uphold the resolution, failing to fullfill BOP. Thus, I have to give arguments to Con in this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 3 years ago
Varrack
Syed_BokhariZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's statement, "This is the easiest way the help the environment", in no way affirmed the resolution. Since the BoP rests on Pro, and it was not met, arguments go to Con by default.

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