The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Covenys recent behavior would be a net detriment on ForDebating.Com (his new website)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,891 times Debate No: 106066
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (82)
Votes (1)




Some context on the resolution. Normally I would define terms, but it's kind of hard given the format of this debate. I am not going to define terms, but define the debate itself. This debate is centered around Coveny's behavior as of late, and his responses to some members in his recent posts.

Coveny is making a new website and will moderate this new site as moderator and owner. I am going to lay out why he would be a bad moderator on this or any debate site. This is focused specifically on his new site, but it also framed around why this behavior would be bad on any debate site. This is not just in terms of moderation but his role of being a figurehead on any site, specifically his new one.

I will be arguing that Covenys behavior is a bad thing for any site where he would act as a figurehead in any capacity

Coveny will be arguing the opposite

The winner will be chosen in terms of net utility

To make this simple I am going to share the Burden of Proof with Coveny

The format is as follows

He will start in Round 1 and Pass in Round 3. He will begin by laying out a case for why he would make a good figurehead and I will lay out my case for why he would make a bad figurehead.


1) No semantics
2) No Trolling
3) No K's
4) No new arguments can be presented in the final round
5) Debaters Etiquette will not be counted in terms of voting (Meaning we can be as rude as we want. I'm chill with that and I think he's a blithering moron at points. So forgive me if I sound condescending, but I don't want that counted against me)

This debate is an opt in voting debate. Meaning all RFDS will be moderated based on a high standard of voting criteria. (Well maybe not high but above the norm). There must be a valid RFD that meets the standards of current voting moderation for the vote to count.

Best of luck

I look forward to the free win


4k characters?!?!

Mikal has a problem with my behavior, and the behavior he has a problem with, is me having a problem with Tuf’s behavior. Keep in mind that whatever applies to Tuf’s (moderator - DDO) behavior also apply to mine (owner -

He needs to prove:

1) Loss

2) I’m wrong

3) Detriment

#1 What do I have to lose?

Mail list = 3 -

YouTube = 6 -

Fackbook = 35 (mostly friends) -

A micro influencer starts at 10k -

44 unique people is not even 1% of MICRO. Good luck proving I have anything to lose…

#2 My behavior is “bad”.

The facts:

2A) I focused on Tuf

2B) Per Tuf “I lied and manipulated you in a game about lying and manipulation?” “Because it is a working technique.”

2C) I’m against lying, manipulation, and trolling

2D) Tuf is a moderator for DDO

2E) I am not this site's owner

2E) Tuf continued after the game (Troll)

What's bad? Me not liking that Tuf lies, manipulates, and trolls as a moderator who should be building the community? I’ll take that side of a fight any day. You might not like the way I came across, or my tone of voice, or the way I said it, or whatever BS subjective wrapping you prefer to feel warm and fuzzy about the message, but in the end of it, I’m on the good/right side of this fight. If Pro feels otherwise I suggest he explains why lying, manipulating, and trolling are “good” behavior.

#3 Controversial behavior helps rather than hurts

3A) Good guys finish last

7 THOUSAND people saw this ad... 6 people engaged. Ya that didn’t work, but hey it was polite.

3B) bad press

“There is no such thing as bad publicity” R13; Brendan Behan

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” – Oscar Wilde

“a savvy marketing ploy”-

Borat’s “bad press” = 300% increase in engagement -

Criticized books = + a third sales -;

3B) Mikal

Ya that didn’t work, but hey it was polite. Mikal ignored me, but now engages to spread the FD work, proving that my technique… how did Tuf put it? “is a working technique.”

3C) Controversy business model
Since 1986 - Howard Stern -

90m -

26+ seasons– Jerry Springer -

4.5m -

Since 1996 - Alex Jones -

10+m -

Outrageous is both lucrative AND effective.

3D) Fights

“Reality” TV shows -

“better advertising ... than any ... ad would ever be.”

3E) Trump

I don't like Don the con but you can’t disagree with the effectiveness of his bad publicity, for his own good:

“Trump’s most guiding, ... beliefs, ... that bad publicity … should be embraced” -

Free media = $5 billion “The PR adage of “any news is good news” appeared to be the case in Donald Trump coverage.”

Repeat … bad publicity got Trump 5b in free publicity

I'd do nice and polite, but as my opponent is a prime example of, that doesn't work. His “positive vibe” didn’t get him off his a$$, a fight did. Don’t get me wrong, I, like you, ignore most advertising. You may not like my methods, hell I don’t like my methods, but these are the ones that work.

Want me to advertise differently? PLEASE present me with a better option, and not some naive fantasy of what advertising “should” be, but methods that have been tested and proven. As I’ve shown, (and let’s be fair you already know this to be true) shock jocks, fights, and outrageousness break through the walls that we have all created against the constant onslaught of advertising. The Alex Jones’s of the world, and their prince Trump have shown what system works, and that’s what I’m using.

Debate Round No. 1


We can dismiss most everything in his last round as 90 percent of it is incoherent rambling that literally misrepresents or has nothing to do with the topic at all. Also, Tuf is not a moderator in any capacity, so that whole spiel is also non-topical. I'm going to offer arguments during this round and rebuttals to his previous round during my next round.

A starting point to remember. TUFS behavior or anyone's behavior who has engaged with Coveny is a non-factor in this debate. We are discussing whether his behavior (including his responses) will be a net detriment to his site or any site that he could act as a figurehead on.

1) The Role of a Figure Head and how you can damage a brand

Any time you put yourself in any public position where you act as a figurehead for anything, there are certain standards of behavior that should be adopted. This is true if you are a manager in a store, if you are the president of the united states, or if you are a moderator or owner of almost any site. The reason this is the case is that you represent whatever you are serving. You can represent a job, our country, or even a site. When people join a site a figurehead is one of the primary things they look at. They are essentially a role model for the community and represent them in a huge capacity. This is especially true as an owner of a site. This means you have to behave by certain standards. If you are a manager and spew racial slurs or ad hominems you will probably be fired. If you are a moderator and act negatively toward the community, chances are you will be removed. If you manage or oversee anything and act negatively and irresponsibly toward a customer, you will probably be fired. Because as I said, you represent what you server.

Coveny's Recent Behavior is in direct contrast to how someone should operate as a figurehead. In his case as an owner or moderator of his new website. His behavior will be viewed poorly and will directly impact how people see his site or even him as a person.

He has referred to members as diks [1] liars [2] and generally classified a specific member as a horrible horrible person [1][2]. This is even after that member apologized[3][4] for his behavior in a mafia game (he baited and lied to win, go figure it's normal behavior but Coveny does not think so). He has referred to other members as shtty human beings, liars, being stupid and unintelligent [5][6].

His behavior as a future figurehead and owner is damaging to the brand he is trying to sell and will hurt his site more than help it. You have to sell a brand, and as a figurehead of a brand your attitude and responses are directly correlated to how people view your brand. With his behavior, new members will not like his site. Ironically he uses Trump and Alex Jones as examples and makes an argument that any publicity (even bad) is good publicity type of argument. This is his only argument in his entire round and it's bad. It's why Trump is the most hated president in US history and Alex Jones is considered a nutjob.

Imagine if you were shopping and talked to a manager about something. If that manager called you a horrible person, liar or dik, then you would never shop there again. He treats people horribly. This can be verified by his attitude. Tuf, myself, and many others even considered his site as a viable option at one point. Until he started his rambling and negative attitude. Now it's not even in our minds. Read his posts and ask yourself can this guy moderate effectively. His behavior is an argument by itself

It explains itself

[6] Everything related to the thread from source 5 verifies way more of this



The topic is “Covenys .. behavior … DETRIMENT …ForDebating.Com” For Pro to win this debate he needs you to focus on 10% and ignore everything else but what FD has to lose. The deeper effects of controversy are integral to the topic. Nothing I have presented is outside the scope of this topic but Pro needs you to focus on the 10% of the debate that he wins at and ignore the millions of dollars this successful technique has generated.

#1 If you have nothing to lose then how can any action be a detriment? This is an irrefutable fact, and Pro has ignored it.

#2 Pro has implied that the other people I was speaking to were innocent victims just talking and I went off on them. This is a complete misrepresentation. Everyone one who I have had conflict with started in on me first. This shows how Pro holds me to a different standard than everyone else.

The authority of this site lists Tuf as the president, a figurehead of DDO, and Tuf is going to be a Mod on FD. Pro doesn’t see Tuf’s actions of starting this (and continuing after the game was over) in a negative light and even says “Tufs behavior … with Coveny is a non-factor in this debate.”. Proving that he doesn’t hold Tuf (figurehead) to this imaginary standard that he says “everyone” follows but me.

#3 To show you how absurd Pro is, he says that the President of the United States needs to act the same way as a store manager? The President... and a store manager should act the same. And he wants to call me a “blithering moron” with this as the foundation to his argument? Seriously?

Pro either won’t admit or doesn’t understand that Trump’s controversial tactics were effective garnering him the presidency by making fun of handicap reporters, degrading women, and vilifying Mexicans and Muslims.

Alex Jones is making over 10 million a year as the “figurehead” of his brand. From the article above you can see that his defense in court is that he’s just performing to make money… because it works.

These are just TWO of many pertinent references that I have listed ... and linked supporting material to. This is NOT my opinion, these are multiple sources about how advertising works. Pro has not linked or discussed advertising at all, because he’s so focused on that 10% that he wants you to focus on as well.

Rather than addressing how bad press sells more books, gets more rentals, or even gets pro off his A$$, pro’s whole argument is that I’m not advertising the way he thinks I should. Howard Stern did get fired like Pro portrays as “store managers”, and now instead of the owners of that company making a portion of the millions a year Stern makes, they have their fantasy about how advertising should work, rather money. Pro may not like my tactics, but he has done NOTHING to prove they aren’t effective. I’ve shown you that advertising the way he wants me to advertise doesn’t work. 7k and 6 likes? That’s about 0.1% engagement and that’s the type of advertising he expects me to do?

Pro falsely portrays that he speaks for many others. I can’t address the ones he doesn’t list names but I can prove he’s lying about Tuf. Tuf has agreed to be a moderator on FD, this has not changed, and I have since asked Tuf’s opinion about a game I am creating for the forums on FD, and here is his response:

So, don’t believe what Pro is saying about “many others” not having FD in their minds, and don’t believe that controversy doesn’t work because it offends Pro. Offended people make brands rich, look at chick-fil-a

In closing. I did not want to go this route, I would have loved months ago to have a warm welcome and be told that what I was creating was really needed because a fully functional debate website that is always available is something everyone wanted. I would have loved to discuss what they wanted to see in a debate website, but instead I got ignored. Now Pro wants to cry because I changed from ineffective tactics to effective ones? If he wanted polite, he should have responded to polite.

Debate Round No. 2


On to rebuttals

1) Intro

I'm not sure what he is saying. At the start of his last round, but per the previous conversation and the starting round of the debate, we are debating where he is a net detriment. This is where he will defend his behavior and I will critique it. Voters will review the preponderance of evidence presented and evaluate the debate based on utility. If his behavior is considered more negative than positive, I win. If his behavior is more positive than negative he wins. This is measured in terms of how it will affect for

2) Nothing to lose

Again I'm not sure what he is getting at. He is saying he has nothing to lose so he can't be a net detriment to the site. He has everything to lose. All the "countless dollars" he has spent on the site. I believe he has stated nearly "10 thousand". The amount he has spent is irrelevant, but if his behavior is a hindrance and deterrent to people joining the site, then it is a net detriment.

3) Other People Attacked Him First

As I stated in the first round, this is a non-sequitur. What standard I hold others to is not a topic of this debate. Even if he thought TUF was a moderator and even if TUF is acting poorly (he is not) when he listed on the site as a figurehead makes no difference. Their behavior does not impact Their behavior is not also up for debate, we are debating Coveny's behavior. If Tuf was the owner or creator, or a moderator, then it *could* be topical. Again this debate is about Coveny's behavior and how he responds to people. What prompts him to respond is irrelevant. It's only about his response and how he handles people "attacking him". Someone attacking you does not give you the right to attack them back. Nor is it a viable option as a figurehead and especially so when you are selling a brand. Since this topic is not about DDO, and specifically about Coveny's behavior and how it will negatively impact FDDC then that is all we are going to focus on.

4) Roles of Figure Heads

I never said the president and a store manager are the same, I said their role as a figurehead functions much in the same way. You are expected to respond to certain things in certain ways when you represent something. Whether that is a store or manager. When you are in a position of power, that is the face of something, you have to hold yourself to certain standards.

5) All coverage is good coverage.

This is not true at all. This was his only point in round 1 and he carried this over to his #3 point. If you murder someone and get coverage, it's not good nor morally acceptable. If you call a woman and cuntswallowingspermstain as a general manager of a store and get put on the news, it's not positive coverage. You are damaging your brand that you represent. What Coveny has continually failed to do is make an argument

Note: Important

Coveny has yet to make an argument! This BOP is split to where he must show his behavior will benefit the site, or at least negate my points to show how it would have 0 impacts on the site at all. Even if his argument was true (it's not for reasons I can't cover in this character limit), he has yet to establish a connection to how *his* negative behavior will be good for *his* site. Just because Alex Jones makes a bunch of money off Hillbilly retards with his mindless ranting, does not mean his tactics will work for *your* website. Coveny needs to show a direct correlation between his behavior and how it will positively benefit his site.

Again I leave this up for the voters, but read his threads and tell me if you have a positive opinion of him. Again, he says TUF has a positive opinion of him, but I play games with him every night, every day, and half the stuff we talk about is how insane he is. I will not mention the others due to anonymity but I read the voters to decide if his behavior would deter you from his site.

Best Wishes and GL on funding a site, when you as the owner come off as a prick


As per the rules stated in this debate I am to pass this round. This is me passing.
Debate Round No. 3
82 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
The use of semantics blinders to bypass moderation is truly impressive. (isn't there something in the rules that say something about not using semantics...)

1) He gave one example of the way that etiquette could not be held against him in parentheses to clarify just how mean he could be, and that nullifies the statement that Etiquette won't be counted?

2) Being unfair or unreasonable falls under the umbrella of being rude to someone, or a part of debate etiquette.

That's a lot of mental weaving done to allow a vote bomb from someone who is obviously bias toward me. (given he's been calling me a cunt in the forums for days now)
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Sadly, it would seem that in order to comply with the arbitrary and ever-moving requirements of dead-weight Whiteflame, that I must expend the time and effort to to itemize Coveny's specific deficits in modern English usage. So, that shall be done, and it was, in the link below: Note to Whiteflame:

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the reporter is correct that, for reasons of debate etiquette, a voter may not award conduct on this debate, that does not bar the voter from awarding conduct at all. Pro specifies that the basis for awarding conduct may not be rudeness or condescension, i.e. it may not be based on insults. The basis presented here has to do with tactical decisions that the voter views as unfair or unreasonable. That does not fall under the specification provided in the rules, and is thus allowed under those rules.
Posted by Forever23 3 years ago
This is better than the fvcking Office...
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
"Debaters Etiquette will not be counted in terms of voting"... glances at YYW vote for conduct.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
So you are saying that your vote was not reported and that Whiteflame is lying/making that part up?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
lol not really interesting... whiteflame had to invent a reason to remove the vote
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
Interesting. Someone else reported your vote...
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago


Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Because Whiteflame is a [Redacted by the DDO Elite] who tries to [Redacted by the DDO Elite] his own [Redacted by the DDO Elite], the RFD can be found at the link below:

[*Reason for removal*] The reasoning provided for S&G is insufficient. While the voter attributes issues with "sentence structure, argumentative structure, formatting, and other relevant points of consideration consistent with the requirements of modern English" to Con, that does not clearly meet the standards for awarding this point. The voter is required to specifically reference mistakes made in the debate, and either explain how they render the arguments incoherent/incomprehensible or explain why the arguments are made difficult to read as a result. Merely listing generalized problems and stating that Con had more of them is not sufficient.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
@ tejretics I'm doing my best to bring it back to life in hopes of getting all these inactive members to have a look at There is also a live debate video on this in the forums if you are interested in more information. (I really wanted more than a 4k character limit)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sadly, it would seem that in order to comply with the arbitrary and ever-moving requirements of dead-weight Whiteflame, that I must expend the time and effort to to itemize Coveny's specific deficits in modern English usage. So, that shall be done, and it was, in the link below: Note to Whiteflame:

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