The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points is an awful website

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/26/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 114421
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




No one even active.It doesnet even have its own search engine.


To start off, your arguing that it is a bad website and yet on your profile, it says that you have been on it for a year. After looking at your profile I see that you are currently in more than one debate. This means that you actively use the website. If someone doesn't like a website usually they would stop using it, and yet you keep coming back. If you didn't like the website so much then we wouldn't even be having this debate.
So, this leads me to believe that it is a good website. It seems foolish to state something that completely contradicts your own actions. In fact, by doing this, you have just proved my side of the debate to be the correct side.
You say that it doesn't have its own search engine, but I actively use the website and I have never found this a real problem. As for people not being active, maybe your just not looking in the right places. When I was looking at your profile, I saw that all but one of your debates were in the debating period. This means that even though you say not enough people are active, you still have enough to do more than one debate.

If you truly did believe that this is such a bad website than you would not be debating with me. Instead, you would be looking for a new website to debate on. That or you would just not debate.

I still have over 6,000 characters to use, but I do not feel the need to. I feel as though everything that had to be said, was said. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Con argues that if i really thought it was a bad website I would stop using it.Many people know mcdonalds is bad for your health yet they still go there.Cons only other argument is that he likes the website so i must be wrong.Con is immature and throws out insults also.

All of this obviously gives me the round.


OK, I can see you want to do this the hard way.
Well, first of all, I found the use of the pronoun 'He' to be offensive considering you just made an assumption. Well, guess what, your debating with a girl.
Second of all, the whole McDonalds thing is a little out of left field considering we are talking about a website. People come back to McDonald's knowing it is unhealthy because they like it. So, you can't really use that as an argument because you're on the affirmative side. You don't like this website. If we use your exact words, ' is an awful website.'
Therefore, your argument is incorrect and not useful to your side of this debate.

Also, I never stated that I liked the website. I do, but I never said that. You just threw out another assumption. I only said that I didn't have a problem with the features of the website. In my Round 1 argument, I said 'I actively use the website and I have never found this a real problem.' Meaning that I didn't see why not having a search engine was such a problem. If I can manage without one, then you most likely can too. Especially considering that you have been on this website much longer than I have.

Also, if I'm so immature, why am I the only one who has provided solid evidence for my side of the argument. I never insulted you. Maybe your just becoming defensive because you're afraid of losing to me.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Con immediatley starts off their rebuttal with a trivial and meaningless statement about their gender which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.Con also utterly fails at rebuttal claiming that since they dont have trouble with the search engine neither should I.Con ends their so called rebuttal by claiming that am somehow being defensive because im afraid of losing.Neither of which are true.Con once again fails at a response.Which awards me yet another round.


To start off, you immediately said that the comment I made on my gender was irrelevant to the topic at hand. But that's exactly what I said about your McDonalds comment. No offense but it just seems as though you are taking my words and using them as your own. Which, just makes you look unintelligent and foolish.
You then stated that I utterly failed at a rebuttal when I didn't. I got my points across and provided reasons to why I don't think is an awful website. If anything, your arguments are flawed because you never stated why not having certain features or not having as many people was such an inconvenience. A little word of advice, unless you can tell me why these things are so bad, then it is just a pointless thing to bring up.

That's exactly why I am correct in this debate. Your only stating your opinion. I understand that I am only stating my opinion, but at least I provide evidence to back up what I am saying. I don't equivocate on my opinions because I stand by them. You, however, contradict your own opinions with your actions and belittle people for making mistakes they never made.

And another thing, you said that I said if I don't have a problem with a feature, you shouldn't either. But, once again your lack of ability to pay attention to the words you are reading will be your downfall. I actually said that 'I can manage without one, so MOST LIKELY you can too.' I never said that you should be able to use the website without one, or you shouldn't have trouble without a feature, I said that I could manage without one so you PROBABLY could too. Meaning you could OR could not.
You continue to take my words and twist them into something you want them to say. But, I continue to write things that actually make sense and then I am able to go back and quote myself in order to prove you wrong.

At the end of your statement, you say that I wrongfully accused you of becoming defensive because you were afraid of losing to me. I understand as to why you are saying that I was wrong in that portion of my argument, but I also still stand by what I said.

An Ignorant fool with the worlds worst way of using basic grammar and no way to back up their own opinion would probably end up getting defensive in the end. Especially since they have to state that they 'Won the round' at the end of every argument in order to make themselves believe it. I, however, do not have to say this.
My way of words speaks for itself.

I don't want to be too aggressive, or insulting but in this case, I have no choice. The only thing you have done in this debate is trying to point out every one of my flaws. So here is a list of your own that I hope you can reflect on in the future before you try to start a debate you will surely lose.

1. You obviously did not think this debate through since just simply going on your profile was enough for me to prove you wrong
2. You have horrible grammar and should be embarrassed. You're sitting here trying to use personal slanders like gender and other insults to win a debate when no one is able to take you seriously because, of how bad you are at simply typing something. My dog uses better grammar than you.
3. You twist my words or repeat what I said.
4. Besides the fact that you didn't think people were active, and you didn't like that the website doesn't have its own search engine you never gave me reasons why this bothered you.
5. Stating that I failed at a rebuttal is just another one of your opinions that you failed to back up with reasoning.
6. Another thing you did is continuously say that you won a round. Well, we will see about that when the voting period is done. I wouldn't get your hopes up though.

Now, I understand what you and other people who are reading this must think. And yes, I know that I am aggressive with my words, but so was my debate partner. At the end of the day, my opinions were backed up. There's were not.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: SJM// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con is unpersuasive due to their irrelevant comments, and acting unprofessional and insulting. Pro remained calm and didn't insult back. At the end, I agreed with Pro that just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you don't use it. Con needs to realize that whether something is good or bad, is independent of someone's inconsistent behavior. The website is either good or bad, pointing out Pro's inconsistency does not prove or disprove anything. The website's value is not contingent on Pro's singular consistency towards it.

[*Reason removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. While the voter does assess specific points presented by both sides, the only argument he assesses from Pro is defensive. It should be clear as part of the RFD why the voter agrees that the resolution was affirmed, not simply why Con"s efforts to negate were ineffective. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. While insults are sufficient reason to award conduct, the voter has to point out at least one specific instance of this occurring. Generalizing about what happened in the debate is not sufficient.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Mmmmm..... McDonalds.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
If it's so awful why are you on here? Most people leave if they don't like something.
And how long have you been on here? If you wasn't on here long then you can't say the site has no actual members on here not being action...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 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 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: I think Con wins. Con is able to refute Pros statements that No one is active, by noting people are active and noting that the search engine is not a vital component for users. If Pro had elaborated on his reasons for DDO being bad... He would have made a better argument than the one he made. Conduct, spelling and grammar was not Significantly bad or in the way of understanding on either side.

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