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

The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 53305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Hello. I think that the instigator in a debate on is OP. OP=overpowered. I define overpowered as "having too much power". Con has to prove that instigators aren't overpowered.
Round one is for acceptance only.


I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Reasons why the instigator is overpowered
1. He gets a 25 point advantage, and the contender gets a 25 disadvantage
2. The instigator gets to decide the topic he starts
So, the instigator would obviously start a topic he knows very well. He technically has infinite time to prepare, whilst the contender, if decided to accept the debate, technically only has the time before the instigator gets impatient and cancel the debate.
3. The instigator gets to decide who he can battle--whether it's a specific opponent, or anybody with a higher elo, he gets to decide so
4. The instigator gets to define the terms, and the contender who accepts has to accept the term's definition
5. The instigator can make ridiculous rules that the contender still has to accept.
Normally, the instigator has rules such as "round one is just for acceptance" and/or "last round no (new) arguments". However, some debates are plain impossible for the contender to win, one such example as Rational_Thinker9119's series of "my opponent will not win this debate", which makes it impossible for his opponent to win, as capitalizing every other letter is extremely time-consuming, and one error could destroy all 7 possible points. This truly shows the instigator's powerfulness.
6. The instigator gets to decide how many rounds the debate is, and how long/limited each round is
This is crucial to the debate, as the difference between a one round noob snipe and a 5 round incredibly serious argument is so high, and the instigator gets to decide whether he wants to get noob sniped or have a 5 round super serious 8,000 character argument.
7. The instigator has the ability to decide how much time each person has
This ability gives the instigator the advantage of being the "moderator", and deciding the time, between 5 minutes, and 3 days is very essential to the debate.
8. The instigator can decide who votes
Ever since the new update, the instigator can decide the elo limit of who votes, or simply limit the judges down to 10 people. While the contender does have to agree, and the judges as well, this new update only furthers the power of the instigator.

In conclusion the instigator is OP to the contender.
Onto you, con!


All of the ideas pro has presented come down to one thing: the proposal of the debate. The instigator can propose a debate as much in his favor as possible, but he can never force anyone to accept.

An instigator can propose a debate where the rules dictate his automatic win, but if nobody accepts, then really the instigator would have no power at all.

So if all the power an instigator has is the power that is agreed upon by the contender, then how is the intstigator overpowered? Any contenders either understand the challenge or should be more careful as they concede anyways.
Debate Round No. 2


Although the instigator's rules and definitions are most times checked upon by the contender, sometimes the contender can miss some important points and misunderstand.
A great example is the expert tier's finale debate, between bsh1 and imabench. Because imabench misread and thought the last round did not allow any new arguments or rebuttals, as he stated himself: "I could have bet a billion dollars that somewhere it said that the final round for me would be no new arguments or rebuttals!!!"
Imabench could have technically won at least tied the debate, had he read the first round carefully, and know that the final round was for "rebuttals and summary", and post his rebuttals and not just his summary.
This incredibly important debate shows how much power the instigator has. If con is not careful within checking the first round for any twists, he could lose unfairly, and that would be a shame!
In conclusion the instigator is overpowered, especially since he can hide twists in his first round. If a very clever troller started out a debate and put a rule in super tiny & faint font, right in between a huge paragraph of text, the contender could easily miss it. In fact, the voters, when scanning over my "wall of text" right there, they probably missed the "in super tiny font" too.
Imabench showed us the power of the instigator and the results of failure to read the first round carefully. Had he started the debate, the outcome probably would have been different, more than likely, if resulting in a loss, at least some points would have been rewarded to him instead of a total beat down of 8 to 0.
Onto you, con!


Thanks pro.

You say yourself that the power of the instigator is bad when combined with the failure to read things carefully.

If the person accepting the debate is in a situation where they are not careful or could easily misinterpret the instigators points, then they should not have accepted the debate. When an argument is presented, that is the argument that must be accepted. If there is ever a point in time when the rules presented are impossible to acknowledge, it is up to the voters to decide the conduct.

In fact, in any situation the power rests in the judgment of the voters. A great example of this is here: . In this debate, the instigator provided rules which were broken, but did not have the power to win. The supposed power that the instigator has truly rests in the voters.

You did point out that the instigator may choose the judges, but this leads to my next point.

When a person accepts a debate, they need to fully understand it. If you are not paying close attention, then you deserve to suffer the consequences of that. It would be unfair to propose a debate, only to have a completely incompetent person accept it. You argue that people who are new and inexperienced are vulnerable to the power of the instigator, and although this is true, the fault continues to lie with them. They were not skilled or competent enough to pay close attention to the debate, so they lost. In your example, this continues to be the case.

An instigator only has as much power as the contender allows for. A contender may miss their points and loose, but an instigator may also loose a debate if they fail to pay attention the other debater's points. The bottom line is that ignoring aspects of the debate is not a claim for unfair treatment. It is only evidence of their own errors.

Back to you, pro!
Debate Round No. 3


"The supposed power that the instigator has truly rests in the voters." But most voters agree on the fact that the contender has to follow and agree the rules posted by the instigator, no matter how ridiculous or hard to follow. That debate you posted was a bad example, the instigator was trying to defeat the contender on itsy-bitsy little errors that really didn't matter. A debate similar to this one was one of Rational_Thinker9119's unfair seires, this one against imabench. Had imabench tried to actually argue his way out of the unfair stress on the word "just" and followed the rest of the rules, he more than likely would have won.

It is true that if an instigator misses the contender's points, he would more than likely lose as well. However, it must be noted that the instigator goes first within a debate, and the contender goes next, followed by the instigator again. The instigator can easily set up a debate like this, where he posts his stance, makes the contender reply, and he rebuts again, and the last round must be concluded with "thank you for the debate". Although this might seem fair, with one round of debate versus one round of debate, the instigator can respond to the contender's arguments while the contender cannot. Furthermore, the instigator can still stress his original arguments and back it up with his rebuttals, making it impossible for the contender to win.

By this point most of my arguments are rebutted, so I shall make a new point here.
Forfeiting is crucial in a debate, deducting conduct points and possibly making the whole argument collapse. The instigator definitely has one round where he does not forfeit--the first round. This gives him a slight advantage, and if he forfeits the rest of the rounds versus his opponent forfeiting all the rounds, it is 4 vs 5 rounds of forfeiting. By starting the debate and stating the rules, blah blah, the instigator can technically win even if the he or she posts NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER, if the contender fails to post any argument.
In conclusion the instigator of a debate is OP.
Vote pro.


The example I gave was a very important andif alid example of my point, and it gains even more weight as evidence for my rebuttal when used in contrast with your debate. In your example, the power placed on the word "just" lost imabench the debate; you make the conclusion that the instigator's rules are too powerful because of the easily dismisable details. When you look at my example, the instigator lost the debate in spite of these rules; I'm making the conclusion that the instigators only suggest power, while the voters actually use it. Voters generally use the instigator's rules because the contender generally accepted them, and it should be assumed that they did if the rules were possible to accept; a contender could easily cheat by saying that They did not know the rules when they did.

An instigator's debate can be formed in almost any shape. They can absolutely be unfairly in their own favor, but this once again comes back to the fact that the unfair debate was the one the contender accepted. If they accept rules because they "seem fair" without actually thinking about it, then that is their fault. The contenders decisions affect their loss in these situations, not the instigator's rules. If the contender is not careful when "he" checks the first round, you claim that "he could loose unfairly", however there is nothing unfair about "his" loss. If you can understand a bet that I offer, but ignore what I tell you and accept without grasping the opportunity for understanding, then your loss is completely just.

Instigators have one opportunity where they lack the power to forfeit. An instigator can absolutely never force their opponent to forfeit. A contender accepts the debate, and then they choose to loose. Forfeiting after the person who accepts the debate forfeits is understandably more appropriate conduct, thus giving them those points. In these situations, con could technically win while not even writing anything at all, but the voters have used their power to judge otherwise.

Thank you, pro, for accepting the debate.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Conservative101 7 years ago
Change to Con if you want your opponent to have the burden of proof
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
But the bop is on pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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