Instigator / Pro
4
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#1086

Should we use the death penalty at all?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

I support the death penalty for murder and treason. My opponent must be against the death penalty for both of these crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all others rounds are okay. The BoP is shared

Bump.

-->
@Alec

No I'm sorry, next time remind me a little earlier, so I can work around my schedule

-->
@Alec

Im not at my house, so all I have is a phone. I don't think so :/

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Can you vote on this debate?

-->
@bmdrocks21

Can you vote on this debate? Timer is about to run out.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative"

This approach is wrong for a number of reasons. The main reason is you can find flaws in any position. For example it is pointless to point out the flaws of capitalism, if you do not propose another system for critique and convince your opponent is has less flaws. You need a solid base of knowledge to do that though, but as your profile says, you hate reading.

I assume it is because of reading comprehension problems. You need to have sub vocalization while reading for good comprehension as well as being able to visualize in your mind's eye what was written. I suggest practicing sub vocalization as well as visualization while reading. Most people also only retain 40% of what they read the first time but it jumps to 80% on the second reading. You should always read things twice. I think if you do those things, you'll find reading more enjoyable, which will help you expand your base of knowledge. Also reading your opponent's arguments in that way will also help expand your base of knowledge and make your next opponent more predictable.

-->
@Wylted

I should have already knew what debating was about but I had a different aim. When that comes into contact with lets say what debating is actually about. I run into a problem. I tend not to be persuasive and just speak about the arguments my opponent lays out instead of simply picking the best ones to suit my narrative. Debating is a popularity contest and I should tailor my arguments to that but I don't really want to. I think I would feel scummy and too ideologically bent to see the other side if I did that. Doesn't stop others using the same tactics but that just means I would have to work even hard. 30k characters is enough to make that happen. It is only me not using the entire amount to thoroughly dissect my opponent.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

That is a healthy attitude to have. If you lose to me, it is never my fault but yours.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Virt does most of the voting moderation atm, but if I am online, I am happy to check votes which have been reported.

-->
@bsh1

I am going to keep messaging you until you reply.

I want you check late votes as in 1 hour or less before the voting period closes. I will be flagging them and I want you to make sure they are sufficient. Someone really late voted in earlier debate and since it was after the voting period a moderator couldn't address it when they saw it.

-->
@Alec

Probably by the time the timer runs out. Not tonight

-->
@bmdrocks21

Can you vote on the debate?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Certainly had nothing to do with not addressing his points. Calling sources outdated or unreliable without explanation is good enough

-->
@Wylted

I'll pass on a debate.
You won because I didn't argue against other flaws in your border wall argument. I should have. My mistake and you won because of it.

A voter bringing up gish gallop is incompetent.

Those are mostly forfeited debates. 2 I should have won, and gish Gallop can't harm you in this debate format unless you overdo it

Wylted is wrong. There are times when you should semi-forfeit Rounds because of what you prevent loading the opponent with or accusations of voters of doing 'gish gallop'.

It's not a clear 'jam more text in that Round' Wylted's Rating reflects his advice's quality.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

First I look at how informal logic is applied and then creativity 2nd and depth of knowledge third in last place is rhetorical ability. I have seen people be incredible in one skill where they can be weak in others but it is more common to be good at all of those to be a good debater. I am willing to mentor you in one debate against a competent debater of high skill. Allow for 2 week arguments and limit characters to 10k.

-->
@Wylted

How you defining skill?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

When somebody gives you an extra round, take it. Especially when they are more skilled than you. It can be the difference between a win and a loss and they don't need to be punished for conduct if you punish them by defeating them with extra characters

-->
@Alec

Okay.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I told you in messages. You can rebut if you want.

-->
@Alec

Can I rebut in Round 1 or am I only allowed to make arguments?