Instigator / Pro
2
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1282

Debating

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
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

Regularly styled

-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Club

Nih:
You're welcome.

Club:
I'm willing to discuss any aspects of the vote to which you disagreed. I do truly dislike the voter shortage inflating the value of my voice.

Both:
You could always do a rematch, with a clearly refined resolution, and making use of my formatting guide.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for taking the time.

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: see comments.

Reason for Mod Action>Arguments are sufficient; the voter surveys all the main arguments, weights them against each other, and reaches a conclusion.

Sources are also sufficient: the voter surveys sources, uses examples and shows how these source affected the individual arguments.

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

yeah

-->
@Club

Let us see if Virtuoso or Ramshutu agree or not.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I already did lol

-->
@Club

I believe it is unfair and await for the moderators to see if they agree.

Report Ragnar's if you think it is unfair.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Why are you reporting everyone of the votes against you?

-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Club

---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?

Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.

1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.

2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).

3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).

4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.

5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).

---RFD (2 of 2)---
---

Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.

Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.

S&G:
“0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!”

Why was this in here?

Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).

Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.

Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”

-->
@Trent0405

Club states-"Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do."
Overall a good point, but Club fails to prove how the "style" of thinking on your feet from debating was unique from that of sports or video games.
BTW Club did use a very poor source to prove debating helped you as an adult, but TRN didn't backup anything he said with any sources. So I refuse to score it against Club.
Debate vs debate voting- TRN fails to show how the two are connected. Not all debates are voted on. It's a fairly irrelevant point overall though.

-->
@Trent0405

Con=TRN Pro=Club
Grammar-both sides had bad grammar, TRN was worse, but not enough to warrant a deduction.
Club states how debating helps you think quick and makes you a critical thinker. The critical thinker point was dropped by TRN. But, he states how thinking quickly isn't exclusive to debating. Also how you could probably play sports or video games as an alternative. TRN also states how there are better ways to use your time. Club states that, assuming being able to think on your feet is desirable, then even though it's not exclusive to debating it's still a good trait.
Frankly I'd say Club did prove that being good at debating was a useful trait to have, and how the benefits out way the drawbacks.
Lets observe this exchange Club states-" IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives."
TRN-"If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest."

-->
@Trent0405

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to or for arguments

>Reason for Decision: See above

Reason for Mod Action> I have gone back and forth on this one over the last few days: but ultimately my view is that this vote falls short of what can be considered borderline.

While the voter cites some examples from pros argument, it is not fully clear from the RFD why he weighted pros point more strongly than cons. In fact, these extra quotes muddy the water for why the voter felt pros arguments were better.

Likewise, there is little detail on why the voter rejected cons arguments on the grounds of relevance - though this alone would have simply made the vote borderline.

I will normally consider a vote to be borderline if only semantic or formatting changes are required; but I feel the explanation in the first portion of the RfD is sufficiently lacking in clarity to pass the borderline test.

*******************************************************************

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

Do I have to beg?

:1

:1

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

So Trent0405's vote?

-->
@WaterPhoenix

Arguments: I'm giving this one to pro because while debating and debate voting fall into the same category I don't think that debate voting is part of the general topic of debating as you don't have to vote to have a debate. Also, Con was nitpicking a lot saying things like, "What do you mean by good?" or, "What do you mean by adulthood?" even though I'm sure he knew what Pro was talking about. Don't get me wrong Pro kept adding on points at the end even when he shouldn't have and wasn't very good at defending his adulthood point even though it was easy to defend. This was almost a tie except for the fact Pro brought in irl debating into this which I thought was very smart and something Con did not take points from.
Sources: Con didn't use sources so it's an automatic win in this sub-category for pro
Grammar: Both made grammar mistakes, Pro didn't know how to use appositive phrases and was a bit hypocritical when he had grammar mistakes in his sentences where he was pointing out grammar mistakes. But Con didn't really use comma's so I guess it balances out.
Conduct: Pro was ruder with points and counterpoints than Con, such as when he said, "Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate." which he probably could've phrased nicer, or when he said, "Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is?" which also could've been phrased nicer.

-->
@WaterPhoenix

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to pro for conduct.

>Reason for Decision: See above

Reason for Mod Action>none of the points are sufficient. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate (one side having no sources is not grounds for point allocation); not did the voter explain how the conduct was sufficiently toxic or severe to warrant conduct mark down.

To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.

To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.

*******************************************************************

-->
@PressF4Respect

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: "More convincing debater”

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Club

interesting debate, fun to vote on.

-->
@Club

Well he has ascended/shed his layers/evolved into TheRealNihilist

-->
@TheRealNihilist

What happened to omar2345

-->
@Barney
@Ramshutu

plz

bump

-->
@Club

Both of you I thought made fair points, but I cannot vote because I do not see a clearly defined objective for the debate. It seems as though Pro went down the debate is good or bad route and Con debated that debate distracts from truth. I think you guys should have agreed on what exactly you were differing on.

To Truth!

-logicae

-->
@Ramshutu
@WaterPhoenix
@logicae

Please vote

I take it that this is inspired by my debate?

Good question by Con about what about debate this debate is about. (kind of a tongue twister :)

To Truth!

-logicae

bump

-->
@TheRealNihilist

debating

-->
@Club

What specifically?

not this shit again