Instigator / Con
14
1512
rating
12
debates
54.17%
won
Topic
#1306

Should you save the best for last?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

WaterPhoenix
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

Definition of best to be used in this debate: Something that excels all others and is of the highest quality and desire. ie. saving the most delicious food for the end of the meal.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I love philosophical no-links-required raw logic debates, I fucking dig this stuff so much and this is what made me fall in love with debating but it's extremely clear that Omar/Pro had no clue what exactly his side represented.

The entire case of Omar's can be summed up as defending against the notion of the best being the most effective thing to use time on... That doesn't mean it should be left until last nor does it explain why you're constantly going to not want to use the higher quality thing. Con correctly points this out continually, explaining a simple concept from the beginning:

"Saving the best for last may seem like a harmless impulse control exercise for most people but it's not so. For one thing, saving the best for last is just developing your mindset into always using the worse the materials or eating the worst food first and not using things that are more high quality. Also, "the best" may turn bad after too much "saving"."

To which Omar replies that this is extreme interpretation of Pro's stance, that things do get worse over time but that we can't have benefits without consequences and many other tautologies surrounding the topic. While I actually think he had a good point with paying bills and could have run 'consequence butterfly effect' lines of reasoning along game theory, Omar instead opts to engage with Con, who was hostile but is new to debating, in an equally hostile way. Conduct is tied because both had bad conduct equally in my eyes.

This became very 'he's wrong omg omg' 'he's wrongerrrrrr omg omg' but ultimately I find that con's opening was succinct and held throughout, as I quoted. The concept Con represents is that as resources diminish (which they will do anyway), you want to at least have some of the best while it lasts. Pro said this was an extremely unfair interpretation of his stance (that one literally should always leave the best until last) but PRO NEVER IS CLEAR ON WHAT HIS ACTUAL STANCE IS.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

CVB bill.
I would not do this, but 6 hours left, so no guarantee any moderator will be on.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

it came down to a debate on what best means