Instigator / Pro
1
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1363

the black book of communism is a poor source to use

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
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

It can be proven that although communism was bloody, claims about atrocities are absurdly exaggerated

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

Arguments:
Pro fixates on the number 100M, con counters that pro fabricated this number from 94M (the source on the book says "For the cumulative toll of victims of communist rule, estimated by the authors at between 85 and 100 million,"). For some reason pro tries to claim victory for his number being accused of being made up by him.

The other thing from pro was refusing (even when specifically requested) to define "use." For the context of the debate, there needs to be wrong time to use it. Otherwise, all pro arguments are self defeating, as attempting to discuss something as a bad source, necessitates using it as a source.

Con on the other hand makes a compelling case for just how good of a source it is. Great appeal to authority of Harvard, with explination of the peer-review process documenting any possibly shortcomings.

Sources:
Con gets this mainly for the BBC, which was vital to making sense of this debate.
Pro's sourcing was pretty bad, sometimes failing to even use quotation marks; which made it look like he was committing plagiarism. One of his quoted sections from a source was so poorly selected it contained this gem in defense of communism: "no extermination camps built to murder millions ... the labour camp population reached 2.5 million at its peak"
I can't help but laugh. It's Holocaust denial level stupid.

Conduct:
This could have also been called S&G, but when you present your material as if it's plagiarism, you get penalized conduct regardless of if you meant to commit said crime. I've written a guide which on the first first page explains how to avoid this problem (https://tiny.cc/DebateArt).