Instigator / Pro
13
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1379

Socialism and Fascism are the most misused words in our language, they have been so perverted they are meaningless

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

Due to the anti intellectual nature of American discourse it is hard to know exactly what people mean when they claim something is fascist or Socialist, almost like the terms are inter change able, which if you look at the dictionary even with a skim you see how wrong that is , people might as well be grunting and throwing their poo, that makes about as much sense

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:

Neither side discussed the resolution. Con says Pro never met BoP but Con never lays out what BoP there is in any Round before the one where Pro can no longer reply.

Con copy and pastes WIkipedia introductions to Socialism and Fascism, doesn't put them in quotation boxes and only gives any credit to the original source by making the bolded words (which were bolded by Wikipedia anyway) link to the Wikipedia URL. This is lazy, deceptive use of sources as was the way that meeting BoP was only discussed in a Round where Pro no longer could meet it or argue back that they had a more passive BoP to meet than the one that Con demanded there and then.

Con pastes definitions and says that Pro has to give proof of an 'anti thing' while Con gives zero proof of the actual intellectual Americans or that Americans support intellectualism. I used to be a lazy debater but I have seen first-hand that this is too lazy to qualify as a true win. The worst part of Con's conduct, I feel, is that what Pro was doing with pasting the videos was giving the 'data' demanded by Con to show anti-intellectualism by Americans and all that Con does in response is decribe each with a biased narrative and fails to ever, once, explain that the pasted Wikipedia definitions are not themselves evidence of how meaningless and perverted that the words have become. For example, if Con had simply expanded on the definitions and explained the difference between them as well as what the words inside the definitions meant, in the context of politics, law, history etc. then he would have got the win, in my eyes.

Conduct to Pro because Con unfairly tries to control the dynamic of the debate throughout, only telling Pro they had to meet a BoP more so than Con did in a Round when Pro no longer could meet that BoP, nor reply to it. This is compounded by the Round 1 ending, where Con dictates to Pro what to present data on and then in Round 2 punishes Pro for trying to present the demanded data. Pro is new to debating and performed poorly but Con tried to capitalise on it in the laziest way possible and I don't approve of it.

Con used sources more actively as he had context to the copy+pasted exerpts and is exact on what part of the source to look at (Pro didn't even timestamp where in the videos to look).

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:

Pro's argument was abandoned in favor of an argument about American intelligence based on anecdotal evidence. Neither argument effectively.

Con. Stated definitions.

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:

BoP...

Seriously, pro never talked about either word in question in the resolution, so BoP could not be met. I did however enjoy that classic Simpson's bit.
The con case is the definitions of the words, showing they have meaning, negating the resolution until such time as pro offers evidence they are indeed misused (oh they are, at least by some groups, but pro has a duty to show it, and to show it).