Instigator / Pro
6
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic

Ragnar always votes against me and i think its personal

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
2
8
Spelling and grammar points
3
4
Conduct points
1
4

With 4 votes and 22 points ahead, the winner is ...

Barney
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
28
1775
rating
37
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 45 / 5,000

Ragnar should be censored for his bias to me

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Ragnar completely disproved Pro's case by providing a link to debate in which he did vote for him. Also no arguments for the "personal" point. Without any refutation, arguments must go to CON.
Links to voting history disprove that he isn't vote bombing or making it personal. CON actually gave sources to prove his point. Sources go to CON.

I could understand what both were saying. Tie on spelling and grammar.

Callout debate and then didn't even argue. Wasted CON's time, who actually went to the trouble to make points. CON gets conduct points.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro is objectively wrong when he states that Ragnar always votes against him and Ragnar points this out when he refers to the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things”, and seeing how Pro must prove Ragnar always votes against him and that it is personal, he can't win this debate unless he could prove that Ragnar really didn't vote against him in that debate. Sadly, Billbatard fails to prove this in R2, he never even supported how it was personal either, he just dropped everything Ragnar stated.

Therefore Pro loses arguments because he doesn't offer any evidence.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

No argument is offered by pro at all. Con demonstrates he has voted for pro - directly refuting the premise. Arguments to con, open and shut.

Sources: con won the debate with an unassailable source that demonstrated the resolution false, by linking the vote that refuted the resolution, cons source was seminal in the victory thus warrants the source point - pro offered no sources.

Conduct: this is a poor conduct call out debate - which, together with pros unwillingness to argue - is clearly poor behaviour, and Warrants a conduct mark down.