Instigator / Pro
Ragnar has blocked me he should not be allowed to vote on my debates!
The voting period has ended
After 6 votes the winner is ...
Time for argument
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Ragnar should be banned from this [email protected]! he has violated my personal safe spaces! i protest!
It is easy to find reference works and websites that attribute the phrase to Charles Dickens, who put it into print in Oliver Twist, 1838. When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", replies:
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot".https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html
Back when this debate took place, I was not yet a moderator (it's actually a pretty recent development). As a moderator, I may not block people on a whim.
he is a mod you cannot block him.
CON argued users' rights, PRO quoted others as is PRO's wont.
god this is so unfair
yes, but you can justify banning him from accepting debates maybe. The latter is up to the mods' discretion, but the voting is always allowed even with blocks.
if i block raganr can he still vote in my debates?
Even though... you made a debate complaining about your lack of right to vote... Hypocrite
Dude, your starting to sound like donald trump. Everything that doesnt go the way you want must be unfair and part of a conspiracy against you. No debator has (apparently) ever been treated as bad as you. WITCHHUNT!!!
Both sides forfeited, but Con was the only side that offered any form of argument relevant to the debate.
Although both sides forfeited once, Pro's only argument was barely related to the topic at hand, while Con actually made a valid point, which was dropped by pro.
Really weird debate, both forfeited 1 time so conduct is tied. Con does make a point about Ragnar having the right to vote, and this is dropped by pro. Pro merely points to something about Charles Dickens, entirely irrelevant to the resolution.
Both forfeited one round.
Con provides an actual, fact-based argument (regarding Ragnar's right to vote).
Pro simply talks about a quote by Charles Dickens calling the law an a**. It isn't really a quality argument. I struggle to find any relevance of this to the debate.
Both forfeited, but con was theo only one to present a real argument. Con's main argument is that Ragnar still has the right to vote, which he does. Pro never makes an argument and the only thing he responds with is Charles Dickens, which makes absolutely no senes in this context.