Persons recently painted with green pigment foam (full resolution in description)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 42 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Full Resolution: Persons recently painted with green pigment foam must stand around all odd-numbered SCPs at least two hours a day.
1) This is not a troll debate. The topic of this debate is in regards to the fictional incident outlined in the link below.
2) All events in said incident are by necessity somewhat open to interpretation due to the incomplete information present, however any interpretation made must not directly conflict with the larger setting of which this fictional account is a small part (hereafter referred to as the 'SCP universe'). Violation of this rule results in disqualification of the argument which committed said violation but not of the offending debater.
3) In the event that a violation of rule 2 is pointed out the debater making the accusation will be required to justify said accusation using only information available from the SCP wiki. No other source of information regarding the SCP universe is to be considered valid. A debater accused of violation of rule 2 may attempt to argue that no such violation in fact occured and if they do it is ultimately up to individual voters to decide whether a violation did in fact occur based on evidence submitted by the two debating parties and therefore whether the argument which did/did not violate the rule is/is not valid for use in determining the winner of the debate as per rule 2.
4) Lack of knowledge regarding the SCP universe as it pertains to rule 2 may not be used as an excuse to allow arguments which violate said rule.
5) The full resolution is an excerpt from the incident report mentioned in rule 1 and linked below. The resolution is to be regarded only in the context of the events of this fictional incident. No other interpretation of the resolution is valid.
This debate is being made under the 'philosophy' category because I suspect that the contender will try to defeat the resolution on ethical grounds. I am not limiting them to only making ethical arguments however. They are free to challenge the resolution on other grounds if they so wish.
If the contender does not agree with any rule above they are not to accept the debate but instead to inform me of their disagreement via PM or in the debate comments so that we can negotiate any changes they may desire. Acceptance of the debate without attempting any negotiation of the rules constitutes acceptance of all rules as they appear in this debate description. All agreed upon changes will be valid only once they are reflected in an editing of this description.
The contender may also propose to change the resolution to be any other 'suggestion' made or action taken by SCP-001-ex in the below incident report, however I the instigator reserve the right to choose whether I would be pro or con to any new resolutions agreed upon in such a way, just as the contender reserves the right to not accept the debate in the event that they suggest a new resolution to which I take the side (pro or con) which the contender had been hoping to take.
"I'm very much intrigued!"
Lmao Speedrace made a thread about wanting people to challenge him to a debate so I threw a bunch of nonsense phrases at him. I had just happened to read the SCP-001-ex file a few days before that so I decided to take the nonsense phrases from there. I didn't expect him to accept any challenges, but then I suspect that he didn't expect me to make a serious argument in favor of a [seemingly] nonsense phrase.
>Reported Vote: Walrus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In order to be eligible to vote on debates, a user's current accounts must BOTH
(1) reflect that they have read the site's COC, AND
(2) either completed at least two non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts.
Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having met these criteria, their voting privileges may be suspended.
3 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
this looks silly but yeah full forfeit thing
I'm very much intrigued!
You busy with new mod duties or just get caught off guard by this not being a troll debate?
I will have an argument up by time limit probably.
I am doing the alcohol for a Halloween party so it will be a good round one argument.
Prepare for defeat at my hands.