Instigator / Pro

Should BackwardSeden join


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 13 votes and with 74 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
I think he should come here. After all, he keep on posting the same debates over and over again, and calls people "teeny bopper". I think he would be the best person on here.

In the two years or so we’ve had on, we’ve had plenty of great users and debaters. We’ve had the likes of the undefeated oromagi and Ragnar, the latter of which has contributed immensely to helping newcomers to debate learn the ropes, RationalMadman, who has won over 120 debates overall and is one of the most active users period, and Ramshutu, who makes it his prerogative to vote on almost all the debates on the site. Our loyal head moderator Virtuoso, blamonkey, TheRealNihilist, semperfortis, Trent0405, Speedrace, Nemiroff, Alec, christopher_best, bmdrocks21, whiteflame, Death23 , SupaDudz, Our_Boat_is_Right, DynamicSquid, Athias, OoDart - and that’s just from a quick glance at our Leaderboards. 

However, my esteemed opponent in this debate posits that there is another debater who should join our site - one who uses constant personal attacks, does not seek to learn new things, and does not contribute to healthy discussion whatsoever - and he is known as Backwardseden. Today, I seek to prove that with a resounding lack of doubt he should not join

There are 2 parts to my initial argument. They are:
  1. Negative Case 
  2. Rebuttals

Burden of Proof 

Since the burden of proof was not assigned to either participant by Pro, I will assign it here. 

I assign the BoP to Pro, because Pro is the one who is making the truth/positive claim. However, I will also be presenting a Negative Case for Pro to rebuttal. 


Since my opponent also failed to present definitions, I will do so here:

Backwardseden - A socialistic and atheistic user on [1]
Should - Per Marriam Webster, “used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency[2]
Join - Also per Marriam Webster, “to become a member of a group of organization[3] - Self-described, a: “online debating platform created with a single purpose to give anyone a chance to test themselves in debates and improve argumentation and eloquence skills”. [4]

Don’t feel so much like playing semantics right now. 

Negative Case 


Our “Framework” (because it’s not really a framework) will be whether the user Backwardseden is beneficial to based on what’s moderation deems to be a good user. I choose this Framework because there is no other way to determine if a person is beneficial to a website objectively without using the website’s guidelines for what a beneficial person to the website would be. I don’t want to bend my Framework to serve the purpose of my Contentions as I believe that would be unfair. 

We already have our above definition to serve as a basic measure of what seeks in a good user: a person willing to test themselves and improve argumentation and eloquence skills. (per’s advertising) Because the conjunction in that sentence is “and” rather than “or”, we can assume that a person would have to meet all of these criteria in order to be beneficial on If they do not meet one of these criteria, we can conclude that they are not a beneficial member of the site.  We can also use’s Rules and Code of Conduct  [5] to demonstrate to us what an unacceptable user would look like. 

That said, let’s get into our arguments. 

C1: Backwardseden uses Personal Attacks 

To find evidence for Backwardseden’s very evident method of personal attacks, I took little effort and simply clicked on one of his more recent debates (The Resolution: It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists, no exceptions, none [6] ). This is how the discourse went: 

Backwardseden begins his R2 with: 

You do realize that you are not very bright. You do fully understand this - correct?

To which his opponent, liahelmi responds: 

You seem to think that debates are about calling people names, Being offended and offending. Since you are so passionate about providing evidence, Point out the parts were I presented myself as 'not bright', And how you are smarter than anyone else on this site.

And to this, Backwardseden goes on one of the most awe-inspiringly absurd and awful personal-attacking rants I have ever seen. He accuses his opponent of being a:

debate smart a$$ with a burning rectal itch cabbage batbrain that's about ready to supernova on his pinky toe with his yodeling Buddhist monk panzer division at bay singing his favorite garlic onion beer belly deodorant classic yodeling grunge country opera songs as he meows at the moon

This, while rather hilarious, is a fantastic example of terrible debate conduct and an obvious personal attack. 

If we scroll down one debate in his loss column, we can find this [7] masterpiece, where (in a debate about intelligence, ironically enough), he says of his opponent:

You obviously point blank do not have any intelligence because you cannot plan what to say next, Which requires intelligence. OK, I"m done. This debate is now over. I only communicate with those that are intelligent and educated. Bye.

So. Per our Rules and Code of Conduct [5] we can see that: Personal attacks will not be tolerated. We can also see’s definition of a personal attack, which is as follows: 

… a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse.”

This obviously fits the billing of Backwardseden’s remarks about his opponents because they were: 
  • Abusive
  • Derogatory
  • Aimed at aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse

So I ask my opponent: why should Backwardseden come to just to hamper the discourse with insults, and then get banned, as PaulVerlaine did? [8] This is obviously not beneficial and is a reason for him not to join the site, rather for him to join the site.

C2: Backwardseden does not fit the criteria for a beneficial member of per

Our definition [4] of tells us that a user should seek to challenge themselves and improve argumentation and eloquence skills when coming to the site and being a productive member. 

Subpoint A: Backwardseden does not seek to improve argumentation and eloquence skills 

Obviously, we cannot be certain what Backwardseden’s motivations were in coming to But as we can see, they were not to get better . If we examine his first loss as compared to his most recent loss, we can see very little improvement. 

Here is his first loss [9] and here is his most recent loss [6]. Besides a slight improvement in grammar, very little has changed with regards to Backwardseden’s debating style. In fact, it seems it has even worsened over time due to the lower level of personal attacks in his initial loss. The format is the same, the subject is the same… which brings us to our final point. 

Subpoint B: Backwardseden does not challenge himself in debates 

Case in subpoint: in all of Backwardseden’s over 180 debates [10], I am yet to find one that is not critical of theism and supportive of atheism in some way. This is not challenging yourself. This is continuing to repeat one topic over and over and over that you may know something about. 


As a preface to my rebuttals, Pro has given no actual reason, framework, or criteria for why Backwardseden should come to He has given a series of arbitrary positive statements (which are also unsourced) about the user instead, with no explanation as to why these assertions are actually good things or are reasons for him to come onto this site. 

After all, he keep on posting the same debates over and over again

Why is this a good thing? As you can see, Pro never clarifies this. On the contrary, posting the same debates repeatedly adds nothing to intellectual discourse (especially when those debates are worded in opponent-insulting, mean spirited characters). 

and calls people "teeny bopper"

That’s goofy, but not very nice. Once again, why is this a reason for him to join the site? Sounds like a personal attack to me. 

Back to you Pro. 


Round 2
I would agree on what you just said.
Thank you for the quick concession, Pro. Voters, please keep that in mind when awarding the conduct point.