Instigator / Con
49
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic

Discipulus_Didicit loves, or at some point loved, open borders.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
21
0
Sources points
14
14
Spelling and grammar points
7
7
Conduct points
7
6

With 7 votes and 22 points ahead, the winner is ...

Discipulus_Didicit
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
2,000
Contender / Pro
27
1498
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 480 / 5,000

Greyparrot has made the claim that DD is in favor of open borders. BoP is on pro. If pro can find a single post of DD saying anything remotely in favor of open borders on DART or DDO, no matter how long ago it was made, then pros BoP is fulfilled. If pro is unable to do this then he is simply creating fake news about DD for no particular reason by making this accusation and the mature thing for pro to do would be to admit that this accusation was simply pulled out of his ass.

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

The burden of proof was on Pro and was clearly outlined in the description. Pro needed to provide a quote proving that Discipulus_Didicit used to support open borders. He failed to do so, and thus did not meet his burden of proof. Arguments go to Con.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
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 failed to meet the necessary requirements for Pro's BOP, therfore, Con wins.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
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 lazy and mocking actually towards Spanish speakers more so than to Con because he is associating not understanding something with the other person conveying the Spanish language (when BoP actually is an English abbreviation of Burden of Proof).

Conduct docked.

Arguments to Con because Con has de facto authority to say that the belief is not present and Pro did nothing to suggest otherwise.

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

Credit to pro for accepting the debate, but he then could not provide any evidence (even while the description stated he just needed to find a since piece). Con on the other hand explained BoP and such, and pro failed to even try to advance any points.
...
Also pretty sure that doesn't rise to the level of a K. Those have:
Analysis: The main complaint, and Kritik introduction.
Link: What specific element of the opponent’s case it deals with and how.
Implications: The damage done if the K is ignored.
Alternative: What better solution does the K suggest? If none, we should use the status quo.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
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 fails to uphold his BoP. Not a shred of evidence was offered to lead me to believe that Discipulus_Didicit loves, or at some point loved, open borders.

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

Con did not fulfill the BOP of the debate (showing evidence for DD loving open borders). Therefore, the arguments go to Con

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

Con essentially concedes in the final round. I don't think he should've accepted the debate