Instigator / Con
Points: 49

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
Discipulus_Didicit
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 27
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
BoP is on pro, let's see what they got.
Published:
Since I don't speak Spanish, there is nothing to prove.
Round 2
Published:
BoP remains on pro. Extend.
Published:
I still don't speak Spanish. There is no claim to prove.
Round 3
Published:
There is no claim to prove

Pros attempted Kritik here is that he has never made any implication aligning with the resolution before the debate began and therefore the debate is invalid. Rather than taking the easy route and linking to the post where he made said implication I will instead point out to the voters that this kritik is completely irrelevant to the debate even if what GP was saying was true.

This debate is about whether or not DD loves open borders. The moment GP accepted the debate as pro he agreed to argue in favor of the resolution. Even if pro could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not in fact believe this position to be valid it could still be assumed that pro had taken a 'devils advocate' position, a common practice which any voters here will surely be familiar with. If pro did not wish to take such a position he needed only to not accept the debate.

I am not sure what pros lack of understanding of Spanish has to do with anything. This debate is being conducted in English.
Published:
Con is correct. By accepting the debate, I must accept the claim as existing, even if it does not exist.
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
What you said was also incorrect. Ragnar's vote hits the nail on the head as to why.
#5
Added:
--> @Zaradi
Right, that is what you said the first time. I said the opposite.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I'm aware. I'm not saying it's a bad k. I'm saying it's just straight up not a k.
#3
Added:
I never claimed it was a good attempt at a Kritik...
Instigator
#2
Added:
"Pros attempted Kritik..."
No. There was no k here. Not even close.
#1
#7
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro failed to meet the necessary requirements for Pro's BOP, therfore, Con wins.
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con did not fulfill the BOP of the debate (showing evidence for DD loving open borders). Therefore, the arguments go to Con
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con essentially concedes in the final round. I don't think he should've accepted the debate