Instigator / Pro
29
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1912

Pele is truly the goat

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
9
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
3

After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Nevets
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
27
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description

I will give a brief description of what this debate is about.
Pele, according to contemporary sports analysists, is considered the greatest footballer of all time.
However, an argument against this claim is growing legs on the internet.
Maradonites, Messiaeans and Ronaldoists appear to be claiming that Peles credentials are greatly exaggerated, if not complete lies. And that in actual fact, he is not the greatest player of all time.

Now all i ask, is for an honest debate.
Errors that remain unacknowledged after being pointed out, may become constituted as lies.

And i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.
Though i may use other sources later on, if required

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

"I cannot prove Pele is the greatest of all time."

This is effectively a concession. Pro has the burden of proof to prove that Pele is the GOAT. Because he conceded that he cannot prove the case, he loses.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con made great arguments about the semantics of GOAT vs goat, "the" etc. However Pro was very correct in saying that those arguments had no foundation as the description of the debate was clear.

However... Through all the back and forth, Con forced Pro to make a concession. Pro stated in round 5

'I cannot prove Pele is the greatest of all time."
"But what i can do is "suggest" he is the greatest of all time"

The debate title is "Pele is truly the goat"

Pro conceded that he could not love the merits of the debate. Therefore I view this as a concession. Con wins.

Pro wins conduct because the debate was clear about the purpose. Con should not have argued the semantics of GOAT/goat.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

It was strongly implied that this debate was about soccer, not animals. As a result I will see the resolution as "Pele is the greatest soccer player of all time."As a result, Pro must win arguments purely because he was the only person who engaged with my personal interpretation of the resolution, talking about Pele's statistics and prowess as a soccer player.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

As fun as con's K was, the description clearly stipulated what the debate is about "greatest player of all time," and was posted within the Sports section.

A little nit-pickiness is fine, such as were pro to have backed down and claimed him being a great player should count as "a GOAT" instead of "the GOAT" when challenged. However, con's tactic outright called for dropping pro's entire case.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct to Pro, as Con made blatantly bad-faith arguments that completely subverted the intent of the debate. Pro wanted to have a debate about a particular football player. Con knew this. Con decided to exploit a failure to define to goat, thus turning the debate on its head.

Other voters may believe Con's behavior was acceptable, as Pro simply should offer better definitions. I think Pro should have defined GOAT, to be sure, but that does not justify Con's decision to intentionally make bad-faith arguments. Simply put, Con's actions were petty and unsportsmanlike.