Should we be allowed to instigate as Con?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
My opponent has posted a comment that we should, not ever, instigate as CON. I am here to oppose her idea.
Over all, I find this a useless debate. Arguing a format of a site that allows flexibility is restricting in a very real sense that I find unnecessary and ill-advised. So, one does not like a broader spectrum of what is and is not allowed, either deal with it, or make your own debate site, and good luck.
Argument: Con had a good first round, and Pro had a good, and unopposed second round, and both suffered the reverse in the relative rounds. On the basis of argument, alone, on merit, and not considering the forfeit factor, which must be considered, this feature of the debate is a tie.
Sources: Pro offered the only source of the debate, but I call foul relative to the circular reference; a new debate form. That is not a supporting feature of Pro's argument, it is merely evidence everyone who opens a debate can see, and it does not favor either Pro or Con. If I could withdraw, rather than merely assign points, I would. Unfortunately, I can only call a tie. Not to mention the forfeit factor, except I just did.
Conduct. Con had the bad form to forfeit half the debate. Therefore, a foregone conclusion: point to Pro
Technically under this site's rules, this is a full forfeit.
"Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"
Singularity only argued one round.
PRO: Rules allow it, and the site expressly gives this a viable option. Effectively pushes the burden to Con to prove the rules are wrong. I will say this is a very weak opening for a two-round debate. It does not survive on its own.
CON: Starts by stating the fact that you are able to do something does not make it right. This is not even logic. This is disturbing. Pro stated that the site gave the choice as an option. Society goes not give people an express option to rape 13 year olds.
CON then tries to argue that debate can only be initiated from a Pro position because the common vernacular is pro vs con, not con vs pro. This argument is very weak. Con then says that people who instigate as a Con are cowards. I will remind the house that Con in this debate has instigated debate as Con. Con then tries to justify their position by stating that the issue is with the judges and their level of sophistication. However, Con never supports that position.
PRO then does a good job addressing the points made by Con. However PRO really nailed it at the end. Linguistically it is all semantics, and forcing the instigation to be only Pro does nothing more than modifying the way the resolution is drafted and has no other value. A fantastic final piece of logic and statement.
The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro.
I really worry about con's obsession with pedophilia, as his mind apparently jumps to comparing a weak weak case to "rape 13 year olds."
Pro came around in R2 with a strong argument that resolutions can equally employ negative statements anyway (if those should not be allowed from a con instigator, could be an interesting debate); to which con could come up with no reply.
Anyway with con choosing to drop all arguments after the first round, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.