Rap battles should not be on DArt
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
"where MCs will perform on the same stage to see who has the better verses"
de·bate/dəˈbāt/noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
The abusive, insulting, or derogatory nature of a comment will be judged based on how a reasonable individual would interpret it. It is not based upon the intentions of speaker, unless those intentions were stated clearly and explicitly prior to the offending remark. Reasonableness is interpreted solely by the mods. The "just kidding" argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks.
- My opponent leveraged the Policy of DART as evidence that the narrative of a rap battle would not be permitted. I clearly refuted that.
- My opponent appears to this the title is "Rap Battles SHOULD be allowed". unfortunately, that is not the debate title. My opponent has a BOP to demonstrate why they should not be allowed.
- My opponent believes that a rap battle is not a debate. I disagree. It would be unfair to provide new evidence at this stage so I shall call to the reader's sensibilities. A rap battle is a type of argument. It is a type of debate. Each party has their opportunity to say what they are going to say, and the crowd judges. Rap battles could absolutely be a debate. It is a style of argument.
- My opponent is under the misinterpretation that they should be permitted. I reference my previous statements. Rap battles are a type of debate, and if done properly are permitted under the current terms.
I do not comprehend at any point in Con's entire debate what he is saying regarding the 'should' aspect of the debate.
Con notices that Pro, who is clearly new to debating and made a noob error in how he structured the debate's title and sides, worded it as 'should not' as he didn't want to bait someone into taking the Pro side to 'should' since the default is that the one accepting defies the resolution.
This is very dirty play by Con and is lazy debating to the core. He never once justified why they should be allowed, only that they can be, would be and are. Pro correctly points this out in Round 2 and only has lost the debate due to voters not grasping honour and valid logic in debating.
Only Pro used sources, Con didn't even semantically outplay his opponent and he didn't dare to touch the definition of 'should' as he knew he'd lose if he did.
This is pretty basic. Pro relies on arguments that are directly addressed and defeated by Con in the previous round in order to win the debate. He does introduce the concept of Con's burden of proof in the second round by arguing that Con had to show that rap battles should be on DART, but a) it's too late to do so, and b) Con disputes that burden and argues that Pro carries it (again, a little late, but understandable in this instance). All that remains is the point about rap battles not being debates, but Con points out that they follow to the letter the standards for the site. Even if they don't fit a definition of debate in the manner Pro describes, it's unclear why they should not be on the site as a result. Pro's failure to support his arguments sufficiently nets Con the debate.
Pro did not work to refute what Con had said, and simply by stating:
"Well, the name is the name. You failed to prove that rap battles are debates.
You gave evidence of how rap battles could be allowed on this site, however, you failed to prove why they are beneficial to the site. Remember the title is "Should". ", he has not managed to accomplish a win.
Pretty much a straightforward vote: Pro completely drops all of con's arguments. Con shows that rap battles can be debates can be permitted under the following circumstances:
1. The nature of the debate being a rap battle is agreed in advance
2. The intentions of any rap battle insults are qualified in the first round, and ideally at the beginning of each following round
3. The rap battle is not intended to be a personal attack, rather it is an argument style, and that style is part of the agreement of the parties.
Pro pretty much drops all of this giving con an easy win.
You vote well in debates, even when you vote against me. Please vote.
Keep in mind that there are unrated debates, so it isn't necessarily going to mess up the leaderboard.
Art is in the name.
Idiotic pro argument. Rap battles focus on many aspects that take skill.