Instigator / Pro
Points: 19

Rap battles should not be on DArt

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
CaptainSceptic
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Art
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 22
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
I will present why Rap Battles are not being debated in this round.

First, rap battles aren't debates and should not be judged the same way as debates.
I will straight up quote a sentence.
Battle rap (also known as rap battling)[1] is a type of rapping that includes bragging, insults and boasting content.
So, in Rap Battles, especially on DArt(Or formerly on DDO), cannot be judged by the conduct section of the rubric because "Bragging, Insults and Boasting content" are bad conduct in normal debating but aren't in Rap battle pseudo debates. Also, Sources cannot be judged properly and most likely it will stay tied because sources are never needed in this kind of debate. 

"where MCs will perform on the same stage to see who has the better verses"
That is not debating.
de·bate
/dəˈbāt/

noun

  1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
  2. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.


Conclusion: Rap battles mess with the voting system and they aren't debates. If Rap battles are allowed then lectures should be allowed too. 
Published:
RAP Battles can be the form of debate on DART.

I accept my opponent's definition of a Rap Battle.  I also accept the assumption that a rap battle by its nature will include a derogatory or insulting narrative.

Therefore the only issue is if the nature of a rap battle can be argued on DART based on the current Code of Conduct and related policies.   My opponent says that said policies prohibit conduct that would form a necessary element of the rap debate corpus.  I disagree.

When a debate is set up, the rules of the debate are either set out unilaterally by the instigator or negotiated between the parties in comments and or private message/question systems.

How the participants decide to operate the debate is a cornerstone of the judging process.  

The code of conduct provides latitude in the assessment of abusive, insulting, and derogatory content. 

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.
If the nature of the debate was agreed at the outset by the participants to be a "rap battle", with all expected literary component options available, the judges are not forced to condemn the conduct.

Therefore rap battles would 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.

While sources can be referenced in a rap battle, they are not needed for judging.  If the parties agree to no sources, then that part of the 7 point system will not be allocated, nor will the lack thereof be used punitively in a single point system.


Round 2
Published:
1. DEBATEART is for DEBATES

Well, the name is the name. You failed to prove that rap battles are debates. 

2. "Should" doesn't equal to "Should be allowed"

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". 
Published:
My opponent appears to be a little confused.

  1.  My opponent leveraged the Policy of DART as evidence that the narrative of a rap battle would not be permitted.  I clearly refuted that.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4.  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.

My opponent has not met the burden of proof to demonstrate that rap battles should not be permitted.

The resolution thus fails, and a vote for Con is the result.



Added:
--> @Ragnar
You vote well in debates, even when you vote against me. Please vote.
#4
Added:
--> @User_2006
Keep in mind that there are unrated debates, so it isn't necessarily going to mess up the leaderboard.
#3
Added:
Art is in the name.
#2
Added:
Idiotic pro argument. Rap battles focus on many aspects that take skill.
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.