Instigator / Pro
19
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#2005

Rap battles should not be on DArt

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
3

After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
Tags
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
22
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

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 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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.