Instigator / Pro
0
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#2021

There should be a limit to the number of debates a person can be engaged in at a time.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Pretty self explanatory.

-->
@K_Michael

Alright, thanks.

-->
@VonKlempter

You could ask him but yeah that's about what I remember.

-->
@K_Michael

"RationalMadman had about 13" Really?

-->
@User_2006

No worries. Just add some detail and resubmit if you wish

-->
@MisterChris

Oh nvm thanks I guess :>

-->
@MisterChris

How is my vote still there??

-->
@User_2006

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[Arguments: I prefer Con's argument because he has disproved why we should have limits such as how many debates we can be accepted into. Con states that accepting too many debates is their own fault rather than their system's fault and the rules should be defined in person based on their own instead of letting the system define it for them. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used more outside sources, including arbitrary ones that actually make sense. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie, both sides presentable.
Conduct: Pro had used what has appeared to be a swear word in round 3. Pro also looks like he is struggling while Con is more natural.]
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote does neither of the three.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
This vote does one of the three.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Frankly, there was plenty in this debate to warrant conduct points being awarded/taken away from either side. While the voter did identify an instance of misconduct, he fails to hit all three points.
To summarize, the voter must add significant detail to this vote and resubmit.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Fair enough. Apology accepted. AS irt happens, I am a writer by profession

-->
@fauxlaw

I stand by the gist of my comment, but I'm willing to admit now I was overly hostile. The way I expressed myself was uncalled for. I am sorry.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

The don't vote. My voice is what it is. Sorry to offend, but, that's on you.

-->
@User_2006

Thank you for voting

bump

I started out planning to vote on this, because it's an interesting topic and I figured it would be a pretty simple debate.

But my goodness, is this a pain to read.

I won't act like Pro's arguments are structured as well as they could be, but my main bone to pick is with fauxlaw. All of these literary references and unnecessary flourishes in your writing only muddy the water. As far as I'm concerned, your arguments are 90% self-indulgent fluff and 10% relevant points.

-->
@K_Michael

I will remind my opponent that your opportunity to debate the subject has passed. Your rounds are done, as are mine. Stop debating the point.

"then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom"
If the voters reread the argument, or use Ctrl-F, they will find that fauxlaw is quoting himself here.

-->
@fauxlaw

"did Pro ever support his quote from a fiction writer, Mark Twain "
What part of irony do you not understand?

-->
@PressF4Respect

"But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;("

Are you talking about Ramdatt? I mean, there is no doubt voting, because forfeiting accounts for at least the loss of conduct points.

-->
@PressF4Respect

Yes, and History.com, too.

-->
@fauxlaw

Wait, people still trust Nat Geo as a credible source?

I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.

-->
@K_Michael

But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;(