Outside of video debates, one round debates shouldn’t be allowed on DART
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 0 / 5,000
We can use the first round of debates as an example of how it would go. As here notes, in a regular debate we reserve the first round for opening statements and constructive arguments. However, there is very little preventing con from already trying to refute pro, or even indirectly using powerful arguments for their side to destroy pro's arguments. If we take the Hall of Fame featured debate, if only Bsh posted one round and Blamonkey refuted him, the argument would look like this equivalent: https://prnt.sc/uml7aj (give or take). As bsh would be unable to correct Blamonkey's faults and reassert what he might've missed out on, pro would have a severe massive disadvantage. As such, one round debates shouldn't be allowed on DART, as pro cannot respond and so all his arguments would fall to null, allowing con to destroy pro's BoP.
Now onto con.
However, there is very little preventing con from already trying to refute pro, or even indirectly using powerful arguments for their side to destroy pro's arguments.
No kidding :)
as you can see, the round 1 presented was absolutely meaningless. Either pro's case is a truism and con would think about the case, concede, and the debate would learn nothing, or, con would have shut down the entirety of the argument. Con has not negated any of my ideas, especially about Blamonkey potentially entirely getting rid of Bsh's round 1 argument, however strong, is not a truism (and thus not impossible to refute). Do not sanction one round debates. Vote for pro.
Pro asserts that one round debates shouldn't be allowed, thus his BoP is to make a solid case for this after proving that there is such thing as objective "shouldn't". All pro has done is assert his claims and provide a single anecdote as supporting evidence. Pro in no way fulfills his BoP, and Con simply finessed him into chasing his own tail by lightly taunting him. Meaning Con's actual argument would go unchallenged in the final round. The result: Pro fails to meet BoP and Con is free to refute any of Pro's claims without a rebuttal. If Pro's argument was solid enough, Con wouldn't be able to refute him even when Pro can't counter but instead Con has outclassed Pro so well that he created the same flaw in this very two round debate that Pro attributes to a one round debate.
Con has both countered Pro's anecdote by making one of this debate and demonstrated that it is not the number of rounds that counts, it is the skill of the debate participants.