Points: 32

The User "YeshuaBought" unjustly called me a "racist" and "troll" on DDO

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
7,500
Points: 42
Description
Yeshua Bought called me a racist with no rational basis, and she also called me a troll. Here is the debate, accept this challenge if you please. Here is the debate she attacked me on-
https://www.debate.org/debates/Deport-all-Illegal-Immigrants-Change-my-Mind/1/
Round 1
Published:
I mentioned nothing of race in the debate.  I was also having a simple debate before she called me a troll.  You present your arguments, I don't have much more to say.
Published:
Sorry but my client, Yeshuabought has commented in the comments that she is not the user in the debate he is speaking of. thank you for your time and if you 'prove' something bear in mind the doxxing rules get you banned, this is a friendly warning not a threat. I am saving you.
Round 2
Published:
YeshuaBought has admitted that is her account in private messages.  If she says otherwise, she is lying, and Christians should not lie.  Now, can you get on the actual argument, whether she unjustly called me a "racist" and a "troll."
Published:
Listen to this song, my darling reader, as you peruse this fine Round of debate, it has sexy dancing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jafq6trT5yo

That song is from the great YeshuaBought via Sia, oh yes indeed... See how that works? I can say she's anyone or has done anything without proof and voila it's her awooooooha! 

That user was, to my knowledge, not YeshuaBought. I am confused though, do you think you've provided a single argument so far? You know it's very bad conduct to bring new points in the last round right as it forces your opponent to either (If you're second) have no reply or (if you're first as in this case) to break the same rule in order to rebuke you... So, I hope you don't do that. ;)

The term 'unjust' has not been defined this entire debate by Pro and thus Con is entitled to be the one to define it.

If you describe an action, system, or law as unjust, you think that it treats a person or group badly in a way that they do not deserve. In other words, it means you FAIL TO TREAT THEM in a way that is equally without favouritism or discrimination as well as appropriate in the circumstances.

My opponent is stating an untruth (I don't think it's lying, it's genuine failure to comprehend a word's context) in that he says he was called a 'troll' but from both the context and exact wording it's extremely apparent that the user was appalled that someone she/he considered a non-troll was doing the trolling. This is why she/he was so distraught as to say:

You don't want your mind changed, you are just trolling a debate site and wasting my time. I am blocking you as soon as this goes to voting, because I am here to actually debate
- The user who is apparently YeshuaBought according to Pro.

The quote shows that she/he was completely shocked that a non-troll (meaning someone who she/he didn't expect to troll and who spent the first 2 Rounds completely unaware would take the debate the path he took it down). A troll would be the type of user you'd, from Round 1, expect to do this and who you would not plead with in the following way:

Yes we are. White people kidnapped black and Irish people, and illegally immigrated here against the wishes of NATIVES! Are you that ignorant that you don't even know this? You are not saying this about white immigrants, are you a racist?
Let's just observe what happened here. My client, YeshuaBought if she is that user which has yet to be proven decided to ask a rhetorical question in her closing statement towards Pro... She asked him 'are you a racist?' and the prosecution is telling you, Jury Members, that there is reason enough for the Judge to consider her guilty of calling him a racist. The point she was making is he was that you want to just 'kick out all the immigrants' without taking into consideration that they are equally, if not more as they work for less, beneficial to the economy and such than both the illegal Canadian immigrants from the northern border (who are mostly going to be white) and the legal immigrants who are white from around the world. She was saying that by constant omission and refusal to consider that illegal immigrants are, if they do work, just as good as the 'preferred immigrant types' which Pro was constantly hinting at (again via omission and ignoring the points of his opponent).

Even if she was incorrect that he doesn't dislike white immigrants as much as he dislikes the other ones, it's not unjust under the definition I gave at the start of this Round for her to have asked if he's racist and break out in culminated frustration that someone she expected so much from (as he's not a troll, this is clearly a shock to her that he's doing it). It is possible Pro may argue that it was his right to interpret that as her being shocked and then saying 'you're a troll, I'm blocking you' but she's completely just in doing so and it should be the right of every user to block another user and express frustration even if said blocking and frustration isn't in line with the views the blocked person has of their self-image and behaviour.

I stand here today, OH I STAND HERE I TELL YOU, Jury and ask you to vote with your conscience... Should we stop anyone having the right to express shock, frustration and perhaps... If one misconstrues it severely in the direction Pro wants... disgust with another user's behaviour should they not have every right and be considered just in doing so? A point that people get voted on in DDO is conduct (just like here) so she had to specify to voters in a strong way how to vote with regards to that so even in that sense it can be considered just (even if not optimal or the best way to carry oneself). My client is free of all charges, LET HER (if she is the user on DDO who did that which has yet to be proven) ROAM FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
End of the fucking line, boy.
Added:
--> @Raltar
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm a completely new user, so I don't know the backstory on all this drama (please don't tell me, either), nor do I have any grudges to settle.
But here is what I do see:
1. Pro cited a source and also claims to have evidence via private message.
2. Con merely denied everything, had no evidence, cited a random song and then engaged in a long rant before insulting Pro in the last round.
As an impartial observer, Pro made a good argument on his own and Con's bad behavior pushed the argument across the finish line to an obvious win for Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award sources points, the voter must "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter did not do this. In order to award argument points, the voter must identify the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate and weigh them to produce a result. The voter did not sufficiently did survey the main arguments of the debate. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must show that one side was excessively rude (excessive = very frequent or severe). The voter provided no analysis as to the excessiveness of the conduct violations. The voter could cast a sufficient vote by explaining how the sources were relevant to the debate, analyzing at least one source, surveying and weighing the main arguments of the debate, and demonstrating how the conduct violations were excessive.
************************************************************************
#15
Added:
If she calls you a racist, isin't that free speech?
#14
Added:
--> @Alec
direct message
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @drafterman
It seems the mods are more intent on dealing with who votes for what that keeping the site quality content.
#12
Added:
--> @nmvarco
Sorry, the mods are intent on making this DDO 2.0.
#11
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
This is exactly one of the reasons I left DDO. All the debates were “this person did this and this person did that.” Please keep this site unlike DDO. There are some high quality debates on here, please do not ruin the atmosphere.
#10
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
What does it mean to DM?
#9
Added:
Debate like this will make this place the debate site of the internet. Classy
#8
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
used the wrong song, but it was an even better choice.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @YeshuaBought
link in description
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @YeshuaBought
So you just gave me permission to give a link. Thx.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Prove I said that with a link, or shut up. I don't know you from Adam, nor do I care about you.
#4
Added:
My client, YeshuaBought has admitted nothing. ;)))))))))))))
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
It's her alternate account. You can DM me if you want proof. She admitted it.
Instigator
#2
Added:
I don't think YeshuaBought called you that. I think it was NKJVPrewrather.
#1
#7
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 failed to provide proof. I don't believe that YeushaBought has the same account as NKJVPrewrather. One of them is a liberal, the other is a moderate. I forgot who was who.
However, Con swore and threatened to block Pro. This is poor conduct.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct; Pro.
Con ended the debate by saying "End of the fucking line, boy." This was both rude and unnecessary, aside from not even being a valid point in the debate. Con also engaged in 'ALL CAPS' shouting during the second round of the debate, during a seemingly off-topic rant. Con's overall attitude during the debate was confrontational and borderline trolling.
Sources; Pro.
Pro provides a source in the description of the debate by linking directly to the location where the subject reportedly called him a racist. Further, Pro also indicates that he has further evidence in the form of a private message from the subject in which the subject admits guilt. Pro points to both of these sources in a way which effectively supports his arguments. Con provided no sources.
Arguments; Pro.
Pro makes a valid and succinct argument. He alleges that he was called a racist by the subject of the debate. He cites the location where the incident in question took place, as well as a private message in which the subject admits guilt. His argument is brief and simple, but believable and supported by his citations.
Con conversely approaches the debate in a trollish manner, indicating that he is defending his "client" (who never directly responds). His initial argument is to merely deny that the account in question in the originally cited discussion belongs to the "client" whom he is defending. Pro provides an effective rebuttal of this by referring to the aforementioned private message in which the "client" admitted guilt. Con then changes strategy and, while still attempting to indirectly deny his "client's" involvement, engages in a borderline incoherent rant where he claims that it wouldn't matter even if his "client" did do it. By the end of this rant, Con is actually shouting in 'ALL CAPS' in a very unprofessional manner. In the final round, Pro didn't respond, but Con still took it upon himself to close the debate with rude and insulting commentary.
Argument obviously goes to Pro for making a simple, direct and logical claim which was supported by the citations provided, while Con responded mainly by being rude and trolling.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Please do not have thi site turn into DDO.
#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:
Don’t want this site to turn into DDO.
There weren’t any arguments but conduct went to Con fo Pro’s forfeit.
#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:
Pro produced no evidence whatsoever that YeshuaBought is NKJVPrewrather. Thus Pro's claim fails and the debate goes to Con. Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited the final round.
This was silly.
#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's failure to appear in the last round gives conduct to Pro. Other than that the debate itsekf was a comolete mess and probably should have never been started in the first place.
#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:
Conduct to con : this debate shouldn’t exist and appears to be borderline harassment. Also a forfeit.
Arguments to con. Pro didn’t establish a basic burden of proof and merely asserts his primary argument. As no evidence or detail is presented, con wins by default on burden of proof.