Instigator / Pro
32
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#240

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
18
Better sources
10
12
Better legibility
7
7
Better conduct
3
5

After 7 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
7,500
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
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/

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 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.

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:

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.

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:

Please do not have thi site turn into DDO.

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:

Don’t want this site to turn into DDO.

There weren’t any arguments but conduct went to Con fo Pro’s forfeit.

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 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.

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'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.

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:

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.