Instigator / Con
4
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Topic
#2435
I'm on trial/what is the problem you see with me?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
1
3
After 3 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
21
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here you air your disputes involving the debates I been in with you or with anyone. The topics, the premises, debates that you've seen me in, let's discuss them. Hopefully everybody gets a chance, gets a turn at this as I plan to do several of these trials/confrontations.
Now this is still in the spirit of contest. As you try to prove your points valid, I will render my points to refute and or correct yours.
So in regards to the way I argue or why I made a particular point, said a particular thing, came up with a particular topic, even personal views, here's the opportunity to challenge it all in this challenge. You can question, challenge a challenge, etc.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
Pro
#2
Thx, Mall, for instigating this debate.
I'M on TRIAL: WHAT is the PROBLEM YOU SEE with ME?
OBJECTION: For starters, the topic is not particularly debatable.
- There's no statement of fact, value, or policy for CON to contest here.
- CON suggests we reframe the topic to something like:
- AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE, MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
PRO1:
DEFINITIONS:
THIS DEBATE is this debate
MALL is the instigator of this debate
DEBATE is "an argument, or discussion, usually in an ordered or formal setting, often with more than two people, generally ending with a vote or other decision"
TECHNIQUE is "a method of achieving something or carrying something out, especially one requiring some skill or knowledge"
CONSISTENT is "of a set of statements: such that no contradiction logically follows from them"
MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE is "subject to change during the course of this debate but roughly stands as lowest rated active debater- 15.15% win percentage, rating=1384"
BURDEN of PROOF:
- "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
- CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims
- CON bears the burden of proof in this debate, to the extent that CON proves willing to make a provable claim.
- PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON wants to draw attention to his unpersuasive debating technique. So long as PRO agrees with CON that CON's technique is rather problematic, PRO wins this debate.
PROBLEM1: WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS
- Generally speaking, there are three flavors of debatable topics:
- RESOLVED: X fact is true/false
- RESOLVED: X Govt should implement Y policy
- THBT: Values statements - right or wrong, good or bad, etc.
- But Mall's topics frequently elude or dilute any debatable point.
PROBLEM2: WEAK on DEFINITION of TERMS in DESCRIPTION
- Mall has instigated more than 90% of all the debates he has participated in.
- Instigators bear the burden of laying out the terms of the debate.
- Mall seldom defines terms
- When terms are defined they're seldom credible
PROBLEM3: WEAK EFFORT on AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
- Mall makes a habit of skipping the first round argument- effectively forgoing the affirmative argument.
- This tactic usually forces the challenger to unexpectedly make the affirmative argument opposite to the proposition
- This is often places a major disadvantage on the challenger without fair warning in the debate description.
- PRO calls this foul play
- Mall then proceeds with only counters and negations against the challenger.
- A good debater offers affirmative and negative arguments for his case.
- The affirmative case is by far the larger organizational and compositional task but is also the heart of persuasion.
- Therefore, Mall seldom persuades.
- Most counterarguments are low energy affairs. Here's one where Mall just says, go watch this documentary and doesn't even bother to create a link to the documentary.
PROBLEM4: SHOUTING
- As debates progress, Mall increasingly refuses to engage his opponent's arguments and just repeats earlier arguments, with more force but with less sourcing or reason.
- Mall has a bad habit of using all-caps to indicate shouting- as if volume ever improved an argument.
- "Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."
- "Where in that did it state EXPLAIN HOW INDOCTRINATION HAPPENS?"
- "Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? "
- "THE NAME OF GOD EXISTING. THE TOPIC STATEMENT DIDN'T SAY PROVE THE NAME EXISTS, THAT'S OBVIOUS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF DEITY DID YOU PROVE? DOES DEITY MEAN NAME, NOT AN ACTUAL BEING? "
PROBLEM5: NO SOURCES
- PRO finds no examples of Mall sourcing an argument in spite of that requirement representing about 29% of points awarded.
CONCLUSION:
- PRO and CON seems to agree that CON's debate style is problematic at least to the extent that CON is now inviting critique. If we agree that CON's low energy instigations with no affirmative arguments or sourcing and little direct engagement generally deserve to be voted as loses against any concerted effort by any opponent, then we agree that Mall's 15% win rate accurately reflects degree of success on this debating site.
- PRO looks forward to CON's R2
SOURCES
Round 2
Con
#3
"For starters, the topic is not particularly debatable. "
It must be for me to setup as a challenge for you to accept.
Why enter something in which you believe there will be nothing but agreement 100% ?
"But Mall's topics frequently elude or dilute any debatable point."
How? You're going to make a case, you got to be able to explain it .
"Mall seldom defines terms"
If this is a problem, why don't you ask prior to accepting a debate what a particular word means?
Why conversate with anybody in general when the words that other person uses are problematic?
You enter an exchange understanding what the person means by each word in the debate description to avoid conflict later.
But as seen on this site, the cart continues to be put before the horse.
"When terms are defined they're seldom credible"
Do not take a debate when there's a concern of credibility.
When you take on a debate, you're taking it on its terms.
"Mall makes a habit of skipping the first round argument- effectively forgoing the affirmative argument."
How can I skip a round without forfeiting it?
"This tactic usually forces the challenger to unexpectedly make the affirmative argument opposite to the proposition
This is often places a major disadvantage on the challenger without fair warning in the debate description."
Here's why my descriptions are so lengthy and detailed.
THEY CONTAIN THE FIRST ROUND CONTENT.
When you argue, you're starting from there.
What is so unclear about that? The description is my "starting argument", introduction all in one.
A real big problem I see on this site is the failure of adaptability. Everything is expected to be the same the same way every time.
You mean some downsides or disadvantages. It's a disadvantage because you can't argue off the cuff. Everything has to be in a scripted, rehearsed like format. You're thrown a curve ball and go haywire. You need to be able to argue in any circumstance, explain things, don't be vague, act like you know what you're talking about rather than the sources to know for you.
"Mall then proceeds with only counters and negations against the challenger.
A good debater offers affirmative and negative arguments for his case. "
A good debater refutes to stand irrefutable on the basis of truth.
This is done in several ways. When purported proof can be invalidated via fundamental breakdowns, testing for consistency, making analogous illustrations and so on are all ways.
"The affirmative case is by far the larger organizational and compositional task but is also the heart of persuasion.
Therefore, Mall seldom persuades"
I notice you're just posting titles but not any segments of a debate description.
Why don't you explain how any of the debate descriptions poorly elaborates anything?
Also you're mistaken if any of the debates I setup are for persuasion. You either accept or reject what's in those descriptions on account of what sense they make.
I'm going to say a lot of them are just ignored and everything I say is not worth for much.
"Most counterarguments are low energy affairs. Here's one where Mall just says, go watch this documentary and doesn't even bother to create a link to the documentary.
The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense."
If you need a link and one wasn't provided, then ask for one. This is another problem. You guys act scared to ask questions and make requests. What's wrong with you all?
Where did this avoidance of questions come from?
Nice job of you avoiding a lengthy description to post for you to argue about. Well there's no argument there so of course not.
"As debates progress, Mall increasingly refuses to engage his opponent's arguments and just repeats earlier arguments, with more force but with less sourcing or reason.
Mall has a bad habit of using all-caps to indicate shouting- as if volume ever improved an argument."
How do I refuse to engage by asking the other side QUESTIONS? I'm looking for their input, not mine. What are you talking about?
Back to what I was talking about at my points being ignored, maybe all capital letters will get your attention. I think I've tried everything I can think of. I mean I ask a question one round, come back for another round, still not answered. The debate ends with unanswered questions.
Once in a while, I'll get a debate with both parties engaging, interacting with very good receptive communication.
"Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE."
"Where in that did it state EXPLAIN HOW INDOCTRINATION HAPPENS?"
"Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? "
"THE NAME OF GOD EXISTING. THE TOPIC STATEMENT DIDN'T SAY PROVE THE NAME EXISTS, THAT'S OBVIOUS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF DEITY DID YOU PROVE? DOES DEITY MEAN NAME, NOT AN ACTUAL BEING? "
"PRO finds no examples of Mall sourcing an argument in spite of that requirement representing about 29% of points awarded."
Ok what's an example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth?
If you ever bother to notice, the topics I pick are developed on the basis of common sense and knowledge. I make it easy for you as it leaves you to not do much digging if it all.
Now when you're ignorant to a subject, it's understandable that you must do some research or something of the sort just prior to the debate. This isn't the case for somebody that already knows what he's talking about.
"PRO and CON seems to agree that CON's debate style is problematic at least to the extent that CON is now inviting critique. "
It is not problematic. I understand you say it is and it gave me an idea for a debate topic.
This was just another topic I came up with. Don't misunderstand that this is some sort of introspection to learn about what I'm purportedly doing wrong.
As I said plainly in the description which I guessed was ignored, this is still in spirit of contest. You really should pay attention to all words. You attempt to show what you think is wrong and I'll refute it.
"If we agree that CON's low energy instigations with no affirmative arguments or sourcing and little direct engagement generally deserve to be voted as loses against any concerted effort by any opponent, then we agree that Mall's 15% win rate accurately reflects degree of success on this debating site."
We can agree to disagree as usual. The disclaimer I present each debate explains what win/lose means and that's why I keep going because I'm secure in knowing the truth. With that, I'm aim to always help educate folks.
Pro
#4
Thx, Mall, for instigating this debate.
I'M on TRIAL: WHAT is the PROBLEM YOU SEE with ME?
OBJECTION: For starters, the topic is not particularly debatable.
R1:There's no statement of fact, value, or policy for CON to contest here.
It must be for me to setup as a challenge for you to accept.
R2: I see. So, in spite of PRO's defining a debate as a formal discussion, CON argues that any random words typed into the topic and accepted by any challenger must qualify as "particularly debatable." So, if PRO instigated a topic titled "Poop" and CON accepted that debate only to forfeit all rounds, CON would call that a formal discussion of a particularly debatable topic because it met CON's low bar of being set up and accepted by a challenger. This perspective goes a long way to explaining CON's performance as a debater.
R1: PRO suggests we reframe the topic to something like:
- AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE, MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
R2: PRO made no reply.
- CON will proceed with the revised thesis since the revision has the advantage of debatability while also directly answering CON's question,
- " What is the problem that PRO sees with CON?"
DEFINITIONS:
CON made no reply. PRO will proceed using the definitions as offered.
BURDEN of PROOF:
CON offered no objection. Therefore, CON bears the burden of proof in this debate.
R1: PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON wants to draw attention to his unpersuasive debating technique. So long as PRO agrees with CON that CON's technique is rather problematic, PRO wins this debate.
R1: Why enter something in which you believe there will be nothing but agreement 100% ?
R2: Because I am PRO. In any debate where CON agrees with the topic, PRO wins.
PROBLEM1: WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS
R1: Generally speaking, there are three flavors of debatable topics:
- RESOLVED: X fact is true/false
- RESOLVED: X Govt should implement Y policy
- THBT: Values statements - right or wrong, good or bad, etc.
- But Mall's topics frequently elude or dilute any debatable point.
- Prove that indoctrination in ALL cases
- God and Santa
- You're not as pro life as you think you are
- I'm on trial/what is the problem you see with me?
How? You're going to make a case, you got to be able to explain it .
R2: The case is explained. None of the four examples of topics written by Mall meet any of the three standards defined as debatable. This is an excellent example of CON's elusiveness- CON simply pretends that he doesn't see or can't comprehend arguments against which he has no cogent argument.
- PRO will treat this as a DROPPED argument.
PROBLEM2: WEAK on DEFINITION of TERMS in DESCRIPTION
R1: Mall has instigated more than 90% of all the debates he has participated in.
- Instigators bear the burden of laying out the terms of the debate.
- Mall seldom defines terms:
If this is a problem, why don't you ask prior to accepting a debate what a particular word means?
R2: Did Wellington ask Napoleon where to place his artillery? The terms of the debate define the breadth and nature of the field under contest. As any good manual on debating will advise, if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage.
- "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." (emphasis PRO's)
- By failing in his responsibilities as debate instigator, Mall consistently hands his opponent the essential advantage of defining terms.
Why conversate with anybody in general when the words that other person uses are problematic?
- No two people share the same understanding of every word. We define words salient to topic and argument to explain our understanding and so invite agreement or disagreement to focus meaning and intent.
You enter an exchange understanding what the person means by each word in the debate description to avoid conflict later.
- False. She who sets and successfully defends her terms typically has the advantage, the "high ground" if you will. The best defense is to root your terms in ordinary, popular sources. Terms or definitions in the debate description that are obviously false or deceptive are vulnerable to challenge and defeat.
But as seen on this site, the cart continues to be put before the horse.
- CON argues that such definition is fundamental to all debate going back to Aristotle. Here's a passage from Musgrave's 1957 textbook: "Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques", preceding the website by 60 years.
- "The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term."
- In the cart before horse metaphor, it is CON who doesn't seem to understand the traditional, functional precedent when setting terms.
R1: When terms are defined they're seldom credible
Do not take a debate when there's a concern of credibility. When you take on a debate, you're taking it on its terms.
R2: Disagree. When an instigator offers claims that are not credible a good debater calls that an easy win.
- PRO argues that good debaters should always accept debates that are claiming obvious bullshit and so take the high ground on the side of reliable facts.
PROBLEM3: WEAK EFFORT on AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
R1: Mall makes a habit of skipping the first round argument- effectively forgoing the affirmative argument.
How can I skip a round without forfeiting it?
R2: By failing to make an affirmative argument for contention. It's like demanding a volley before the serve.
R1: This tactic usually forces the challenger to unexpectedly make the affirmative argument opposite to the proposition
Here's why my descriptions are so lengthy and detailed.THEY CONTAIN THE FIRST ROUND CONTENT.When you argue, you're starting from there.What is so unclear about that? The description is my "starting argument", introduction all in one.A real big problem I see on this site is the failure of adaptability. Everything is expected to be the same the same way every time.(followed by four ad-homs)
R2: Mall's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed.
- PRO has already included one example where he just said go watch some documentary without providing a link.
- Mall may never merely cite the description as R1 argument without a declaration in the description.
- All challengers have a reasonable expectation to read an affirmative argument in R1.
- NO challenger can be expected to intuit that Mall's vague terms in description will also serve as R1
- PRO cites debate norms going back to the classical and CON mistakes such norms as a failure to adapt to his ultra-lazy format.
- PRO will disregard the ad-hom characterizations.
R1: Mall then proceeds with only counters and negations against the challenger.
A good debater refutes to stand irrefutable on the basis of truth. This is done in several ways. When purported proof can be invalidated via fundamental breakdowns, testing for consistency, making analogous illustrations and so on are all ways.
R2: Generally unparseable, but also CON offers no evidence that CON has a strong understanding of what makes a good debate.
R1: Most counterarguments are low energy affairs. Here's one where Mall just says, go watch this documentary and doesn't even bother to create a link to the documentary.
I notice you're just posting titles but not any segments of a debate description. Why don't you explain how any of the debate descriptions poorly elaborates anything?If you need a link and one wasn't provided, then ask for one. This is another problem. You guys act scared to ask questions and make requests. What's wrong with you all?
- Debaters are judged on quality sourcing. Your failures redound to your opponent's success.
Also you're mistaken if any of the debates I setup are for persuasion. You either accept or reject what's in those descriptions on account of what sense they make.
R2: Persuasion is the point of debate.
- CON is now arguing that if an opponent doesn't agree with the instigator's terms at outset, then a challenger should not accept.
- CON has demonstrated a manifest ignorance of the purpose, structure, tradition and even meaning of debate.
PROBLEM4: SHOUTING
R1: As debates progress, Mall increasingly refuses to engage his opponent's arguments and just repeats earlier arguments, with more force but with less sourcing or reason.
maybe all capital letters will get your attention.
R2: Nope. Shouting is profoundly dissuasive to most voters
PROBLEM5: NO SOURCES
- PRO finds no examples of Mall sourcing an argument in spite of that requirement representing about 29% of points awarded.
when you're ignorant to a subject, it's understandable that you must do some research or something of the sort just prior to the debate. This isn't the case for somebody that already knows what he's talking about.
- Fine. Voters will have to decide whether CON's word alone is always sufficient evidence to support every claim he makes in every debate.
what's an example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth?
- White supremacy can only be true if every non-white is imprisoned.
- PRO looks forward to CON's R3
SOURCES
https://owlcation.com/humanities/How-to-Write-a-Debate
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
Round 3
Con
#5
Notice how you're not direct with me.
Speaking in third person and got the nerve to mention engagement.
"For starters, the topic is not particularly debatable. "
Then why accept which would be to you a so called debate ?
"R2: I see. So, in spite of PRO's defining a debate as a formal discussion, CON argues that any random words typed into the topic and accepted by any challenger must qualify as "particularly debatable." So, if PRO instigated a topic titled "Poop" and CON accepted that debate only to forfeit all rounds, CON would call that a formal discussion of a particularly debatable topic because it met CON's low bar of being set up and accepted by a challenger. This perspective goes a long way to explaining CON's performance as a debater."
This made about a bit a sense to me as a bird flying with no wings.
"R1: Why enter something in which you believe there will be nothing but agreement 100% ?
R2: Because I am PRO. In any debate where CON agrees with the topic, PRO wins."
Oh so you don't deny that you're not necessarily looking for a debate but complete agreement. Well , not here, as I'm here to refute. I must say, a lot of what was said so far has been verbosity , technicalities and it's all unclear.
I would kindly ask that you make your points plain and direct but likely to no avail.
It would help me , maybe convince me of what you're trying to say if you start addressing what you see as problems by asking direct questions.
If you really value truth, you will not neglect this strong suggestion.
'The case is explained. None of the four examples of topics written by Mall meet any of the three standards defined as debatable. This is an excellent example of CON's elusiveness- CON simply pretends that he doesn't see or can't comprehend arguments against which he has no cogent argument."
The standards according to who? My debate, my standards which are just based on fact or fiction. I can either make a false or true statement. Your job or my job is to back up the statement , whatever it is as being true or false.
Now tell us how that doesn't make sense?
Everything is else , you can throw out. That's what you do with garbage. That's the value of everything else.
Now what is the proof that I'm pretending?
This is coming across as very judgmental. To try to dictate my character as being a guise.
The evidence of bias on this site, just overwhelming.
"Did Wellington ask Napoleon where to place his artillery? The terms of the debate define the breadth and nature of the field under contest. As any good manual on debating will advise, if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage."
Answer the question. Don't respond with a question. Stop deflecting and explain why youuuu don't ask a question when there is a problem or something you don't understand?
Could it be because there is NO PROBLEM?
" "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." (emphasis PRO's)
By failing in his responsibilities as debate instigator, Mall consistently hands his opponent the essential advantage of defining terms. "
Like I said when there's a problem, speak up and have it addressed before accepting a debate. I believe you can do that. It's not complicated rocket science.
"No two people share the same understanding of every word. We define words salient to topic and argument to explain our understanding and so invite agreement or disagreement to focus meaning and intent."
This is why you try to get understanding prior to accepting the debate.
I say this repeatedly . I've said it here and in each disclaimer. When you approach a debate , you don't assume two people are using the same definition. Why? Well based on what you just said partially.
Two individuals can understand a word the same if they been taught the same way about it. But you know not so therefore ask. Don't assume and expect.
You can comment, message and say " Hello what do you mean by this word when you say it or that word?"
Now these would be your more than basic words I would think. I can expect that somebody may, just may ask what I mean by the word "to" or "the". You really never know what you'll get.
"False. She who sets and successfully defends her terms typically has the advantage, the "high ground" if you will. The best defense is to root your terms in ordinary, popular sources. Terms or definitions in the debate description that are obviously false or deceptive are vulnerable to challenge and defeat."
Let me ask a question here because I want to see if you're truly an individual aiming to be constructive.
If you had a choice and opportunity to understand everything a person means when they communicate, would you actually take that action?
"When terms are defined they're seldom credible
Do not take a debate when there's a concern of credibility. When you take on a debate, you're taking it on its terms.
Disagree. When an instigator offers claims that are not credible a good debater calls that an easy win. "
Are we talking about credibility of the debate terms or the debate topic?
Let's try to stick with one goalpost at a time.
"PRO argues that good debaters should always accept debates that are claiming obvious bullshit and so take the high ground on the side of reliable facts."
You should accept debates that you can understand of what's all being said.
You wouldn't accept a debate with another speaking another language you don't speak would you?
That's exactly what you're doing when taking on debates where the language isn't clear even though it's the same language , it's like a different one.
"By failing to make an affirmative argument for contention. It's like demanding a volley before the serve."
But when you skip a round, it clearly will say "forfeited". I'm thinking in your eyes it's a forfeit. I understand that. The design of this site doesn't agree with you.
"This tactic usually forces the challenger to unexpectedly make the affirmative argument opposite to the proposition
Here's why my descriptions are so lengthy and detailed.
THEY CONTAIN THE FIRST ROUND CONTENT.
When you argue, you're starting from there.
What is so unclear about that? The description is my "starting argument", introduction all in one.
A real big problem I see on this site is the failure of adaptability. Everything is expected to be the same the same way every time.
(followed by four ad-homs)"
Hey , if you're feeling forced, back off. Like I say , if I were you, I'm not going along with anything where I can't agree with the terms.
Not the topic but the terms.
"Mall's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed.
PRO has already included one example where he just said go watch some documentary without providing a link. "
Didn't I already respond to this? My responses are as usual being ignored.
"Mall may never merely cite the description as R1 argument without a declaration in the description.
All challengers have a reasonable expectation to read an affirmative argument in R1.
NO challenger can be expected to intuit that Mall's vague terms in description will also serve as R1
PRO cites debate norms going back to the classical and CON mistakes such norms as a failure to adapt to his ultra-lazy format.
PRO will disregard the ad-hom characterizations."
If you don't understand something , ask. Do this prior to the debate. Maybe you can explain why that's so hard.
You ask things to find out information, the truth. Everything else, throw it out.
"Most counterarguments are low energy affairs. Here's one where Mall just says, go watch this documentary and doesn't even bother to create a link to the documentary.
The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense."
Let me ask as I'm not afraid of being direct in asking questions to get to the truth.
What do you think would of happened if somebody came back and said they seen the documentary? Why did I have to keep waiting on that so the debate could continue?
Can we say "evasion" of the topic from the one that accepted the challenge?
Your cherry picking is awesome by the way.
"R1: Mall then proceeds with only counters and negations against the challenger."
Whatever it takes to refute, comrade.
"R2: Generally unparseable, but also CON offers no evidence that CON has a strong understanding of what makes a good debate."
You need somebody such as I on the side of truth in a good debate.
"Debaters are judged on quality sourcing. Your failures redound to your opponent's success."
Ask for a link to something when you want it.
"Persuasion is the point of debate.
CON is now arguing that if an opponent doesn't agree with the instigator's terms at outset, then a challenger should not accept.
CON has demonstrated a manifest ignorance of the purpose, structure, tradition and even meaning of debate."
Not the point of mine.
"As debates progress, Mall increasingly refuses to engage his opponent's arguments and just repeats earlier arguments, with more force but with less sourcing or reason.
maybe all capital letters will get your attention.
R2: Nope. Shouting is profoundly dissuasive to most voters"
Then acknowledge you ignore points and don't misbehave in that way anymore.
"PRO finds no examples of Mall sourcing an argument in spite of that requirement representing about 29% of points awarded.
when you're ignorant to a subject, it's understandable that you must do some research or something of the sort just prior to the debate. This isn't the case for somebody that already knows what he's talking about.
Fine. Voters will have to decide whether CON's word alone is always sufficient evidence to support every claim he makes in every debate."
Right on and is it true that the word"true" is spelled t-r-u-e? Where must I go to back up that claim to knowledge?
That's as about as high as I go in topics . It's more on common sense than anything else.
"White supremacy can only be true if every non-white is imprisoned."
But where did I say that was true?
Taken things out of context, it's what you guys do with political figures.
"Present evidence for this, What appears to be theory, Hypothesis of a world government system."
Now this is a direct quote from that debate description of "prove white supremacy exists as such" ****as such****.
I'll present the context as you tend to leave it out. Where did I say this was fact about what I was saying? The topic itself says PROVE .
Maybe again, the capital letters will get your attention to the words I'm using. Maybe some red lights, whatever , are going off now.
I didn't say disprove what I said.
So a lot of this you've said this round has been with having a misunderstanding that appears you desire not to clear up before moving forward with a topic.
Stop doing that. Problem solved.
Anything I didn't respond to was just too technical for me to comprehend. I can admit that and seen no point being made directed towards me.
Pro
#6
Thx, Mall
REVISED: AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE, MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
R2: In spite of PRO's defining a debate as a formal discussion, CON argues that any random words typed into the topic and accepted by any challenger must qualify as "particularly debatable."
This made about a bit a sense to me as a bird flying with no wings.
- In the absence of any argument addressing PRO's rhetoric, PRO must assume the lack of comprehension is CON's roadblock to overcome.
BoP:
R2: In any debate where CON agrees with the topic, PRO wins
you don't deny that you're not necessarily looking for a debate but complete agreement. Well , not here, as I'm here to refute. I must say, a lot of what was said so far has been verbosity , technicalities and it's all unclear
- We've established CON's thesis is not particularly debatable. Nevertheless, PRO is arguing to win.
- Again, let's assume CON's lack of clarity is just another part of CON's burden.
It would help me... if you start addressing what you see as problems by asking direct questions.
- Again, PRO is arguing to win.
- PRO has listed and numbered problems in bold, followed by evidence supporting each argument.
- What questions addressed to CON might improve PRO's case?
P1: WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS
R2: The case is explained. None of the four examples of topics written by Mall meet any of the three standards defined as debatable. This is an excellent example of CON's elusiveness- CON simply pretends that he doesn't see or can't comprehend arguments against which he has no cogent argument.
My debate, my standards which are just based on fact or fiction. I can either make a false or true statement. Your job or my job is to back up the statement , whatever it is as being true or false.
- A STANDARD as "a set of rules or requirements which are widely agreed upon"
- Since "my debate, my standards" connotes disinterest in wide agreement, PRO argues that CON's methodology doesn't really meet the definition of STANDARD.
- Nevertheless, CON is free to lay down any old blob of words CON cares to and call that blob his thesis,
- PRO asserts that such an approach is less likely to impress VOTERs, who often expect adherence to debating norms.
- CON is likewise free to call traditional resolution norms "garbage,"
- But likewise, VOTERs aren't likely to be impressed.
- PRO has shown that CON's disinterest in community convention is problematic
Now what is the proof that I'm pretending?
- Let's agree that neither PRO nor CON has much insight into CON's true state of mind.
- PRO refers to CON's habit of dropping arguments by claiming incomprehension.
- Example:
- PRO:" if PRO instigated a topic titled "Poop" and CON accepted that debate only to forfeit all rounds, CON would call that a formal discussion"
- CON "This made about a bit a sense to me as a bird flying with no wings"
- CON doesn't explain what doesn't make sense, CON just says nonsense and moves on.
- PRO calls that a tactic for dropping difficult arguments
P2: WEAK on DEFINITION of TERMS in DESCRIPTION
If this is a problem, why don't you ask prior to accepting a debate what a particular word means?
R2: Did Wellington ask Napoleon where to place his artillery? .... if the instigator fails to set terms, the challenger gets to set terms to her advantage.
Stop deflecting and explain why youuuu don't ask a question when there is a problem or something you don't understand?
- This was already answered in R2
- "The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term"
If you had a opportunity to understand everything a person means when they communicate, would you actually take that action?
- In a competitive debate? Of course not
- If a quarterback throws an interception, should the opposing team stop to ask if that was what that QB actually meant to do
- or should they just run the touchdown in?
R2: Disagree. When an instigator offers claims that are not credible a good debater calls that an easy win
Are we talking about credibility of the debate terms or the debate topic?
- Any false claim is vulnerable to attack
You wouldn't accept a debate with another speaking another language you don't speak would you?
- Of course, as long as one could credibly set the terms of the debate
- Here is a recent example of a debate in Tagalog, which language this debater does not speak:
P3: WEAK EFFORT on AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
R2: By failing to make an affirmative argument for contention. It's like demanding a volley before the serve
But when you skip a round, it clearly will say "forfeited". I'm thinking in your eyes it's a forfeit. I understand that. The design of this site doesn't agree with you.
- The website software may not be smart enough to tell the difference between a round with an argument and one without but that doesn't mean that any statement at all counts against forfeit. FORFEIT is defined as "to lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules" Failing to make an affirmative argument as instigator in round one is generally seen as a violation of the rules and a failure to participate
R1: This tactic usually forces the challenger to unexpectedly make the affirmative argument opposite to the proposition
Hey , if you're feeling forced, back off. Like I say , if I were you, I'm not going along with anything where I can't agree with the terms.
- To continue the football analogy, CON is saying,
- "hey, if you're feeling forced to score touchdowns just because I'm not playing until the second half, back off"
- A winning debater takes advantage of his opponent's laziness
R2: Mall's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed
- PRO has already included one example where he just said go watch some documentary without providing a link
Didn't I already respond to this? My responses are as usual being ignored.
- PRO is providing an example of a CON description that contradicts "lengthy and detailed"
- CON's prior response was:
- "If you need a link and one wasn't provided, then ask for one"
- PRO has shown evidence that CON's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed.
- CON has continued to dodge.
- CON drops the argument
- All challengers have a reasonable expectation to read an affirmative argument in R1.
If you don't understand something , ask
- Non-sequitur.
What do you think would of happened if somebody came back and said they seen the documentary?
- Well, then CON's opponent would be arguing against an entirely plagiarized argument. CON's request and conduct in that debate were entirely inconsistent with good faith argument in any context.
- NO challenger can be expected to intuit that Mall's vague terms in description will also serve as R1
- PRO cites debate norms going back to the classical and CON mistakes such norms as a failure to adapt to his ultra-lazy format
R2: CON offers no evidence that CON has a strong understanding of what makes a good debate
You need somebody such as I on the side of truth in a good debate
- Exactly, CON lacks a basic understanding of what makes a good debate
R2: Persuasion is the point of debate
- CON is now arguing that if an opponent doesn't agree with the instigator's terms at outset, then a challenger should not accept
Not the point of mine
- CON has argued this as recently as 8 sentences ago:
Do not take a debate when there's a concern of credibility. When you take on a debate, you're taking it on its terms
Then acknowledge you ignore points and don't misbehave in that way anymore
- CON has not argued a single drop while PRO has made repeated claims of dropped arguments
- VOTERs should judge which debater engaged directly and which did not
- Either way, shouting in all caps remains poor conduct
P5: NO SOURCES
R2: Voters will have to decide whether CON's word alone is always sufficient evidence to support every claim he makes in every debate
Right on and is it true that the word"true" is spelled t-r-u-e? Where must I go to back up that claim to knowledge?
- Good question. A DICTIONARY is "a reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning, and sometimes containing information on its etymology, pronunciation, usage, translations, and other data"
- The best free online English language dictionary is Wiktionary
R2: what's an example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth?
R2:White supremacy can only be true if every non-white is imprisoned
But where did I say that was true?
- CON now admits he never thought the definition true- therefore lying
- In that debate, CON demands "Prove what I'm saying is TRUE, NOT FALSE, TRUEEEE"
- CON offered no source for his objectively false definition of white supremacy
NEW-P6: CON IGNORES his AUDIENCE
Notice how you're not direct with me. Speaking in third person and got the nerve to mention engagement
- CON seems unaware that the audience for this debate is our VOTERS.
- Cicero addressed the Senate, not Caesar
- Douglas addressed the voters of Illinois, not Lincoln
- Kennedy addressed the moderators, not Nixon
- CON should make his appeal to VOTERs and not to PRO, nor expect direct address from me
- PRO looks forward to CON's R4
SOURCES
Round 4
Con
#7
" "White supremacy can only be true if every non-white is imprisoned."
But where did I say that was true?
Taken things out of context, it's what you guys do with political figures.
"Present evidence for this, What appears to be theory, Hypothesis of a world government system."
Now this is a direct quote from that debate description of "prove white supremacy exists as such" ****as such****.
I'll present the context as you tend to leave it out. Where did I say this was fact about what I was saying? The topic itself says PROVE .
Here is a quote of a quote of a quote.
You methodically left out this last quote where it mentions the word " theory".
Again where's the audacity to talk about someone's honesty. I asked you a question. You didn't answer and made a charge concerning my honesty.
I never said what I was saying was true. If it was already true, why would the challenge be to somebody to prove what I was saying was true?
I never said what I said was true and you know it . You're not ducking these questions for no reason . If I said it was true and now coming back saying I deliberately fabricated all of it, then I was being deceptive.
I specifically said present evidence for what appears to be a theory. But I won't charge you with anything but it's highly encouraged for folks to read every single word in a description.
Now that's about as far as responses go for this round. Much of what was stated were repeated statements.
All these technicalities , I don't understand. By not being direct and these things being unclear to me, this is not showing me where the problem is .
Even though my questions for the most part are not answered, I won't reciprocate.
Do you mind just asking me direct questions to try to get to the root of what you believe the problem is?
That's the meat of this exchange that is to find out why. Why things are the way they are, why things are done the way they're done.
If you don't want to do that, there's not much progression to this.
Thanks
Pro
#8
Thx, Mall
REVISED: AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE, MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
R2: In spite of PRO's defining a debate as a formal discussion, CON argues that any random words typed into the topic and accepted by any challenger must qualify as "particularly debatable."
This made about a bit a sense to me as a bird flying with no wings.
R3: In the absence of any argument addressing PRO's rhetoric, PRO must assume the lack of comprehension is CON's roadblock to overcome.
- CON dropped the argument
BoP:
- We've established CON's thesis is not particularly debatable. Nevertheless, PRO is arguing to win.
- What questions addressed to CON might improve PRO's case?
- CON dropped the argument
P1: WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS
My debate, my standards
R3: A STANDARD as "a set of rules or requirements which are widely agreed upon"
- Since "my debate, my standards" connotes disinterest in wide agreement, PRO argues that CON's methodology doesn't really meet the definition of STANDARD.
- PRO has shown that CON's disinterest in community convention is problematic
- CON dropped the argument
- CON doesn't explain what doesn't make sense, CON just says nonsense and moves on.
- PRO calls that a tactic for dropping difficult arguments
- CON dropped the argument
P2: WEAK on DEFINITION of TERMS in DESCRIPTION
If this is a problem, why don't you ask prior to accepting a debate what a particular word means?
R3: This was already answered in R2
- "The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term"
- CON dropped the argument
If you had a opportunity to understand everything a person means when they communicate, would you actually take that action?
R3: In a competitive debate? Of course not
- CON dropped the argument
Are we talking about credibility of the debate terms or the debate topic?
R3: Any false claim is vulnerable to attack
- CON dropped the argument
You wouldn't accept a debate with another speaking another language you don't speak would you?
- R3: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2143-online-debate
- CON made no reply
P3: WEAK EFFORT on AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
R2: By failing to make an affirmative argument for contention. It's like demanding a volley before the serve
"I'm thinking in your eyes it's a forfeit. The design of this site doesn't agree with you.
- R3: The website software may not be smart enough to tell the difference between a round with an argument and one without but that doesn't mean that any statement at all counts against forfeit. FORFEIT is defined as "to lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules,"
- CON dropped the argument
Hey , if you're feeling forced, back off. Like I say , if I were you, I'm not going along with anything where I can't agree with the terms.
- R3: R2: PRO has shown evidence that CON's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed.
- CON drops the argument
- All challengers have a reasonable expectation to read an affirmative argument in R1.
- CON drops the argument
If you don't understand something , ask
- Non-sequitur.
- CON concedes fallacy
What do you think would of happened if somebody came back and said they seen the documentary?
- Well, then CON's opponent would be arguing against an entirely plagiarized argument. CON's request and conduct in that debate were entirely inconsistent with good faith argument in any context.
- CON dropped the argument
You need somebody such as I on the side of truth in a good debate
- Exactly, CON lacks a basic understanding of what makes a good debate
- CON dropped the argument
R2: Persuasion is the point of debate
Not the point of mine
- yeah
- CON dropped the argument
P4: SHOUTING
R3: Shouting is profoundly dissuasive to most voters
VOTERs should judge which debater engaged directly and which did not
- Either way, shouting in all caps remains poor conduct
- Even this point, regarding which debater is more direct, CON astonishingly drops
P5: NO SOURCES
R2: Voters will have to decide whether CON's word alone is always sufficient evidence to support every claim he makes in every debate
Right on and is it true that the word"true" is spelled t-r-u-e? Where must I go to back up that claim to knowledge?
- A DICTIONARY is "a reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning, and sometimes containing information on its etymology, pronunciation, usage, translations, and other data"
- CON dropped the argument
R2: what's an example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth?
R2:White supremacy can only be true if every non-white is imprisoned
But where did I say that was true? Taken things out of context, it's what you guys do with political figures."Present evidence for this, What appears to be theory, Hypothesis of a world government system."Now this is a direct quote from that debate description of "prove white supremacy exists as such" ****as such****.I'll present the context as you tend to leave it out. Where did I say this was fact about what I was saying? The topic itself says PROVE .Here is a quote of a quote of a quote.You methodically left out this last quote where it mentions the word " theory".
- CON misses the point entirely. Voters must decide if CON is also missing the point sincerely.
- Nobody is accusing CON of saying that White Supremacy does not exist (although that was the intended conclusion of CON's debate)
- PRO is pointing out that CON lied when he said
- So this means each so called non-white person is a prisoner in a prison system, Called the system of "white supremacy".
- CON asked for an "example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth"
- PRO's gigantic, obvious, manifestly false lies about the definition of WHITE SUPREMACY make a perfect example of a statement where PRO thought CON was lying and desperately needed some source to show how CON's wildly wrong perspective was not mere whimsical racism but actually rooted in some sort of thought or observation in need of correction
- Alas, the evident conclusion of PRO and VOTERs in that debate fell more on the "mere whimsical racism" side of things.
- I never said what I was saying was true.
- Always an important mistake in any debate
- Do you mind just asking me direct questions to try to get to the root of what you believe the problem is?
- PRO's advice would be to answer as many dropped arguments as CON can and then make some sort of conclusion.
- New questions asked in Round 5 are seldom solved satisfactorily
- CON offered no source for his objectively false definition of white supremacy
- CON dropped this argument
P6: CON IGNORES his AUDIENCE
Notice how you're not direct with me. Speaking in third person and got the nerve to mention engagement
- CON seems unaware that the audience for this debate is our VOTERS.
- Cicero addressed the Senate, not Caesar
- Douglas addressed the voters of Illinois, not Lincoln
- Kennedy addressed the moderators, not Nixon
- CON should make his appeal to VOTERs and not to PRO, nor expect direct address from me
- CON dropped the argument
NEW-P7: CON DROPS too MANY ARGUMENTS
- CON complains about PRO's direct engagement but CON essentially dropped every argument this round but one.
- PRO looks forward to CON's conclusion
SOURCES
Round 5
Con
#9
That's too bad , you didn't ask me any questions to get to the problem you see that is there.
Maybe I missed them with all the inundated verbose technicalities. Which do come across as abstract to me .
When there's a problem or supposedly an issue, you go to a mechanic or doctor, there's a lot of questions and answers.
All problems and arguments are settled via answered questions.
This is also how lawyers and prosecutors win legal cases.
Thanks again, maybe next time we can actually connect.
Pro
#10
Thx, Mall
REVISED: AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE, MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
- Revision conceded
DEFINITIONS:
- Conceded
BURDEN of PROOF:
- Conceded. CON must prove that he's a substantially better debater than his DART rating (1381) suggests.
P1: WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS
- CON dropped both arguments
P2: WEAK on DEFINITION of TERMS in DESCRIPTION
- CON dropped four arguments
P3: WEAK EFFORT on AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
- CON dropped six arguments
P4: SHOUTING
- CON dropped the argument
P5: NO SOURCES
- CON dropped three arguments
P6: CON IGNORES his AUDIENCE
- as well as this argument
P7: CON DROPS too MANY ARGUMENTS
- CON never argues this point.
- PRO asks VOTERs to treat the 17 preceding dropped points as implicit evidence for and concession to PRO's argument.
CONCLUSION
That's too bad , you didn't ask me any questions to get to the problem you see that is there. Maybe I missed them with all the inundated verbose technicalities. Which do come across as abstract to me . When there's a problem or supposedly an issue, you go to a mechanic or doctor, there's a lot of questions and answers.All problems and arguments are settled via answered questions.
- Hardly all problems are resolved by intensive questioning.
- Sometimes the mechanic simply points out that your car is on fire and the time for asking questions is done.
- Sometimes the doctor just notices that there's a javelin where your eye used to be and questions seem rather besides the point.
This is also how lawyers and prosecutors win legal cases.
- Right. That's how we began this debate.
- CON asked PRO to put CON on trial by PRO suggesting problems PRO sees with CON.
- Although the condition "problems" was left open-ended, PRO stuck to patterns that were evident in prior debates with CON as well as debates of CON's the PRO has judged.
- CON offered an appropriately detailed set of seven problems PRO sees with CON.
- CON's progress throughout the debate more or less proved each point against him while also demonstrating CON's lack of repentance
- CON's instigation was vague and more attention-seeking in intent than deliberative
- CON's only terms was for PRO to make point and CON promised to refute and correct
- CON failed to live up to this single term offered
- CON never made an affirmative argument defending his conduct
- CON notably pulled back on standard shouting technique but could not resist a couple of all-CAPs retorts
- CON continued his unbroken streak of never relying on sources.
- CON actually confirmed a certain contempt for research (and by extension, knowledge):
- "Now when you're ignorant to a subject, it's understandable that you must do some research or something of the sort just prior to the debate. This isn't the case for somebody that already knows what he's talking about."
- CON ignored his audience as well as most of PRO's argument.
- By the final round, CON dropped every argument
- This debate itself and CON's conduct within it serves as sufficient evidence to establish all of PRO's arguments.
- To extend the mechanic analogy,
- CON says "my car won't start, what's the problem?
- PRO points out 7 mechanical failures that prevent CON's car from starting
- CON replies, "hey, let's start a dialogue. Ask me some questions about why my car won't start."
- To extend the doctor analogy,
- CON says "I feel terrible, what's the problem?"
- PRO points that CON smokes 2 packs a day, eats only doritos and coke, never exercises, has stage4 cancer, advanced diabetes and a javelin in his eye.
- CON replies, "Fancy words like diabetes confuse me. Don't you want to know what I think my problem is?"
- To extend the courtroom analogy,
- CON says, "Your honor, why I am under arrest?"
- PRO intones, "You are hereby charged with first degree murder, rape, larceny, assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest, indecent exposure, and speeding. How do you plead?"
- CON turns to the jury and claims, "My courthouse, my rules."
- Ultimately, PRO is not convinced that CON understands the venue into which CON tosses his ill-considered debates. CON fails most of his debates because he doesn't come to the table with well researched opinions about debatable topics.
- Mere contradiction seldom persuades.
- CON has failed to prove that his debating techniques merit any rank above lowest ranked active debater, which remains CON's present standing.
- Thanks, Mall, for instigating this debate.
- Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration
- Please VOTE PRO!
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
On top of several other points: "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else"
Pro further backed this up with an array of sources from con's debate history, whereas con had no sources showing him being better.
Conduct for con refusing to engage with the debate points.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
After saying that he is on trial, Con ends up calling Pro an effective user of techniques that lawyers and politicians use to win legal cases. That one line in the last Round encapsulates the self-defeating nature of this entire debate.
The debate is simply won by Pro sufficiently proving that he/she/they has/have an issue with Mall (the user who is against the debate's resolution/topic and who instigated the debate).
What I see is that there are two key contentions from Con:
1) Pro's issues are based on missing context and key agreements made in debate descriptions which are to be sacred.
2) Pro is intentionally deceiving the voters and pursuing a rampage of character assassination and word-twisting on Pro.
The mechanical issue with these contentions is that even if both are held true, we then can say 'so what? Pro still has an issue with you and you still are on trial."
The debate's resolution was proved true because Pro displays issue with Mall (Con) in the following contentions:
1) Mall has practically no clue how to define terms and sets up debate structure almost begging to lose as the opponent is always able to define terms and abuse Mall's incapacity to fight back. I am not sure where the 'high horse' comes in but this links into Mall shouting with allcaps as well because this contention can be summed up as 'might is right and Mall is incompetent as a debating warrior'.
2) Mall is not simply incompetent, he lazy and his attitude towards debating itself is belligerent as he's neither trying to win nor to explore any specific lines of disagreement in any debate.
Con tries to highlight to Pro that Mall actually does try and that the failure to understand Pro's definitions and debate resolutions comes down to incompetence and/or malice on the part of the contender in those debates.
It is left very vague what Con is combatting though, since this debate is about if he is on trial and if Pro has an issue with him... A truism if Pro makes it so.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There's very little to say here. Pro levies a lot of points about the basic failings of logic and argumentation that pervade Con's points in other debates, and Con's responses largely double down on those strategies. Basically, Con's doubling down on the strategy that Pro is using against him, and his only arguments for why it is effective deal in the "but it works for discussion" and disengage from debate entirely. This is a debate, and much as Con dismisses the importance of that venue, debate includes certain elements that his arguments lack. Pro points that out at length, Con has no responses, Pro wins the debate. Pro's points are well sourced, and he presents better conduct by actually engaging on the points his opponent provides and not flipping over the table at the end because he's upset. I'll end with what I saw as the most effective analogy that Pro provided:
CON says "I feel terrible, what's the problem?"
PRO points that CON smokes 2 packs a day, eats only doritos and coke, never exercises, has stage4 cancer, advanced diabetes and a javelin in his eye.
CON replies, "Fancy words like diabetes confuse me. Don't you want to know what I think my problem is?"
This shows very well how Con's points, both in this debate and elsewhere, fail to engage with the analysis of his opponent. That failure has cost him this debate, as it has cost him so many others.
You gained 1 elo point from this debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: skittlez09 & seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: temporarily disabled
>Reason for Decision:
"con dropped pros arguments during the debate" & "con dropped all the arguments."
>Reason for Mod Action:
I hate to do this when the votes are indeed correct, even more so on a debate so meaningless and one sided without any potential of impacting the outcome...
For this quality offering, a vote along the lines of "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else" would be fine. As is, they just fall a little short when someone decided to issue a report.
And the boilerplate for this kind of thing:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
Adding to my RFD: only Pro used sources.
Thanks 4 voting skittlez, I was missing those "poor conduct"s
Regarding #3...
I haven't a clue why this was reported. It self clarifies itself as not being literally what Mall said, explaining itself to be the impression an argument gave due to the user's choice of how to argue... Further, while inflicting no harm, it was quite entertaining and to the spirit of the debate to which the target initiate a debate.
Thanks for voting, whiteflame.
thanks, seldiora!
To answer the resolution -
I don't know if I would I say anybody (Besides perhaps Seldiora and others of that ilk) have a problem with you personally. Maybe you're a great person in real life, I wouldn't know. But your argumentation and rhetoric definitely seems frustrating at the very least. It seems as if you ignore the actual point being made on purpose to semantically gish gallop all around your opponent.
Mall's logic be like:
Police: Why did you kill this person?
Mall: Tell me the part where you prohibits this.
Police: Well, in law 37, section B bulletpoint a, it says any murdering of any person without excessive permission is illegal.
Mall: WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU TRYING TO SOLVE? YOU THINK I AM JUST GONNA SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO YOU BLABING ABOUT IT?
Police: Well, I am trying to tell you that you broke the law by killing a person. Is it so hard to understand?
Mall: THEN AT LEAST TELL ME WHY. I am not here to listen to two idiots who think I did something wrong. You are supposed to prove what I am saying is TRUEEEE. Not false. TRUE.
no man, what are you doing...?
you haven't done anything wrong with regards to code of conduct, it's just that you take absurd debates that you have zero chance of winning