Instigator / Pro
15
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2469

Any Topic

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4

After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Pro will waive round 1. Con will post a topic in r1, they are con and I am pro on the topic. They will define the terms and outline the ideas, posting arguments as they wish. Con will waive round 4. The topic must be debatable, not a truism. Pro can win the debate by proving his side beyond a shadow of doubt to be unarguable (preventing con from taking an incredibly biased topic).

-->
@RationalMadman

> I also could be lying and playing devil's advocate

Excellent point(s).

-->
@Barney

I also could be lying and playing devil's advocate inside this debate to get the win, your 'double standards' attack is not just a fallacy of hypocrisy but also an assumption that I believe what I wrote in this debate.

This is a sport, I want to win. I say what I do to win the debate. Whether I think it's debatable or not, I had to defend that in order to get the win, to do otherwise would be gamethrowing.

I also can think it's debatable to discuss and defend any stance I disagree with on politics and philosophy, that doesn't mean that I think that side should win or have any validity.

-->
@RationalMadman

> Lol, my opponent...

And the RM who wrote R4 insists "this was entirely debatable." Which seemingly casts doubt on the "pure lies" claim made by RM.

...

Interestingly Seld has challenged me to something of a follow up to this debate: "Court Trial: Was RM's Ban Justified?" Which given your recently renewed complaints of me mercilessly bullying you, would probably be best that I decline rather than take part in what could be considered a callout debate targeting you.

And even if it were, I think we've already demonstrated how extrapolating Seldiora's stance to justify actions is a logical fallacy.

I feel like this is less of a representation of Seldiora's stance on the issue and more of Seldiora trying to cop the win.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

Lol, my opponent, who you say I harassed argues the ban is total bs as Pro side can't be debated

-->
@seldiora

So the entire community that agrees with them is on a side that can't be debated?

-->
@RationalMadman

Hmmm? I am saying it is impossible to argue that it is based on accuracy. They mistook your words as threat towards me and thought you multi accounted, doxxed, insulted ramshutu (the only correct idea). Ragnar’s interpretation of events is his own truth and own beliefs.

-->
@seldiora

you made an extreme error, you think the pro side is the con side, you are saying the opposite side can't be debated than the one you have.

-->
@MisterChris

I'm only interested in challenging Virtuoso to it.

-->
@seldiora

I am sacrificing nothing.

-->
@RationalMadman

sacrificing your elo to prove your innocence? I like it.

-->
@RationalMadman

You should try challenging Ragnar or Virtuoso to a debate like this.

-->
@Vader
@Discipulus_Didicit
@skittlez09
@Crocodile
@BearMan

This debate may interest you.

-->
@Lunatic
@David
@Barney
@Speedrace
@MisterChris

sit back and observe.