Any Topic
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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).
Pro said the topic was not debatable, prompting Con to explain how it could be debated. Pro dropped all of Con's arguments. This was a pretty clearly debatable topic. Pro failed to debate it and dropped Con's arguments that it was debatable. Arguments to Con.
There were no issues with S&G or conduct. I don't think the sources used in the debate really made much difference.
By the debate terms themselves, the ban is a very contentious topic, and each point could have been argued easily. I.e The reasons for the ban.
The ban was easily arguable by definition. PRO copping out on this topic did not fulfill the requirements of a PRO win.
"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)."
There was no such demonstration.
The key thing here is if the topic of RationalMadman's ban was arguable, and it was for PRO. The moderators had a reason to ban him, and seldiora could've easily argued those points.
Concession.
> I also could be lying and playing devil's advocate
Excellent point(s).
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.
> 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.
Lol, my opponent, who you say I harassed argues the ban is total bs as Pro side can't be debated
So the entire community that agrees with them is on a side that can't be debated?
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.
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.
I'm only interested in challenging Virtuoso to it.
I am sacrificing nothing.
sacrificing your elo to prove your innocence? I like it.
You should try challenging Ragnar or Virtuoso to a debate like this.
This debate may interest you.
sit back and observe.