Instigator / Pro
10
1471
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2774

Children are not inferior

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
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Wagyu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Bugsy460

There is no firm policy requiring the Description to contain such needs as definitions, but, I find the lack to be a major set-back to the initiator, whether
Pro or Con. To leave definitions to your opponent to offer is just sloppy, in my opinion. An initiator should always self-protect with as much description as necessary to set-up the debate and not offer the opposition the territory to claim for themselves.

-->
@Wagyu
@Subaccount

I forgot to add this at the end of the RFD, but if you have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.

-->
@Wagyu
@Subaccount

RFD
Argumentation
Really easy ballot. Con establishes a definition and shared BOP and this isn't challenged. Con then creates four reasons that children are inferior. Pro negates these somewhat well and his answers are dropped by Con for a lot of them, but he doesn't go for these so they don't matter. BOP shared means that I see all the ways they are superior, all the ways they are inferior, and I see which number is higher, and it's 4-0, so easy Con vote. To address the last speech of Pro, this was a huge shift in the debate that I felt was easily answered by Con by talking about how you are shifting and you haven't discussed cyberbullying once.

Conduct
I give Pro conduct for one major reason, and this is a comment made in round two by Con where they say "black people were inferior". Con does damage control for the statement saying that it's the perception of white people at the time, and the resolution doesn't define the perception we are starting from. I feel this is a problematic statement because you're saying that previous racism is a justification to treat other people in a lesser way, and it's just a bad position to be on.

Notes
Pro
I know it's a joke debate, but you can handle it better. At the beginning, establish some impossible framing and BOP and list reasons it's better. For example, "Con must prove that every adult is better than every child in every way to prove the resolution false". You can then list grammatical reasons, logical reasons, and fairness reasons that this is the best way to approach the debate. On top of this, don't put all your eggs in one basket like you did, keep your other answers on the board so you have a shot at winning if your hail mary fails.

Con
This is a joke debate, as can be seen from Pro's lack of a description and first Pro round, lean into this. I don't know if you've seen the meme that says "If video games make children violent, why are they still so easy to beat the s!@# out of?" Use arguments like that because Pro isn't going to take you seriously anyways. Also, another way to handle the joke debates is to kritik it because they're never structured in a way to withstand it, for example, "Pro, as the author of the res, not having a description is bad for debate because X,Y, and Z, so vote Con to only endorse debates with descriptions." Despite all this, you did really well with your arguments and handled your strategy really well, so you don't need to change your strat if you don't want to, just wanted to add tools to the toolbelt.

-->
@fauxlaw

Sorry to ping you for month old comment, but I was looking at these as I was going to judge the round. Do you think that they need to be defined in the description, or could they be defined in the first speech and become a piece of the debate.

-->
@Barney

You said better conduct but never showed it on the vote

-->
@Subaccount

I smell a forfiet.

YOUTH RIGHTS!

-->
@Subaccount

Chill ur pill

-->
@Wagyu

Are you going to reply?

-->
@Subaccount

How do u enjoy doing these kind of debates which have little to no relevance to life.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Yeah I guess

-->
@Subaccount

Wagyu did, I was referring to you as the low hanging fruit, hence, "no offence"

-->
@Wagyu

After this debate, I'm gonna start another that is the same, but this time it will be 12 year olds aren't inferior to 13 year olds.

-->
@Theweakeredge

So who did you say tried for the low hanging fruit?

-->
@Subaccount

Because Wagyu accepted the debate, and was the one I was talking too. You happened to be the source of "conversation".

-->
@Theweakeredge

Why are you directing it towards Wagyu, if you're talking about me?

"Baby Jesus"

This debate now has my attention.

-->
@Wagyu

You really tried for the low-hanging fruit here..... no offense Subaccount

-->
@Wagyu

Your turn again.

-->
@Subaccount

Chill man I’m taking my time

-->
@Wagyu

It's your turn.

-->
@Wagyu

Are you gonna argue?

The kritik has been kritiked.

-->
@Subaccount

To what? To dogs? To cargo ships? To mousetraps?

-->
@Subaccount

When I propose debate, I typically define every key word in the resolution, just so there is no debate on the matter of definitions. The debate can concentrate on the whole of the resolution and not turn into a dictionary debate. That accomplishes nothing. Just a suggestion as it seems you have a lot of pushback on that score. It's your debate; define your terms. Also define "children."

-->
@Subaccount

Possibly they're waiting for you to refine your proposal, to avoid any risk of bullying you (as it honestly sounds like you used to suffer on Reddit).

Also, please check your PMs.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the kritik!

-->
@Barney

Why is nobody accepting it yet?

-->
@Subaccount

If you hope to win this debate, toss a definition of inferior into the description. Otherwise someone will argue they are on average inferior in height, or even inferior in rank as proven by them not being allowed on Reddit, Facebook, and even this website.

-->
@Sum1hugme

wdym?

-->
@Subaccount

Who hurt you?

-->
@Sum1hugme

Viewed as inferior by the 13+ circlejerk (AKA Reddit).

-->
@Subaccount

Okay, to what degree? Like in the ability to string together coherent posts? Or acquire followers?

-->
@Sum1hugme

Inferior to teenagers and young adults in terms of using social media

-->
@gugigor

Inferior: Stupid, weak, told to "get off Reddit kid."

-->
@Subaccount

Inferior to what? A nuke? An ant?

-->
@Subaccount

define inferior