Instigator / Pro
18
1490
rating
6
debates
41.67%
won
Topic
#284

Ducks are the most dangerous animal

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
21
Better sources
10
16
Better legibility
3
8
Better conduct
2
8

After 8 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...

nmvarco
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
53
1536
rating
19
debates
55.26%
won
Description

Ducks are dangerous

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 arguments were subjective and hypothetical, countered by Con's cold, hard facts. More to the point, Pro attempted to argue that Ducks were dangerous when the argument was that ducks were the "most" dangerous animal, a fact refuted by Con by showing that humans are more dangerous. By not refuting this or supporting his original argument, Pro concedes it.

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:

Since this was a troll debate I’m voting based on who was funnier. Pro definitely took the debate more tollishly than con. That being said I’m awarding con the conduct point for the forfeit and for taking the debate seriously.

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:

Troll debate: con wins as he’s the only one that really provides an argument.

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:

Con won this in the weakest way possible in my eyes. Con needed only to provide one more dangerous animal to win and instead chose to mitigate to zilch which hardly is easier, it's actually not just weaker, it's more effort to pull off.
Pro actually was winning until R2 from Con in my eyes because Con wasn't explaining why there is to be assumed to be an equally/more dangerous animal out there as/than the duck.

I believe Pro loses because Con mitigates everything Pro brings up to either be a failure to meet BoP or to simply be proven irrelevant (as opposed to cast doubt on, which is more passive). From the speed of ducks to the mental-control of ducks over humans, Pro is constantly pushing forth points without expanding on their relevance to the resolution or to the reason why that in itself makes ducks dangerous if they can't execute well due to lack of strategy, as Con keeps pointing out.

Con wins via mitigating every point if Pro successfully and the 0-sum favours Con since Pro ends up with the BoP thrust unto him at every stage and isn't up to par in that regard.

Conduct to Con because while Con is rude calling Pro a crackpot in a really condescending tone, Pro says the following in R4:
"so a duck would silently sneak up at you at night and sit your throat and nmvarco I shall summon the duck god to smite you in your sleep tonight." which is clearly intended to terrify Con and even if it is a joke, is poor conduct in a formal 1v1 debate as 'just joking' doesn't mean your conduct was better within the context of the debate. A Graphic oblique threat followed by a direct one is not a joke. I do not care what you say, if you take 'duck' and 'smiting' to be metaphors, this is a very sinister comment indeed and since Pro is saying (in this debate) that genuinely ducks are that dangerous it's not even a case of 'can't be done' from Pro's point-of-view.

I found both to use terrible sources. Personal blogs and Wikipedia are terrible. Both score low so both tie. Good troll debate

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:

In Round 1, Pro argues that ducks enslave people. Con rebuts by stating that there is not evidence to prove that. Con also states that ducks will only attacked when provoked, however, he does not provide an animal more dangerous.

In Round 2, Pro argues that ducks are poisonous and "spoopy", and that they attack him randomly. Con states that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a venomous duck, and that Pro's point about them being "spoopy" is a point in his favor. Con completes his rebuttal by stating that Pro has no evidence to support his statement the ducks have been attacking him.

In Round 3, basically nothing happens.

In Round 4, Pro states that ducks can be very vast, and that they can very quiet and angry, along with stating they could sneak in his house at night and slit his throat. Con rebuts this by stating that ducks make noise when they are angry and thus cannot be stealthy. Con also states that ducks are not intelligent enough to sneak into a house at night and target specific vessels.

ARGUMENTS: Con had stronger arguments for why a duck is not dangerous, but he did not specifically provide another animal that could be more dangerous. However, Con appears to make the argument that humans are more dangerous, although never specified. All in all, I say Con wins in the arguments category.

SOURCES: Both sides provided reliable sources, so it is tied in this category.

SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: Pro made an abundance of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors throughout the debate. Con's arguments were cleanly laid out, with no errors. As such, Con wins in this category.

CONDUCT: Pro threatened to summon the Duck god to attack Con. Con responded by calling Pro a crackhead. With that in mind, it is a tie in this category.

CONCLUSION: Con wins this debate overall.

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 made arguments, but they were refuted better by CON in an organized manner. I believe his arguments are more stronger and have relevancy to them

S&G to CON. Various errors and missed periods cause me to vote CON. Run on sentences that drag on too much

Conduct to CON. Summoning the Duck God and being at peace with them is just bad logic

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:

Arguments:

While Pro had some arguments, they were refuted by Con and Pro didn't refute Cons back.

Citations:
Pro doesn't cite at all, at least some of Cons sources connect to his evidence.

Spelling and grammar:

Pro says, "nmvaco" which interferes with the meaning of the text. this is poor spelling.

Conduct:

Pro threatened to summon the "Duck god" to Con at the end. He also forfeited a round without apology. This is poor conduct. However, Con also called Pro a crackhead at the end. This is also poor conduct. Since Pro made 2 mistakes whereas Con made 1, this means that this point should go to Con.

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:

Definitely the most entertaining debate on this site, by far.

Most convincing; Con.
Pro claimed that ducks were the "most dangerous" animal, which was a point that got sadly overlooked. Although Pro made a few claims that could imply ducks are dangerous, even all these claims being true wouldn't make them the "most" dangerous. Con effectively rebutted these claims and pointed out that many of them were false or inaccurate, such as the flight speed of ducks and supposed ability to utilize poison.

Sources; Con.
Pro didn't use any sources until the very end, while Con began citing sources right away. When Pro finally did use sources, he seemed to ignore what the sources actually said, such as misquoting the flight speed of ducks.

Spelling and Grammar; Con.
This category goes to Con, hands down.

Conduct; Con.
Pro threatened to summon the 'Duck God' to smite his opponent. Oddly, that also brings up a question of why ducks are always attacking him if he is on such good terms with their deity.