Ducks are the most dangerous animal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Ducks are dangerous
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.
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.
Troll debate: con wins as he’s the only one that really provides an argument.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
OMG I JUST NOTICED LMAO
Category: Art
As an aside, I gave a pretty legit review for this debate, regardless of it being a "troll" debate or not. Someone is reporting my votes just to be a dick and waste the moderator's time.
It fits the definition moderation uses in that it is primarily a humorous/facetious debate. This is evidenced both by the topic and the content of the debate. Exhibit 1: "Ducks enslave people to feed them bread."
How is this a troll debate?
I talked to Jboy irl and he seemed quite serious about this. I was too.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reasons for Decision: 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
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Raltar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Rational Madman was trying to summon the DebateArt 'god' to smite Jboy3r!
I was saying to report it to bsh1
Last round
When did Pro make a death threat to Bsh1?
Dude nmvarco is my friend it was a joke
Report pro for the death threat to bsh1 and remind anyone who votes you down on conduct of what we implied.
It's still poor conduct. You shouldn't insult other users even if they deserve it because it could cost a conduct point. If you think they are showing poor conduct, let the voters award you a conduct point.
I called him a crackpot, which means an eccentric or foolish person, not a crackhead, which means somebody who smokes crack a lot.
People say extend because they are waiting for the other person to post their argument, because burden of proof is on them.
I know jboy3r irl and he is Catholic so I shall ask the pope to excommunicate him.
Man, I hope Con provides his final rebuttal before the Duck God smites him!
Why does everyone say extend when their opponent forfeits a round?
Is spoopy even a word?
Lol
Bro, you better take ducks seriously. Those things got pointy beaks and poison.
There's a duck behind you.
It's staring with glowing red eyes.
... I can hear its thoughts. "I am Spoopy. Fear me."
I would be very serious about this too if I were the contender.
This is very entertaining.
It is so funny how nmvarco is so so serious about this.
Can't stop laughing. Help.