Instigator / Pro
0
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#2853

Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
4,800
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

No information

Only 12 hours remain for voting.

-->
@Bugsy460

thanks for the vote, but please go into more depth.

-->
@Bugsy460

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:

Two sentences don't do enough of an overview of a 3 round, roughly 20,000 character debate. The voter must go into a lot more detail than what is presented.

"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."

-->
@RationalMadman

That said, I'll still need to review his vote obviously

-->
@RationalMadman

Bugsy460 is the new account of user Ancap460.

https://www.debateart.com/participants/Ancap460

Since we do not disregard his past simply because he moved to a new account, he meets the voting requirements.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'll get to this this weekend.

-->
@Bugsy460

I address it 100% directly.

-->
@RationalMadman

I understand the confusion now with my RFD. I had a grammatical typo and it was a short typed RFD, which isn't fair to y'all as debaters, and I'm sorry. I was saying don't drop the win condition Con creates in the second round and not answer it in the third, their win condition being the fictional appreciation. You never answer it directly and just extend your second round speech as an answer without telling a judge why it is an answer. I hope that clarifies more, and if it doesn't, then we can discuss it after the voting period to not violate any rules.

Also, I hope you have more than your baseless accusation and the fact I voted against you as the reason that I'm not eligible to vote, because the system auto allows people to vote when they meet the requirements.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

Bugsy doesn't meet the minimum stat requirements to vote on debates. He hasn't completed 2 without any forfeits to the end of voting period, nor has he posted 100 forum posts.

-->
@whiteflame

I curious if you'd care to (please) vote on this debate. You'll either laugh or cringe, either way I'm @ing for your attention.

-->
@Bugsy460

There is a rule on this website that until the voting period is over a debater can't actively explain to a voter why their vote was 'wrong' other than by asking to look at a point in the debate. It is a rule known as 'anti-voter-manipulation' similar to the rule that bans revenge voting and quid pro quo win-win voting arrangements.

So, I can just encourage you to read the Round 2 you said I sacrificed my win condition on, I guarantee you that is the Round you have not properly read.

-->
@RationalMadman

I read the whole debate, and I'm sorry you feel the need to report my vote without asking me first. The problem is this is directly countered because you can appreciate something that isn't real, people appreciating fictional depictions proves this. This means that Con can appreciate the fictional scenario. Is there a more specific argument you think I'm not weighing that preempted the fictional point, since you dropped it going forward?

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris
@Bugsy460

did you actually read my Round 2 at all? Your RFD implies you didn't, if that is your full RFD then this comment is my report of it to Ragnar and Misterchris

-->
@RationalMadman
@Undefeatable

If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Undefeatable

RFD
I first see that BOP is on Con, so the question is do they prove that "Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them." I believe Con appreciates the fictional scenario that would lead to Pro being in love with Con, especially since there's no argumentation against it.

Notes
Pro
Don't drop there win condition in the second round. That will do you in any debate where the other debater is good enough to say you dropped the biggest piece of offense.

Con
Don't be afraid to use yourself as a piece. Pro says that they don't love you, but say that you PERCEIVE him to love you, for example. When you are a piece of the resolution, that means you can affect it.

-->
@RationalMadman

this debate oddly reminded me of Fauxlaw's "it is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist"

-->
@Undefeatable

War takes many forms and everyone is defeatable.

sorry, not dictionary.com. Merriam webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appreciate

-->
@Intelligence_06

This debate doesn't involve you or require your assistance to either side.

-->
@Undefeatable

Accepting this debate means that RM loves you. The resolution means that Con did not acknowledge/appreciate pro’s love for him, and not “Pro is not in love with Con”.

-->
@Intelligence_06

This is open challenge. I accepted it since pro cant prove “lack of appreciation” lol

Imagine if this is open challenge though.

-->
@RationalMadman

what??! what is this debate, even?