Pro Should Give Up This Debate
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
You know the rules. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.
This debate is funny, but stupid. Neither side deserves an advantage. I hope a mod doesn't report my vote because I get scared of them reporting my votes.
Argument" The entertainment value of Rick Astley's song, notwithstanding, which Con [Instigator] presents in R1, I see little. but nevertheless vague association with the debate Resolution other than that both concerning ending something obviously in progress. But this argument says nothing defeating Con's rebuttal, in R3, of Con's "should" [to wit: give up the debate] equating to "shall or will." Further, Pro discontinues argument after R1, declaring in R2 a quote from the song, which amounts to a repeat of R1 argument and not new argument, then declaring [with conduct-destroying contempt] that pro lost the "game," clearly meaning the debate. R4; Con's oblique reference to April fools accomplishes nothing, and R4 declares, obliquely, again that Pro has lost by virtue of Pro agreeing with Con, which is a baseless charge given Pro's successful R1 through R4 rebuttals. points to Pro.
Sources: Pro offers the only source, but it does not support Con's "argument"[?], which this voter concludes is worse than no source. Tie, at best.
Legibility: acceptable. Tie.
Conduct: I declare Con's win declaration in R1 to be a conduct killer. However, it is matched to Pro's over-the-top accusation of Con being "an arrogant fool" in R1. Tie.
Argument: Pro has a reason(This debate wasn't worth going for), all Con has was implicit meme material. To Pro.
Sources: None.
S&g: In Round 3, Con failed to capitalize the first letter of the argument. To Pro.
Conduct: No forfeits, but Con didn't take it seriously, as he posted something not even tangibly related to the topic itself in R3. His entire case is built upon implicit things and I can't make sense of it whatsoever, to Pro.
Pro didn't give up on Con - he knew the rules and so do I
-So the argument goes to Con
I don't even look at if debates are rated or not. However, if you want to revise your vote, just say the word and I'll pull the current one down.
>>RM, you're right, of course. I am too used to Con not being the initiator, and was doubly thrown by your personal reference in a third -person syntax. I'll ask Ragnar if I can revise the vote. It may not be necessary, but I'll watch for about a week. Ragnar, please take note. Being an unrated debate, does that ever figure in to making voting correction?
I called myself an arrogant fool.
Thank you for this vote btw, you saved me from an unfair loss.
You are really a troll sometimes
To me this really seems like a comedic riddle debate, therefore not moderated.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
There is no way that theweakeredge's vote is valid RFD
That pro never will, is not indicative of what he should do.
You have 5000 characters, not 500.
I have literally won you on this topic as Con. You literally have free arguments.