Instigator / Pro
3
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#2982

The best theory available for the loch ness monster is that it was probably a worm

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

In this debate I require to defend my position in the title that the best theory available for the loch ness monster is that it was probably a worm.
My opponent in this round will need to establish to the voters beyond reasonable doubt that this is not the best theory available.
What constitutes best theory and reasonable doubt comes down to the discretion of the voters.

Also, I will not be accepting arguments over absurd definitions.
If one does not understand the definition in the title, please take it up in the comment section before accepting the debate.
Failure to do so results in an automatic win for me, without me even taking part in the debate.

Well at least you appear to admit to grasping the concept. I could not admit to not grasping the concept either, even if I do not 100% agree with my own "theory".

Just so we are clear, I am not even sure if it's based on the Irish tale or not. I just debated.

-->
@Barney

100% disagree and words such as deplorable should not be getting thrown about lightly. Nor should accusations of me accusing others of using pedophilic undertones. Nor should I have to declare that I 100% believe in the theory I am arguing for when I don't. RationalMadman accepted the terms written in the description and therefore if I was awarded a conduct violation due to what was written in my description that should also be removed. "deplorable" really!

-->
@RationalMadman
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

The vote opens with good feedback on the setup, then gives direct criteria by criteria overview.

Arguments could have gotten into detail of cons case, but it points well to the core issue of pro's BoP type failure that even factoring in a ton of outside knowledge he still could not follow how it was trying to connect.
Note: Had this been done lazily or with malice, the vote would be removed; as is, it gave pro a ton of feedback which hopefully he can make use of for future debates on this topic or stylifically any other.

Sources are fairly tied.

Legibility for the manner in which pro assembled his case, making it (at least to the voter) comparatively burdensome to decipher (and with the amount of cited material, the voter clearly did try to decipher it).

Conduct to pro for the forfeitures, in spite of the voter finding some of his behavior deplorable (finding behavior outright deplorable, could have easily been used to justify leaving conduct tied; or worse if it was believed to have been bad enough to chase off the other debater).

This is overall a very useful vote in terms of feedback, with clear review over what happened and why it makes the point allocations to each side.
**************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for letting me know.

-->
@Nevets

I've sent you a PM, where such discussion is more appropriate, but I've said my piece and will likely have nothing further to say about it.

-->
@fauxlaw

If you do not wish to support your argument nor engage with me in friendly discussion then that is your perogative. I shall leave you in peace.

-->
@Nevets

I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for the assassination. However whilst you have put up a great argument, the debate was not Nevets v Fauxlaw. It was Nevets v RationalMadman and you never once mentioned RationalMadman in the comment below, and you "barely" gave him a mention in your explanation in the voting section. Nowhere did RationalMadman make any of the arguments "you" are arguing. Therefore, apart from not being able to support the facts he put over, such as the Picts drawing depictions of Nessie dating back to 500bc, and Ireland getting their legends from Iceland, which fact did you think RM was correct about?

-->
@Nevets

My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.

-->
@fauxlaw

You merely said RM's argument was better but you did not establish which argument was better nor how it was better. You also agree that I accused RationalMadman of writing with Pedophilic undertones. Can you please clarify how you come to this conclusion, as I was referring to the story of St Columba and the wizard with the Irish slave girl. Not RationalMadman.

-->
@Barney

>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for the vote.

You didn't actually award the legibility point to Con but I am happier you didn't as it was borderline anyway, so your point allocation is more solid.

-->
@Barney

I certainly did not accuse him of any such thing Ragnar.
He produced the source from Wikipedia regarding St Columba's loch ness sighting as proof that the loch ness monster legend dates back to before the story of Ness was even told (even though mythology holds that it dates to 1AD) and I responded that this story actually also contains a story about an Irish slave girl being held captive by a wizard. It was the story I was suggesting contained Pedophilic underetones, not RM's writing as I am aware RationalMadman did not even know about the full story of St Columba's account. On top of that I produced evidence that St Columba's story is believed to not have been a true story, but instead plagiarized from Irish legends.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Nevets

Regarding complaints of misconduct:
Pro's case is weird with the side tangents. The level of focus on ancient child molesters, makes my mind jump to him using "worm" as a slang for that. However, that line of reasoning was present in his R1, and he never seemed to accuse con of being an a 1500 year old irish wizard, so the accusation that the Irish wizard Broichan was such a vile man, does not infer any accusation of con sharing in such depravity.

It is written below in the story of St Columba that you quoted that he encountered a wizard that was keeping an Irish slave girl captive. It is part of the story that you brought up in your argument. The story has Pedophilic undertones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ness#Miscellanea
According to Adomnán, when Columba visited King Bridei I of Pictland at his house on the River Ness, he met a wizard named Broichan who had an Irish slave-girl that he refused to release even though Columba pleaded with him. Columba went out of Bridei's house and picked up a white pebble from the river. He said that the pebble would be used to heal many sick people in Pictland, and that Broichan was suffering for his sins at that very moment. After he had finished speaking, two messengers came to tell them that Broichan had a seizure and they wanted Columba to help them. Columba gave them the stone and said to dip it in water to give to Broichan, if he agreed to release the slave-girl. He agreed to do so, and the stone was put in water and it floated on it; the wizard drank from the water and was healed. This stone was kept by King Bridei in the royal treasury for the rest of his life, and anyone who came there for healing would be given water with the stone floating in it, and they would be healed.[18]

The story of St Columba has Paedophilic undertones. Where did I accuse rationalmadman of this?

-->
@Nevets

You are permanently blocked.

-->
@David
@Barney
@Nevets

I am not fucking okay with being mocked and accused of writing anything with pedophilic undertones. This is fucking bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagarflj%C3%B3t

-->
@Depresseddad

You'd probably be interested in this

-->
@Undefeatable

As much as anything else it is to guard against those that would take on a debate and argue over some absurd definition. I try to make it clear that the debate is about me defending the claim in the title and my opponent disproving that claim.

-->
@Nevets

Beyond reasonable doubt? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? Please make it the civil court case burden of proof instead