You pick the topic, I shall do my best with it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.
Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .
Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.
YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.
This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. PRO chooses "THBT rape should be illegal in the United States" which is not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial public policy. On comedic or subjective stylings, PRO scores a zero.
PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.
" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."
This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but PRO badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."
So it not true that PRO wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined bywhether CON did "his best with it."
Given that CON has one round and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON's first argument is nearly unintelligible but something along the lines of "rape is already illegal everywhere, so there's no "should" about it"
CON's second argument that rape should be legal in fiction, fantasy, and the imagination is easier to understand and I point I strongly agree with.
So- did CON do his best? Regrettably, neither defines the standard for "best" giving this voter a third reason to treat this debate subjectively. To the extent that I was able to understand both of CON's arguments (which is itself far above CON's usual standard) and CON made more objective effort than PRO - 2886 characters vs 1906 characters, this voter is willing to view CON's effort as "his best" and by this standard, awards arguments to CON.
Honestly it is lucky I was on, I am quite busy these days and frankly this is becoming less of a hobby of mine. This website's community isn't worse than DDO's at all, it's humans in general I'm growing tired of and here humans determine if we win or not.
That said, you never/barely gave me wins vs Mall with your vote and honestly I am not entirely sure you won here because Mall actually did kind of outplay you by redefining 'legal' as 'concerning the law' which you barely fought back on.
I won't pretend I didn't laugh at the situation but I believe strongly in Sun Tzu's teachings, at least in terms of how to navigate long-term warfare, he didn't understand tactics that well. Oromagi and you having beef is beneficial to me. This is a chain reaction from me being online when Supadudz tried to rob you of the win, after all. Had that been a win for Oro and thus had I not revoted, Oromagi's beef would solely be with me.
Thanks to those events, a lot will unfold now and people will see that I was right about Oromagi and that he is the bitter, sinister and corrupt one. Yet, I am so bored by it, it's also not my priority as I am focusing on real life issues like a career/later-in-life-studies and my health/body that are becoming more serious demands on me and are ultimately important. Being the best debater ever is a fun fantasy, now it's getting cringe even for me. I know I can debate incredibly well, this format here is more about arguing than persuading and that's the less important part of debating in real life anyway.
Well, thanks for telling me in advance at least. I just don't understand the vote here, and it seems almost certainly to be an emotional outburst in response to previous events.
If you think Barney is corrupt, David is going to give you nightmares.
It appears that the current vote that established the conclusion of this debate simply constitutes a collection of nonsense. I am not sure what to do about it given that the debate has concluded, but I want an appreciation of this situation.
What type of vote is this? I suppose this is some form of retaliation for a recent defeat (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery-for-atoromagi) but this is very irritating to say the least.
This is a great lesson in setting up the structure for the debate before going into it early.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
Are you serious?