Instigator / Pro
18
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Topic
#4004
Lancelot should not be president (sry)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Thx, Sir.Lancelot, for accepting this debate!
I will prove, with sound logic, that Lancelot should not be president.
P1: Voters should not vote for someone who is not eligible to be elected.
This is simple logic – your vote is your voice, so why should your voice support someone who can’t be president anyway?
P2: Sir.Lancelot is not eligible to be elected.
According to DebateArt’s Information Center, one of the requirements for being the President is “the user’s account must be greater than 6 months old.”
However, Sir.Lancelot’s account is less than 2 months old. Although it’s been many years since elementary school, I remember 2 is still less than 6.
C1: Voters should not vote for Sir.Lancelot.
Logically sound, and follows from the previous major and minor terms.
C2: Sir.Lancelot should not be president.
Extended from the previous conclusion – the presidential position is a representation of the voters’ will.
Are we debating if I can't or shouldn't be president?
My understanding is they are two distinct things.
Currently, there is only one rule on why I cannot run, a pretty insignificant one at that. My account is not old enough.
I believe this technicality should be overlooked for several reasons.
- With the exception of myself and Rational Madman, there is a lack of qualified candidates who are running for the position. Or any candidates at all for that matter.
- The rules need to be updated and this one is currently outdated.
- This website is practically the Blockbuster of debating sites, and this rule is only curbing the population of an already dying platform.
Here are the problems the site is currently facing.:
- There's not very many active users.
- They're understaffed.
- The moderating is garbage.
Here's where I come in.
- I have a lot of clout. Outside of this site, I have a 11K following. I can restore this site to its former glory just by making people aware that it exists.
- I have a lot of money and I will personally fund, if I am made president. Afterall, I need to determine if it's a worthwhile investment. I can also encourage my readers to do the same.
- I have my own coding team who would be glad to work on this site so poor Mike can be cut some slack. All I have to do is give the command.
Round 2
I. Definitions (from Merriam-Webster):
Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency
Can: used to indicate possibility
II. Constructives
1. Should implies the existence of can.
Let’s do an experiment in language. Imagine I said, “You should end racism.” How would you reply?
- I think racism is good.
- I can’t end racism.
The answer, of course, is obvious. One has an “obligation, propriety, or expediency” to end racism, but only if this is possible. Without the possibility of doing something, the rightness or wrongness of that action is irrelevant.
2. Bending the rules for a single candidate would set a bad example.
Of course, my opponent can argue that the moderators could change the rules for him. Fundamentally speaking though, this is a bad idea.
The rules exist for a reason. To change them because of special pleading, especially when unnecessary, would set a worrying precedent for the future – that is, the rules can be bent for certain people.
3. The mods would need to bend two rules, not just one, to allow Lancelot to run.
Per DebateArt’s Information Center, a presidential candidate also needs to have “at least one golden medal achievement.” Lancelot has not achieved this. If the mods changed this second rule, along with the first for him, then the legitimacy of his presidential run, even if successful, would be forever in contention.
III. Conclusion
In order to refute my case, my opponent needs to prove one of two things:
- Should does not imply actual possibility
- Mods should change two rules just for Lancelot
I look forward to my opponent’s response.
Rebuttals:
Let’s do an experiment in language. Imagine I said, “You should end racism.” How would you reply?
- I think racism is good.
- I can’t end racism.
The answer, of course, is obvious. One has an “obligation, propriety, or expediency” to end racism, but only if this is possible.
Non-sequitur fallacy.
In every subject, meaning must be considered to avoid confusion.:
(Should not)
- It would be unwise for Lancelot to become president. It would be better for Lancelot to not be president.
Is fundamentally different than saying,
(Can not)
- Lancelot is unable to be president. Lancelot lacks the ability to be president.
We are discussing whether or not I should be president, so my ability or inability to be president is irrelevant. Should not implies I have a choice between becoming president and not becoming president, so Pro contradicts himself by saying I can't. If he proceeds with this argument, then he has defeated himself.
Without the possibility of doing something, the rightness or wrongness of that action is irrelevant.
In a general sense, sure. A formal setting like a debate, context makes a difference, and should be clarified.
Irrelevant in the election, maybe. But wholly relevant to this thread.
2. Bending the rules for a single candidate would set a bad example.Of course, my opponent can argue that the moderators could change the rules for him. Fundamentally speaking though, this is a bad idea.The rules exist for a reason. To change them because of special pleading, especially when unnecessary, would set a worrying precedent for the future – that is, the rules can be bent for certain people.
The circumstances make it necessary. The potential damage of one exception to the rules is minor and will have no effect to the potential this site could tap into by making me president.
Mods should change two rules just for Lancelot
My arguments from round 1 are uncontested. Extend.
Round 3
I. Rebuttals
Non-sequitur fallacy.In every subject, meaning must be considered to avoid confusion.:(Should not)
- It would be unwise for Lancelot to become president. It would be better for Lancelot to not be president.
Is fundamentally different than saying,(Can not)
- Lancelot is unable to be president. Lancelot lacks the ability to be president.
Objection: this is not a non-sequitur fallacy, since "should" directly follows "can." CON also fails to directly refute my example of "should" and "can" in context.
(Should not)
- There is no obligation, propriety, or expediency for Lancelot to be president.
(Can not)
- Lancelot is unable to be president.
When someone is unable to be something, then there is no obligation, propriety, or expediency for that to happen.
We are discussing whether or not I should be president, so my ability or inability to be president is irrelevant.
Your ability to be president is very relevant to whether you should be one.
Should not implies I have a choice between becoming president and not becoming president, so Pro contradicts himself by saying I can't. If he proceeds with this argument, then he has defeated himself.
I was doing this to counter CON's two contradictory arguments:
- He is incapable of running, but should be president anyway
- He is capable of running because the rules should be changed just for him.
If CON stops being contradictory, I will too.
The circumstances make it necessary. The potential damage of one exception to the rules is minor and will have no effect to the potential this site could tap into by making me president.
Impact weighing - the damage of breaking rules to allow one candidate is clear and obvious, while the benefits of allowing Lancelot to run are unproven - anybody can promise something, but not all deliver.
My arguments from round 1 are uncontested. Extend.
Don't know where CON got that from - outweighing arguments, rather than denying them, is a legitimate form of rebuttal.
Objection: this is not a non-sequitur fallacy, since "should" directly follows "can." CON also fails to directly refute my example of "should" and "can" in context.(Should not)
- There is no obligation, propriety, or expediency for Lancelot to be president.
(Can not)
- Lancelot is unable to be president.
When someone is unable to be something, then there is no obligation, propriety, or expediency for that to happen.
The confusing form of the resolution “should not” already implies the ability to decide between A and B. Therefore, the implication of this hypothetical is that I am already eligible.
So any argument that I am unable to run is fundamentally meaningless and something that violates Pro’s own debate.
Your ability to be president is very relevant to whether you should be one.
The prompt already assumes that I do have the ability, so any mention of my inability is a contradiction.
I was doing this to counter CON's two contradictory arguments:
- He is incapable of running, but should be president anyway
- He is capable of running because the rules should be changed just for him.
If CON stops being contradictory, I will too.
Pro’s first argument and the debate resolution are both inconsistent with one another, so he contradicted himself without me saying anything. Refuting these arguments by entertaining the errors in his logic doesn’t mean I’m contradicting myself.
Impact weighing - the damage of breaking rules to allow one candidate is clear and obvious, while the benefits of allowing Lancelot to run are unproven - anybody can promise something, but not all deliver.
The potential loss to this exception is insignificant, even if I didn’t make good on my word.
Round 4
1. “Should” does not necessitate more than one choice in actuality.
Just because someone “should” be something doesn’t mean they actually have that capability.
In the 2020 election, there were many minor candidates who despite not having a remote chance of becoming president, nevertheless had people who genuinely believed they should (or shouldn’t) be president.
My use of “should” affirms only whether there is an obligation, propriety, or expediency. Clearly, these three conditions imply capability as well.
My opponent is also contradicting himself by first arguing that we’re assuming he can be president, then arguing that he can’t be president, but that he should be allowed to.
2. Realisticity is a legitimate way to argue against an affirmative proposition using “should.”
To cite precedent here, I will list a few examples to prove my point.
a. Lancelot (my esteemed opponent) uses the fact that his opponent can’t give a gift card to him because of the rules to argue that his opponent shouldn’t give a gift card to him.
b. In one of my debates, my opponent first shows that flag desecration can be outlawed in order to later extend that it should be outlawed.
c. According to DART’s official guide, in debates involving an imperative, debaters should include both how (can) and why (should) something be done.
3. Definite losses vs potential gains of allowing Lancelot to run
The definite losses are great. First, short- and long-term trust in the mods would be seriously eroded – if special pleading is allowed to bend a rule for an important election, what’s to say the same can’t happen again?
In contrast, the potential gains are questionable. My opponent has given no actual evidence that he will significantly benefit this site other than a few unfalsifiable claims – he even admits the possibility of “not making good on my word.” This website can't survive another year with an inactive president.
...Pro just contradicted himself again....
Just because someone “should” be something doesn’t mean they actually have that capability.
jection: this is not a non-sequitur fallacy, since "should" directly follows "can." CON also fails to directly refute my example of "should" and "can" in context.
So the first statement means “should does not always imply can” and the second statement means “should implies can.”
My opponent is also contradicting himself by first arguing that we’re assuming he can be president, then arguing that he can’t be president, but that he should be allowed to.
Acknowledging and even entertaining Pro’s semantic inconsistencies isn’t me contradicting myself. Hopefully, this doesn’t throw voters through a loop.
The definite losses are great. First, short- and long-term trust in the mods would be seriously eroded – if special pleading is allowed to bend a rule for an important election, what’s to say the same can’t happen again?
The mods already broke the rules twice.
Why couldn’t they do it for me? 😢
Conclusion:
The burden of proof is on Pro to explain why I shouldn’t be president. The fact that I’m ineligible is irrelevant and his argument about rule-breaking was refuted.
Pro has failed to establish why I shouldn’t be president whereas I have pleaded a very strong case in support of my position of why I should!
Round 5
I. Rebuttals
1. “But PRO’s contradictory”
CON is clearly taking my statements out of context, and in addition, he has also failed to address them at all. Instead, he has focused on some imaginary contradiction between my arguments.
- My opponent thinks he should be president – therefore, I am debating him on whether he should be president.
- While he can’t be president, he appears to think so, as evidenced by the fact he attempted to run.
- He can't be president – therefore, he shouldn’t be president, as in order to be obligated to do something, you must be able to do it (as proved earlier).
Acknowledging that I have several layered arguments isn’t contradicting myself. Hope this doesn’t throw voters for a loop.
In contrast, CON is the one who has mutually exclusive (i.e. contradictory) arguments, as I’ve pointed out thrice.
2. “But BoP is on PRO”
As the instigator, I bear most of the burden of proof. However, it logically follows that as the side making an affirmative claim against the status quo, CON also has some responsibility to prove that he should be president.
He has attempted to do so by claiming (with no evidence) that he would be a good president - ignoring the fact that he can’t be a president.
3. “But mods should allow me to run (cuz they already broke the rules twice)”
Non sequitur as well as a relevance fallacy. My opponent has also helpfully proved my point – the shameful breaking of rules by the mods has already led to widespread discontent, including a callout thread by oromagi, #1 debater.
II. Conclusion
In conclusion, clearly voters should vote for PRO. Not only did I prove my case in the 1st and 2nd rounds, to which CON failed to prove any meaningful objection, I also showed why CON’s arguments are non sequiturs, or just outright denialism.
In addition, I also used 19 sources, while CON only used 1 (to his own detriment).
Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate, as well as any voters!
Extend. ^^^
Ah ok
I updated my vote. Not much different, just added a section at the bottom.
No, he deleted and reposted.
Thanks for the vote. I could have sworn it wasn't there when Lancelot posted his comment... maybe I'm just tripping.
Wait, why did you delete it originally?
???
Thanks for the well-written vote.
That was actually my bad. I thought he reposted it.
My apologies, thank you for letting me know Austin. I've gone ahead and deleted the previous post as the reason for removal is still here in the comments.
Barney forgot to delete mps1213's vote the first time, so it was *not* removed and reposted. I just checked my notifications, and it said that a vote had been deleted from this debate only once (i.e, 10 minutes ago). Please take this into consideration.
I’m glad you had enough brain cells to grasp how badly you were getting clapped.
Snort less coke and you’ll sound less impaired the next time.
I may make some typos, but one is clearly more articulate than the other, considering someone has forfeited three rounds in two debates while debating the other person.
Again mate, you can make all the claims you’d like, but the votes and arguments speak themselves. You operate off of uneducated, journalistic, political lot based views on scientific topics. While I operate off of evidence. You can’t even grasp the evidence I present most of the time because it is so above your level of articulation and understanding. You have to resort to syntax errors and typos, which is equally as childish and immature as reporting votes and blocking people you disagree with. As you do those two things, you talk shit about people who do the same. You’re not only childish and insecure but you’re a hypocrite. Grow up a tad bit mate, or you won’t go too far.
I hope you do go far and make something of yourself, but things will have to change for that to happen.
Good night mate, a little too late to be losing brain cells talking to you. I hope life turns out good for you, I truly do. If you ever want to have another debate, or have a mature, secure, conversation you can message me or invite me to a debate any time.
You’re not exactly articulate.
To me, you thound like thith when you type. Wordth are clearly not your throng thuit.
I’ve also noticed you have a habit of making a point then abandoning it as soon as there is resistance. Another sign of weakness and insecurity. You do it regularly.
I’m also not the one who blocked someone and reported a vote lol, someone is showing a lot of insecurity here, and the other is just talking shit tryna make the other person be a little more humble and less immature. I’m sure you can pin down who is who lol
Lol I’m not mad all mate. I’m just a little more articulate than you are.
I’ve noticed people who say what you just said are the ones who tend to be mad. Also I keep bringing you back into respond. Even though you’ve said numerous times you don’t care and don’t think about me, yet here you are :)
So no you haven’t made me mad I’m just a little more articulate and am better at talking shit than you are so no sweat at all.
Oh really?
I type 3 sentences and you reply with 8 paragraphs.
You’re mad as fuck rn.
Again you have claimed to not care about me and all of that shit, however you keep responding and keep trying to get under my skin. It will never work lol. I have infinitely more mental toughness than you do right now, and there’s nothing a weak minded cry baby could say to me that’ll upset me.
I said the complete opposite of me not being able to handle it. I specifically said insult me all you like, it won’t matter because I can handle it. And have been through, and put myself through, more than anything you have. And I’ve also achieved more than you have. So anything you say will have little bearing on me.
I thought you said you wanted to talk trash.
Now you’re telling me you can’t handle it?
Predictable.
Insult me all you like mate. I was an infantry man, I was injured and discharged; but I have a DD-214, still gave my CAC card, and dog tags. It’s no matter to me if you would like to insult and disrespect me. I’m secure enough in what I accomplished and put myself through to not care mate. I went through more than you ever could( which is why I don’t get insecure and report votes and block people over a simple disagreement.
Go to OSUT training in Fort benning, tear your LCL week 2 and train 10 more weeks on it, and then I’ll value whatever insult you have loaded mate.
Brain-ded, inbred junkies are unable to get into the Army. So please don’t falsify your military service.
That’s very disrespectful.
I have no need or hope for your approval. I’m not sure what made you think that besides your own arrogance. Again you are claiming I’m invisible while messaging me repeatedly. You’re just another sore loser and weird person like RM. I have no need for your approval or recognition (even though you’ve given me your recognition in many different forms) I just think people like you need someone to talk down to them every now and then. I’m not perfect, I’m sure I’ll get talked down to in the future (I was in the army and do important environmental work, I’m used to being corrected) but I won’t deny what they’re saying and pretend I’m too grand to acknowledge the input I’m receiving. That is what cocky and arrogant and ignorant people do. So take that approach all you’d like, but you will not go far at all with that mindset.
I admire your desperate attempts at garnering my approval. You’re only relevant for the 5 seconds I choose to acknowledge you.
Aside from that, you’re invisible to me and everyone else here.
Just because I’m on a debate website and can have a deep conversation doesn’t mean I’m afraid to talk trash mate. You blocked me, that’s weakness and insecurity. So is reporting a vote. No matter the vote I’m secure enough in my beliefs and arguments to not report the vote or block someone, because I know the evidence. That’s only applicable to two subjects, which is why I don’t debate anything else.
Gain some confidence so someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make you turn into a child. Also You’re tryna act like your tough and not thinking about me, however you’ve reported a vote, responded to me multiple times, then blocked me. Clearly you’re thinking about me.
Lmao you blocked me mate. There’s no assumption needed. You took the time to block me because I hurt your feelings or something equally as weird.
You’re assuming you’re worth enough for me to care about.
I also pointed out you were displaying RM type behavior reporting votes and crying. I was 100% correct because here you are blocking people you disagree with lol. Disappointing.
I’m not whining, I’m trying to tell you that whining and reporting a vote is embarrassing and immature.
Which is why I said I’d never report a vote no matter how stupid it is. You also forfeit debates often, I did once because I had to work 90 hour weeks a couple times in a row and forgot about it. But that’s not the same as what you’ve done in our past two debates.
Lmao now you have me blocked which is hysterical after you talked shit about Lancelot behind his back about blocking people. You’re a pathetic cry baby mate, and I have no respect for you. This only strengthens the vote I placed.
Oh idk, Heisenberg.
I think you whining hysterically over a deleted vote has me beat.
I mean it was funny, but it was also accurate. And the fact your so insecure over a debate that won’t even affect your run for presidents, is a little embarrassing. I mean you reported a vote dude, which I realize is your right as a member in this website, however it’s still embarrassing. If I was wrong, I’m wrong, and more people will vote that’ll overturn the significance my vote holds, I will never, ever report a vote. I will mention it in the comments and tell them why they’re wrong but you shouldn’t remove the consequence or meaning of someone’s opinion that they formed based off your behavior.
Sorry, you have to admit though.
It was kinda funny
While your personal experience is definitely relevant, I would recommend putting it in a separate section from the arguments analyzed in the debate, and making it clear that it's just your own opinion and doesn't factor into your judging. Just some feedback in case you want to improve your vote. Thanks for your effort and time regardless.
No way you reported a vote that went against you lmao. Little embarrassing and RM type behavior. I stated why I didn’t vote for ya. It did have to do with the debate, but also my personal experience debating you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty clear case of basing the vote on opinions taken from debating one of the debaters...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Mps1213
02.15.2023 03:19PM
As a whole i believe this is a pretty pointless debate. With that said, pro provides reasons that Lancelot shouldn’t be president. Don’t care about the semantics, follow the rules of the site.
Also I don’t believe someone who has forfeited a total of three rounds in the two debates I’ve had with him should be the president of a debate website. I think he gets into a lot of debates and always assumes his nit picking, trap setting style of debate will win, and I dislike that. I don’t think he should be the president of the site. If I’m being completely honest, no one should be the president of this website because that is a little stupid in my opinion. I love the site and have had fun on here, but to have a debate this technical and deep over the presidency that no one really cares about is goofy.
However if I was forced to vote, it wouldn’t be for Lancelot, unless RM is running because that guy is worse. I don’t necessarily care that he doesn’t fit the criteria, but if the site is going to be this serious about the presidency, as to have an entire debate over the qualifications, I figure the people running should at least meet them. Lancelot doesn’t, and he’s also not a very good debater in my opinion, based off the two debates we’ve had. Admittedly the debates we have had are pretty technical and scientific and maybe that just isn’t his type of debating, but that’s my experience with him.
Pro made the better arguments, simply by stating the rules. Shouldn’t even really be a debate. Either you’re qualified or you aren’t. if you aren’t… then you aren’t.
It’s treason then...
Happy to do it.
Thx for the detailed vote!
Of course! Feel free to message me whenever you are available.
Thank you very much! That means a lot, especially since I judge high school debates, determining who went to a state meet just a couple of days ago, and I hope to be a high school debate coach after I finish this semester, working on teacher certification right now. I'll vote on both of those if I have time to.
Thanks for the well-reasoned vote. I do have a few questions though, I'll DM you later.
Currently you, AustinL, and WeaverofFate are the best at objective voting. I don’t say that lightly.
I’d like your vote on the male role model movie debate and an upcoming debate (I’ll tag you). You’re welcome to decline one or both of these options.
We can clone you and when you do die, transfer your life essence into the clone.
Then you keep winning the presidencies forever.
There is a line of succession. So if me, pie, badger, and best Korea die than Lancelot would be defacto president
https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Sir.Lancelot/medals?type=gold
Please earn a gold medal before the election or you won't be eligible regardless of date joining.