Lancelot should not be president (sry)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
- 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- The rules need to be updated and this one is currently outdated.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.
- There's not very many active users.
- They're understaffed.
- The moderating is garbage.
- 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.
- I think racism is good.
- I can’t end racism.
- Should does not imply actual possibility
- Mods should change two rules just for Lancelot
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.
- It would be unwise for Lancelot to become president. It would be better for Lancelot to not be president.
- Lancelot is unable to be president. Lancelot lacks the ability to be president.
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.
Mods should change two rules just for Lancelot
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.
- There is no obligation, propriety, or expediency for Lancelot to be president.
- Lancelot is unable 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.
- He is incapable of running, but should be president anyway
- He is capable of running because the rules should be changed just for him.
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.
My arguments from round 1 are uncontested. Extend.
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.
Your ability to be president is very relevant to whether you should be one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
- 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).
Section 1: What some of CON’s arguments were:
CON argued that he had they right to run for presidency, as they would help improve the site in numerous ways through their resources, and even if it was technically not allowed, the moderators had made exceptions in the past and thus they should be able to now. Additionally, they argued that the usage of the word should implies the possibility, and thus is not a valid argument for PRO. They also claimed that they had the merit to be president, as they had a vision for the site’s future and a plan to achieve it. However, they didn’t cite their sources well and relied on unreliable personal testimonies.
Section 2: What some of PRO’s arguments were:
PRO argued that CON did not have the right to run for presidency, as they didn’t meet the official requirements to be eligible. They also claimed that CON’s claims of merit lacked a firm foundation and were not based on valid reasoning. They also refuted any accusations from CON with clear and simple logic, along with trying to show that CON’s arguments also had many fallacies. They cited their sources to back up their claims and show their credibility.
Section 3: Why CON’s arguments were less convincing:
CON’s arguments were less convincing because they failed to completely counter PRO’s criticisms in an effective manner. They even admitted that certain points that PRO made would be of critical importance in the real election. They showed that they did not understand the root and purpose of the question, and instead argued semantically about whether they could even run for president, which was practically irrelevant to the original topic. The focal point of their arguments appeared to be blaming fallacies and giving unbased claims, rather than direct facts and logic. Being able to be the president seems to outweigh the considerations of whether he is a good president, yet even ignoring that it shines through to me that his arguments are shaky and indirect, giving PRO the victory.
Section 4: Why PRO’s arguments were more convincing:
PRO’s arguments were more convincing because they provided clear and cogent refutations to CON’s relentless attacks. They did not shy away from addressing each accusation that CON made against them, and they used a well-supported case citing DebateArt's own Presidential Eligibility rules to support their claims. They were sometimes blunt in their responses, but they were also honest and straightforward. Despite the deep-weaving fallacies pointed out by both sides, PRO still managed to stay tidy and concise, laying out a deep-layered argument and cleanly refuting the allegations against them and their arguments. While they might have gotten lost at times, overall it appeared that they proved that they understood the true basis of the question: whether CON had the skills and knowledge to become an important and useful president. That appeared to me as a strikingly vital point and showed to me that PRO’s arguments were more solid and sound, with a powerful foundation build on reliable sources.
Conclusion/Summary:
One of the main issues that plagued the debate was the confusion between the right and the merit of CON to run for presidency. Instead of focusing on the question of whether CON should be president, both parties spent a lot of time arguing about whether they could be president, which was not relevant to the original topic. This resulted in a lot of unnecessary and unproductive arguments that did not advance the debate. However, despite this flaw, PRO managed to win the debate by providing clear and cogent refutations to CON’s attacks. He did not shy away from addressing each accusation that CON made against him, and he used clever reasoning and evidence to support his claims. He could have improved his arguments by pointing out CON’s lack of competence and credentials for the office, but he missed those chances. However, this did not affect his overall performance as much as CON’s failure to counter PRO’s criticisms effectively heavily outweighed this missed opportunity. Therefore, even though PRO sometimes deviated from the main topic, he still secured his victory with more solid reasoning and support from his sources than CON.
Votes:
Arguments: PRO. Reasons stated above.
Sources: PRO. PRO used 19 sources while CON used 1. PRO used his sources to back up his claims while CON barely uses sources at all. Clear winner.
Spelling/Grammar: TIE. Practically identical.
Conduct: TIE. Similar conduct.
I'll start with the semantics debate.
There are a couple of jargon terms in debate that could probably have been used to better frame this: fiat and inherency. Fiat involves saying that, when we engage on certain resolutions in debate, we discuss them under the assumption that it will happen (i.e. that any inherent barriers to action will somehow be circumvented). Fiat is almost part and parcel with a "should" resolution, as what's being discussed is whether or not Lancelot should be president. Those inherent barriers to action (inherency), however, do not get dismissed because fiat exists. You can fiat that all problems will be overcome, but you can't fiat that those problems will be overcome without in some way causing harm. You can say, for example, that we should pass a given piece of legislation, but also recognize that doing so would require making concessions to a given side of the political aisle and talk about the harms those concessions cause. In other words, those inherent barriers can't function as reasons to affirm the resolution in and of themselves, but the effects of breaking them can.
So that means a lot of this debate goes away, since both sides focus much of their attention on this issue. It comes down to one point per side. I'll start with Con.
Con presents a set of reasons for supporting his presidency after stating existing problems. That's fine. The problem, however, is that all of these are unverifiable claims. Con doesn't link to anywhere that confirms the existence of his following, nor does he confirm that that following would be likely to follow his advice for an entirely separate site. The funding is, admittedly, unverifiable without providing information that clearly shouldn't be made public, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a big claim without any support. It's unclear how much money Con has, how much he plans to spend, what he plans to spend it on, etc. The coding team is probably the most egregious claim, though. Again, probably not wholly verifiable without problems, but just claiming you have one and claiming their willingness to work on this project, not to mention asserting that Mike would accept the help, is not enough. There's too much assertion here and no evidence.
Meanwhile, Pro's reasons against Sir.Lancelot's presidency are heavily mitigated. He's right that changing two rules to allow his run at the presidency could have problems, but Con's sole piece of evidence shows that moderation has that propensity anyway and demonstrates that any effect would be linear at worst. Pro acknowledges the problem, but doesn't do much to establish what effects this will have. How many people on the site are likely to turn against moderation as a result? How much will that harm the site? Is there a specific and deeper harm to allowing some candidates to circumvent the rules of the site just because they promise a lot? I think these are all relevant points for Pro to address to establish the degree of impact that his case against Sir.Lancelot's presidency has.
So neither side has a stand-out case. Con's might be entirely illusory, given the absence of any support for his central claims, and Pro's case might have no impact at all given that we don't know how breaking these rules for this person is likely to affect the site. I'm tempted to go with Pro on that basis, since there is at least something there with an established history to it, but it's unclear that this harm exceeds that history in any way. Pro can call it a non sequitur and irrelevant, but the point stands: why is this particular choice to break the rules the one that should concern us?
Given all that, I tie the argument points. Instead, I award Pro sources. The absence of support for Con's central claims is really glaring and hard to get past, whereas the problems with Pro's case come from having too much information regarding how the mods have handled election rules.
Good round, I vote Con, here's why:
1. I buy that should is distinct from can. Not only did Pro admit it later on in a speech, but with no definition for obligation, expediency, and propriety that shows how these require the ability, this doesn't directly answer Con's claim that should questions the desirability of a world while can questions the possibility of a world.
2. I also buy Con's argument that the resolution implies that they can for the sake of the debate, making the question of can irrelevant.
3. I buy that people already don't trust or respect the mods, meaning there's no risk to breaking more rules.
4. Lastly, even without evidence, I buy there is at least a small risk that Sir.Lancelot can save the site.
In conclusion, the question is if the world is more desirable with Sir.Lancelot as president, not if there is an objectively true way for them to become president. The resolution also assumes that they can be president. With this, there is a small risk (literally any amount) that Sir.Lancelot can save the site as president, while the mods are already hated, so the world doesn't get worse if they do become president.
Notes for Pro
1. I think this can/should argumentation is fundamentally false, so it's hard to win it. You should be focusing on Sir.Lancelots flaws as a person instead, getting into substance. For example, they overstretch themselves and therefore have to forfeit a lot of debates. The same lackluster performance would rear its head as president.
2. On the definition debate, if you want to go for it, you need to be doing more work to show me how obligation, propriety, and expediency are tied to the ability while also answering Con's direct warrant that it's about a desirable world as opposed to a possible world.
3. Lastly, you need to answer all the reasons Sir.Lancelot could fix the site. Most obvious answer to me is "double-bind, either Sir.Lancelot will do these things anyways for the good of the site OR they're using these things to buy their way in, meaning they are tools that could be lies or show less than good/honest intentions". Answering these means there is no offense for pro or even risk of offense.
Notes for Con
1. You should add an impact to the can v. should debate. This would look like "if we don't assume that I am eligible for the sake of the debate, then the debate is fundamentally unwinnable for Con. Fundamentally unwinnable debates should be rejected on face, otherwise, especially in a rated system, debaters will try to bait people into debates that will boost their rank while collapsing the website."
2. Extend the reasons Sir.Lancelot would be a good president each round.
If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!
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.