Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4414

Society is dysfunctional

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro could have won. Both parties had good arguments, but got hung up on defining "dysfunctional".

Had Pro pressed for a more clear idea such as "society is not functioning as well as it could" , Pro could have won.

Because Pro forfeited a rounds, I sadly award points to Con

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is an interesting debate, although the question of "dysfunctional" provokes an interesting subdebate:

That "subdebate" was more or so like this

> CON says dysfunctional is not functioning properly, but there is no social norm because only 1 society exists (logic is correct here)
> PRO implies that more than one society exists, and thus our society can be dysfunctional due to anti-social behaviors
> CON asks PRO to define dysfunctional
> PRO defines dysfunctional and society, proving that they don't contradict and an individual human can be dysfunctional per PRO's definition
> CON questions PRO's source of definition
> PRO mentions that a google search reveals that Oxford Languages provided the definition

However, CON provided his definition of dysfunctional in round 1, without a source? (lol)
Yet I'd say CON would win the "subdebate" here since he pointed out that it is unreasonable to assume a source when not provided.

I'd suggest to PRO next debate to a) define necessary terms within the first round itself and b) provide sources (links) to where the definition came from.

CON also repeats that 1 society cannot be abnormal because there is only 1 society, and that would be considered "normal society".

CON satisfied his BOP. PRO has not yet because he mainly just argues the definition of dysfunctional, rather than actually arguing how society is dysfunctional.

Also PRO, when you say CON's debate intentions are "moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate."

... Definitions, topic statements, a true meaning of a title need to be adequately defined for a debate to resume, this is usually done by the R1 instigator since that is the first actual words of a debate.

CON wins here since he had the better argument and PRO ff'ed R5.