Instigator / Pro

1524

rating

debates

77.27%

won

Topic

#5396

Con is a piece of shit

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

WyIted

Tags

Piece of shit

Parameters

Publication date: 03.26.2024 04:39AM
Last updated date: 04.12.2024 02:26PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 200
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Con

Hero_In_Instatute

1517

rating

debates

44.44%

won

Description

Rules

1. Only a piece of shit can accept this debate
2. If you accept the debate and are not a piece of shit you have violated rule one and will be disqualified. Judges are instructed to vote pro if that happens

Round 1

WyIted

03.26.2024 05:18AM

Pro

You are not a piece of shit. That counts as a forfeit. I advise everyone to vote pro based on con violating the rules of the debate.

Hero_In_Instatute

03.27.2024 03:21AM

Con

How can voters apply the rules to me if they have no way of verifying if I am a piece of shit or not?

My side requires I disagree that I am a piece of shit, but the BOP is on Pro.

But Pro admits defeat.

Round 2

WyIted

03.27.2024 07:51AM

Pro

con is a piece of shit by accepting the debate or he is a piece of shit for violating the rules. if he disagrees than judges need to disqualify him because accepting as a non P.O.S. violates the rules

Hero_In_Instatute

03.28.2024 07:51AM

Con

Which one is it though? Make a choice already, you dingleberry.

You still have to prove it either way.

This Round 2 concession retraction is exactly the kind of indecisiveness I expect from this turd.

Round 3

WyIted

03.28.2024 08:05AM

Pro

No rebuttals from con. My argument that he is a P.O.S as agreed upon by the rules makes me the winner and if the voters disagree that he is a P.O.S. that counts as a forfeit from con

Hero_In_Instatute

03.29.2024 02:26PM

Con

Pro failed the BOP, concedes the debate, and retracts it in the second round.

Without knowing if or which rule was violated, voters can't penalize me.

Even if they could, it should be a conduct point.

Barney

04.03.2024 09:06PM

#10

-->

@gugigor

-> “ what. pro offered zero proof”

Your vote has been deleted for vagueness. This wasn’t much of a debate, so little more is needed, but the debate isn’t an obvious foregone conclusion to allow for such little consideration.

Hero_In_Instatute

04.02.2024 01:27AM

-->

@gugigor

@AustinL0926

@Savant

Thanks for the votes

WyIted

04.02.2024 12:15AM

If I am losing by the time the voting period ends than I also want the debate removed

RationalMadman

04.01.2024 09:06PM

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

I report this debate as violating the truism and/or unlosable rule of debate.

Mharman

03.29.2024 01:07PM

This is unwinnable for the contender lol

WyIted

03.28.2024 09:01AM

-->

@Barney

Some people.make a rule "no kritiks" I just make a 200 character limit

Barney

03.28.2024 08:47AM

200 character limit… very tight

WyIted

03.27.2024 07:45AM

-->

@RationalMadman

As long as there is some fight against the rule to justify ignoring it. Also sometimes I ignore BOP claims if op doesn't bring it up within the debate but I normally agree with it. I don't usually report votes and if you provide justification consistent with your philosophy for ignoring the rule than I won't bitch

JoeBob

03.27.2024 02:43AM

Wondering what Hero is going to respond to that with

RationalMadman

03.27.2024 01:49AM

-->

@WyIted

aren't you the guy who says if the rules are bs, voters are free to ignore them?

Benjamin

04.07.2024 11:23PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Shouldn't have accepted this debate.

RationalMadman

04.02.2024 07:59AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Conduct for calling Wylted a turd and violating rules of the debate (actually it's only for the turd comment but I'm trying to sound dramatic).

The problem with this debate is it is a truism due to the rule structure. Con can keep arguing that Pro has to prove he is a piece of shit but Pro wins even if he loses because Con violates rule 1.

Where Con went wrong is honestly in clicking accept, I can't think of why this debate is allowed.

Savant

04.02.2024 01:25AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Rule violations are typically separate from the actual resolution...it's usually up to voters to determine whether they have been violated.

Pro essentially wins this debate by proving that Con is following the rules of the debate. By the end, it's unclear whether Con has violated said rule. Hence, I can't disqualify Con. As Pro points out, it is either the case that Con broke the rule or that the resolution is true. But Pro doesn't win automatically if the resolution is true, they only win if they prove the resolution to be true (which did not happen). Con wins by pointing out Pro's burden of proof and then not taking a position on the resolution.

AustinL0926

04.02.2024 01:09AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

PRO puts CON in a double bind. Either he is a piece of shit (in which case he loses due to the resolution being true) or he is not a piece of shit (in which case he loses due to rule 1 and 2).

CON failed to argue against either situation, nor did he Kritik the topic or rules as being unfair, so PRO easily gets the win. He claims that PRO hasn't proved either situation, but that's what a double bind is for - no matter what is true, one side wins under both interpretations.