Con is a piece of shit
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
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
Shouldn't have accepted this debate.
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.
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.
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.
-> “ 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.
Thanks for the votes
If I am losing by the time the voting period ends than I also want the debate removed
I report this debate as violating the truism and/or unlosable rule of debate.
This is unwinnable for the contender lol
Some people.make a rule "no kritiks" I just make a 200 character limit
200 character limit… very tight
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
Wondering what Hero is going to respond to that with
aren't you the guy who says if the rules are bs, voters are free to ignore them?