HISTORY IS NOT ANYMORE NEEDED
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
No information
Con won the debate for a couple of reasons:
1. Pro failed to provide definitions in the description or beginning of the debate. Con showed that criminal records would be considered 'history' according to Merriam Webster and he showed that criminal records are indeed 'needed'.
2. Con provided actual sources via links for any claims he made. He likewise used Merriam Webster for definitions, which is a well-known and reputable source. Pro's only source for his claim was 'ChatGPT' which is not considered a reliable source any more than Wikipedia is (In fact ChatGPT pulls information from Wikipedia all the time).
In conclusion, Con attacked this debate from an angle that Pro was unprepared for. In future debates, I would advise Jonrohith to clearly lay out all important terms and definitions in the description to avoid this kind of scenario.
PRO ROUND ONE CLEARER ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Welcome
History:
What is history? History is an old subject that covers our primitive past. But why do we need it? Some say it's just for entertainment—like finding out where treasure was hidden or where a king was buried.
BUT WHY DO WE NEED IT?
Can anyone give a logical reason why we actually need history? Some argue that history is a fake subject, filled with manipulated stories and outdated things meant to attract tourists. For example, people treat ancient mummies like gods, while in reality, many people in Africa live in mummy-like conditions due to starvation.
What benefit do we really get from studying the past? Historical sites are often used to manipulate people into visiting. In fact, many historical places and stories are fake or heavily exaggerated. Of course, no one can say something like “34.5% of history is fake” 😅—but even experts agree on this:
A significant portion of historical stories are exaggerated, biased, incomplete, or sometimes completely fabricated. – by ChatGPT
I said about general history ,But con is out of contest ,he is saying about different departments like medical ,that is not fair.
VOTE WHEN YOU HAVE TIME.
Hello judge, please vote when you have time. 🙏