Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
9
debates
61.11%
won
Topic
#6187
Debates are not needed
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
jonrohith
Judges
Tickbeat
17 debates /
8 votes
Voted
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 100
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
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:
Con automatically wins due to pro's forfeiture. But in addition to this, he presents his argument for why debates are needed, being the making of policies to test ideas. That argument makes sense, and is legible, though no sources were provided so neither get the source point, and he actually showed up, gave a good argument, and didn't insult anyone, thus having better conduct.
Problem is that it goes on to my stats on the leaderboard and will discourage me from being debating competitively there because I'd be starting out from behind. The voting window on this thing was pretty short and moderators apparently can't change votes after the voting period is closed because the website is stupid.
Crap
Well this debate means basically nothing anyway so I suppose it doesn't particularly matter.
You voted for the wrong debater and it shows up as a loss for me
I slept
Okay I'm done with this trolling.
"Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again."
Thats not true, as the question was already answered.
That was an extremely boring and unremarkable debate and I have no idea why it exists.
If that's what begging the question means.
Given the principle behind the original statement, your response then begs the question, and every single time you respond with "debates are needed for debates," you beg the same question again.
"If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating,""
You are asking same question twice, so get same answer.
It has to be useful to something that is useful. Since debating is useful in strengthening your ability to critically think, and critical thinking is a useful skill in life, that makes debating useful. But saying debating is useful for debating doesn't claim anything outside of itself. If you respond with "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? If your response is then "debating is useful for debating," you now have to ask, what is debating useful for? It's an infinite loop that never gets resolved until you realize something else useful that it is useful for.
Debating is useful for debating too.
I said "anything relevant / useful." Is debating relevant / useful? That's the exact question this debate is asking. Therefore, using that as an argument is nothing but a baseless claim that eats its own tail. I mean I suppose "relevant / useful" is a bit different from "needed," but you get my point.
Debate is needed to have a debate.
If you can't name anything relevant / useful that debates are needed for, debates are not needed.
Not needed for what?