Instigator / Pro
22
1403
rating
16
debates
21.88%
won
Topic
#711

Alan Walker Is More Famous Than David Guetta

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
24
Better sources
12
16
Better legibility
6
8
Better conduct
1
8

After 8 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
56
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
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:

Pro ff 2 out of 3 rounds, that's poor conduct

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:

Forefeit is bad conduct. RM gets points for presenting better args too

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:

Both parties forfeited

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:

Full forfeit

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:

Well, if you are going to claim one person I've never heard of is more famous than some other person I've never heard of, I 'm going to need some statistics, obviously. I have no idea how relatively persuasive Con's statistics should be weighed but Con did have some numbers, links, and a passionate response. Arguments to Con, another point for forfeits.

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 argued that Walker is more famous than Guetta because his music is plain and "most people don't like him as much as Alan Walker". The sole source of this information is an appeal to Pro's friends and Pro's confidence that "that is the same with the public". An unconvincing argument that is supported by nothing but a personal anecdote. Con rebuts this by naming some of the diverse and famous artists that Guetta has worked with "Sia, Nicki Minaj, Kid Cudi, Bebe Rexha, Rihanna, Vassy and more" and further points to some of the videos of Guetta with insane view counts and Con's sources actually showed that Guetta has over 11B views on YT, Con could have pointed out at this point that Walker only has around 6B. Con wins nonetheless as his arguments are based on verifiable evidence and objective facts (view counts of videos and diversity of collaborations), whereas Pro's arguments are based on subjective opinions (e.g. "Guetta's music is more plain") and Pro's sole supporting evidence is an unfalsifiable personal anecdote (reference to his friends that prefer Walker/haven't heard of Guetta). Therefore, arguments to the Madman.

Pro ff'd 2 out of 3 rounds, ergo conduct also goes to the Madman.

I would have awarded sources as well due to the sources that Con presented that support his case well (e.g. the view counts) compared to the reference to personal anecdotes of Pro. However, Con made some unsubstantiated claims "Nicki Minaj wouldn't be seen dead collabing with Alan Walker", "Sure, he is capable now of 'fame' in a massive burst thanks to PUBG owning him for a year at least ". Therefore, sources even.

No S&G issues, everything was comprehensible = even.

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:

Full Forfeit

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:

The instigator forfeited which lead to the contender not being able to add anything new due to lack of rebuttals. The fault lies on the instigator.

The instigator's points were Alan Walker is more creative but did not say how this is that case. The instigator also said Alan has more fans since David since David has fan that don't like him. Never said how or by what measurement this is the case. The instigators leaves us with personal experience used as a gross generalisation of every single person person who is a fan of David or Allan.

The contender stated David is more popular due to how many views he gets and people know him. The views argument is supported by evidence that states he has 400 million views for a video. This alone trumps any point the instigator since the contender's claim is supported by evidence. He also used another links which states David 905 million views on a video. The claim is now supported by two videos where the instigator failed to mention a single one.

Due to this the contender wins the most convincing argument because he was the only one to provide evidence for his claims.