Instigator / Pro
Points: 15

Wrick-It-Ralph Should Bring Back His Elephant Profile Picture


The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 20
No information
Round 1
C1: Continuity

Continuity is very important on a site like this. Being able to recognize someone's profile picture at a moment's notice can allow one to make split-second decisions (like whether to click on a debate or not). If Ralph changes now, this sets a precedent that he can change many times in the future, allowing for confusion amongst the site's members.

C2: Simplicity

Ralph's previous elephant avatar was very simple, and it had no underlying meaning. He was just your everyday DART debater, and everyone who saw an elephant knew it was him. His current one is much more in-depth, and this lack of simplicity can also cause confusion amongst new DARTers and possibly even deter them from arguing or debating him.
The elephant piece was a chess piece that is an alternate version of the upside-down bishop known as alfil and it could jump 2 spaces diagonally OVER other pieces.

The Alfil is a piece from the original game of Chess; it is an elephant, it leaps two squares diagonally, and its name has come down to us as "orphan" or "oaf".

This is very creative in meaning as it implied that Wrick-it-Ralph would do moves no one else would expect in debates.

Not only does this defeat the simplicity point but it also brings into question what the hell this 'lemon demon' image he currently has refers to.

It's not merely an elephant. It's a chess piece that's used in some variants of chess. The one I used it in was metamachy and my own home brewed chess, which people are welcome to play me in at roll20 if anyone ever ends up on there. I don't go on there much except to play the variant with my wife.

The point of continuity is most hilarious. To have most continuity, Ralph should keep his current image, not change it back to the Elephant. This would indeed show lack of continuity on Ralph's part. If Ralph wishes to show continuity and to be recognised by an image it should be his current one.

Apparently a deeper meaning image like 'lemon demon' is bad but not only is this a lie, I have now explained that his older image was more of a warning signal to his methods in debate and helped his opponent prepare for it better. His current one 'lemon demon' makes it seem that he can't rhyme well (despite doing so in many rap battles). His current image is a better hider of his true nature than his previous one.
Round 2
First, continuity. This stands because, since Ralph started with the elephant profile, it is continuous for him to revert to that. Remember, this debate was started right when Ralph had changed his image.

As to the elephant profile, my opponent helps my argument even more! Not only is the elephant picture simple on the surface, but Ralph was also able to interpolate a deeper meaning into it that he isn’t able to do with his current profile picture. It is both complex and yet still simple, and that makes it a better image than his first.

Round 3
All arguments extended.
I see literally zero reason as to why he should change it back, as opposed to keeping it as is. 
--> @bsh1, @Virtuoso
Something to consider in future would be a moderation-lite option for debates like this.
I def think the elephant pic should be back
I am actually going to suspend moderation on this debate temporarily until Virt and I can talk more about this ruling. I am starting to second-guess my original position.
--> @oromagi
>Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Informal debate, original subject
ASIDE: I'm not sure I like seeing two debaters discussing another debater's profile choices. The dynamic was very readable, even enjoyable here but it also gives me visions of much uglier versions. I prefer that metabates like this one become rarer as we progress.
Pro's got a real turd of a thesis here- full on subjective, no authority, no stakes.
Pro leads with an appeal for continuity, Con argues that the change is made, therefore any new change is less continuity.
Pro admires Ralph's previous pic as simple and meaningless. Con awesomely, succinctly demonstrates that Ralph's previous pic was complex and meaningful.
Con blows off R2, R3
"OH! MY EYE! " (thud)
Pro virtually played rabbit to Con's coyote, Arguments to Con.
Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit.
>Reason for Mod Action: Before Virt or I moderated any votes on this topic, we discussed whether this should be a troll debate or not. We determined that seemingly non-serious topics could still have serious argumentative content. While I am open to reconsidering my ruling on this, for now, we will treat the debate as moderatable. Your vote fails to contain any weighing analysis and so has been removed. Conduct was fine.
--> @Virtuoso
That's funny because I was wondering myself if this would count as a troll debate or not. Good to know. I thought it seemed serious at first but it's hard to call.
--> @Dr.Franklin
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for sources.
RFD: Con forfeited and did not rebuttal points in last round. Yet con used a source
Reason for mod action: This debate is borderline as to whether or not this is a troll/non-troll debate. As such, the default is to moderate votes. That being said, the voter fails to meet the standards set by the COC. While the conduct point is sufficient, arguments and sources are not. In order to award arguments, the voter must Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Sources are also not sufficient. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources point.
The voter should review the COC here:
sure, obg crys "scrybog"
--> @oromagi
I'm assuming that they'll have cyborgs for children?
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Welp ok lol
--> @Speedrace, @RationalMadman
I recuse myself from voting since I have a horse in this race.
"OI! Magro!"
I like AI groom- "The AI Groom for the human bride"
--> @oromagi
room gai
groom AI
gram oio
--> @oromagi
Nice anagram. I like it.
nonmarital Adam
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
If I was to vote. I would go with RM simply for knowing how the elephant moves, even if it was only to win a debate, lol.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Con very neatly refutes the simplicity argument with Wrick's own analysis of his old prof.
Con also refutes the continuity argument because two changes is by definition is less continuous than one change. Reverting would be more CONSISTENT, but RM is correct about continuity.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Conduct to pro for cons forfeit.
Pro, imo does not provide a framework for a plausible basis for why one should keep a profile picture vs not. Assuming that it was simple with no meaning is a plausible justification, then con pointing out it has a deep meaning fully undermines that position. Pro then does a complete 180 arguing “ahah! The only thing better than simple is complex” - to me this 180 exposes this point as fairly vacuous. If complex and simple are both good, why not keep his simpler example now?
The remaining argument from continuity seems rather arbitrary. Con points out that changing it back now is a greater harm to continuity. While pro points out that the change was made just around the time of the debate, pro needs to sell me a good reason why I should accept continuity as a basis for voting. His justification is that it helps recognize the individual. This strikes me as somewhat poor - the confusion won’t last long and as con points out - he would be recognized by the new profile. The complexity and motivation argument con made seemed a little less intuitive, but it was mostly unchallenged.
As there is no easy way of objectively weighting the criteria, it’s difficult for me to anchor either of the two arguments to any real value. This means that the “should” pro provides me is relatively arbitrary. I am faced with a poor - unchallenged reason not to change, and a slightly better - but challenged example. Given that con successfully turned around the simplicity point, I feel con edges this one - as there’s no clear and objective reason to change back - and cons subjective reason is effectively unchallenged.
Arguments to con.