Instigator / Pro
19
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#896

obi wan is a belt and a soup bowl

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
2
3

After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
24
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
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 proved pro was speaking in gibberish. Pro then failed to demonstrate that a "belt of bowl" is a real thing. S&G due to the poor S&G being used successfully as an argument impacting the debate.

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:

This is clearly a troll debate. Either it is a truism (Pro's case) or it is absurd (Con's case). Prima facie, it strikes me as absurd; the actual content of the debate is stupid and silly and obviously facetious. Arguments to Con because Obi-Wan, taken as a phrase together, in English, is not a belt or soup bowl. This is an English-language site; unless it was clear from get-go that it was Japanese, it would be unfair of me to weigh the Japanese argument. Conduct to Con--Pro's whole shtick was entrapment, which is inherently unfair.

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:

Countering Ramshutu's conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be used to award a conduct point. If perhaps Con ff the majority of the rounds than that would be considered. But that's not the case.

Until Ramshutu provides to me a just enough reason for Pro to get the conduct point, my CVB still stands.

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:

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

So I looked at this resolution: and it was completely and immediately obvious what the resolution meant, that the words obi and wan had alternate meanings. I can’t view this as a trap debate as it was so blindingly obvious and there were no obvious semantic shenanigans.

Pro provides evidence that those words have the specific meaning in Japanese, and that seems pretty open and shut. Con even conceded this is what they mean in Japanese.

Cons only objection is that this debate is in English. This is wholly unconvincing to me: those words having that meaning in japanese, what part of this debate being English means that pro is unable to reference Japanese words? This is just nebulous to me, and as con conceded these words have the specified meaning in japanese, con effectively conceded the resolution to pro given that con gives me no other reasons to reject the inclusion of Japanese words, or that these words should not be assumed to be japanese.

The final point that it can’t mean what pro said, as they aren’t joined is even worse. I can’t see any intuitive reason why this would be true - and it gives the impression com is just trying to unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the obvious resolution in a way that benefits him. As a result, I don’t think it’s valid for me to accept this points either.

As a result of these, and the implicit concession: arguments to pro.