Instigator / Con
Points: 7

There is no such thing as ghosts

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Sparrow
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 4
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
There are such things as ghosts.

There is such a thing as a ghost.

there is no such thing as ghosts.

There Is vs. There Are
When choosing between there is and there are, you have to look at what comes after it.

There is a cat on the porch.

In the sentence above, cat is singular, so it requires there is.

There are many opportunities to learn at this company.

In the sentence above, opportunities is plural, so it requires there are. (Don’t let the word many throw you off—concentrate on the noun.) 
  • Use is with singular subjects and are with plural subjects.
  • Collective nouns usually take is, but you can use are if you need to emphasize the individuals who belong to the group.
  • Phrases like a number of… usually take a plural verb.

Round 2
Published:
Are you conceding that there is such a thing as ghosts, even if ghosts themselves do not exist?

Published:
I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things but that ghosts are not a thing.
Round 3
Published:
Splendid, so there is such a thing as a ghost even if ghosts do not exist. There are fictional ghosts, dark matter aliens that could be mistaken for spirits, but there are not real ghosts. There is such a thing as ghosts, there just aren't actual ghosts therefor you lose end of story good bye that's it any questions?
Published:
You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Honestly, this debate hurt my head overall and was too confusing for me to make a detailed decision. Honestly, neither sides convinced me, especially with RM weird conceding but also not conceding implications.
>Reason for Mod Action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
************************************************************************
#9
Added:
--> @bsh1, @Ragnar
Does this one intrigue you?
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Ragnar
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for s/g and conduct
RFD: This debate was just a grammar lesson. The only arguments were about the grammar, and the instigator failed to understand or dispute.
Arguments tied. I won't outright reward the K with argument points, but there were no normal arguments to counter until the final round (at which point I discount them for not being a natural part of the debate).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Reason for mod action: The conduct is sufficient; however, the S/G is not. In order to award s/g, the voter must
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
None of this was done in the RFD.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#7
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to pro for s/g and arguments; 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Conduct point:
- Countering Ragnar's poor conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be reason enough to award conduct points.
FF the majority of the rounds, however, should be.
I must also award pro the point for spelling and grammar since he/she's arguments at least were readable unlike Con's whom I couldn't read clearly.
Reason for mod action: Counter votes are removed. Further, forfeiting 1 round is sufficient reason to award conduct; however it would not be sufficient to award only conduct.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#6
Added:
--> @Debaticus
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Debaticus // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for spelling and sources
RFD: Cannot vote for arguments, because they were both very hard to understand. I personally could argue this debate on either side, and I would like to.
Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. They should check their DMs for more information.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#5
Added:
--> @Sparrow
I would like to argue this on either side because it seems pretty interesting.
#4
Added:
--> @oromagi
Will you like to vote?
Please.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
RationalMadman avatar
You tried to troll a new user into an unwinnable position. Instead you had a grammatically impossible debate resolution for Pro to uphold.
Con*** not Pro
Contender
#2
Added:
Sparrow already lost the grammar vote lol.
#1
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
“I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things“ while pro goes onto say that ghosts aren’t things - my interpretation of the resolution : which is always to assume the most reasonable interpretation means that by conceding a ghost and ghosts are things Pro conceded that there are such thing as ghosts. This negates the resolution and so arguments must go to con.
The resolution appears fairly clear - and this appears to be a non troll topic, if only poorly worded. Instead of actually arguing in good faith about the existence (or not) of ghosts - pro seemed to be launching into an attack about cons technically incorrect grammar. While the grammar isn’t correct, it’s understandable, and doesn’t affect readability - in this case the pinickity and overly semantic attack on grammar was particularly obtuse and argued in bad faith for little reason, and for this reason I chose not to award conduct even though con forfeits the opening round.