What's that? Another tournament? Can it be? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

What's that? Another tournament? Can it be?
in General

By someone234someone234 609 Pts
Is it de ja vu or this time will there be a turning of the tides?

Am I just a tornado that's about to get cooled or you the tornadoes and me the mountain you must spin around? Time will tell. Hope I don't get bitter-voted though. Please justify your votes.

I will put effort into being friendlier this time as people didn't like my tone last time.

Good luck opponents, you're going to need it.


agsraarongBaconToes
Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    @someone234, I am in.
    someone234aarong
    Live Long and Prosper
  • FascismFascism 331 Pts
    Good luck to all. 
    someone234
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    edited March 25
    I liked the first tournament and had a great experience (although I uktimately didn't win in the finals).  I look forward to this improved tournament.  There are 3 tweaks that I think will make it better.
    1) topics are not random - you get to select from a list of choices. @whiteflame 's suggestion.
    2) votes require an explanation.  That's a tricky one, but on balance a step in the right direction.
    3) final round isnt 1 hour, so Don't need to stress about time commitment
    WilliamSchulz
    Live Long and Prosper
  • I believe that aarong has made at least two of those changes @agsr, aarong will message debate choices and votes will require an explanation, I think that there will be a minimum word count that must be reached, but that is what I have obtained from the page.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Edit: three :)
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Round 1 of my debate 1 delivered.




    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 519 Pts
    I will try and vote in every debate in be as fair as possible. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Ready for round 2, how about you guys?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    @Fascism

    The very same to you
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    @Pogue

    I totally agree I’m only here a short while but I’ve already raised hackles as I like to ask very controversial questions , so no matter who and why I fall out with here I will attempt to be as fair as possible when it comes to voting 
  • @aarong
    Good change of colour. :)


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Round One's UN debate nearing a finish. Very close so far!!!
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Dee You are missing the Ogg >;)


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Let's see this Round 2, who dares take on the champ?

    Can the Shadow out-darken the whiteflame? Will Mr. Shulz find his way to conquer Corbyn and his regime?

    Time will tell...


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 1
    Fear Me

    Too many users on this site want a bite of a slice,
    Of the pretty pie called 'thinking 234'll be nice',
    Take my advice, don't gamble on it throw in the towel, chuck the dice,
    This aint luck motherf***er, this is tongue-swelling spice,
    I'm not the greatest due to haters, they're a given that's a fact,
    Imma lay you all to waste just like Round 1. I debate and the body goes SPLAT!
    I'm the one they call enforcer and you're what they call a rat,
    What you doing here in Sicily? On seconds thoughts you won't live to answer that.
    agsr
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • I TELL YOU BIG BAD ROAR OF THE ALPHA LION OF THE PACK 


    ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

    You know you're alpha when both round 1 and round 2 your opponent runs scared.

    This is that aura of the alpha male. I don't care if it's sexist to say I am an alpha male and am better than the rest male and female put together. BRING IT ON, IT ELL YOU STRAIGHT YOU WILL GET THROWN TO THE GALLOWS IF YOU DARE STEP TO ME!!!!!!!!!

    AHAHAHAH WAHOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Fear Me

    Too many users on this site want a bite of a slice,
    Of the pretty pie called 'thinking 234'll be nice',
    Take my advice, don't gamble on it throw in the towel, chuck the dice,
    This aint luck motherf***er, this is tongue-swelling spice,
    I'm not the greatest due to haters, they're a given that's a fact,
    Imma lay you all to waste just like Round 1. I debate and the body goes SPLAT!
    I'm the one they call enforcer and you're what they call a rat,
    What you doing here in Sicily? On seconds thoughts you won't live to answer that.
    Sadly someone234, you're not the only rapper on this site
    Your conduct is worse than your skills on Fortnite
    So hide your points and let burdens by
    Wearing down time to the second so you get the bye
    The challenge to the throne is coming real soon
    But trust me, I'll see it, even if its a new moon
    So trust me in the debate, I'll read between the lines
    A person never won the pregame, by posting random vines.

    :)
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz Weren't you out round one?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @whiteflame vs Someone234.

    I yearn for this battle.


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @WilliamSchulz Weren't you out round one?
    Sure, but I'll be watching your debates :)
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz round three will be a bloody one. whiteflame will have no mercy on me.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @WilliamSchulz round three will be a bloody one. whiteflame will have no mercy on me.
    I was noticing an error earlier today where ShadowCorbin was not facing @whiteflame, instead, you were listed as the opponent for both debates. Was this a mistake?
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • @WilliamSchulz I am more important than him so not is wasn't. In the end he will run away just like Dee did from me.

    Just like my round one opponent did from me.

    Just like whiteflame will wish he had from me.

    I am the chosen one.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Good Luck Anyway...
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • Come on Whiteflame, where's your war chant? 

    ;D


    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234

    Gotta go classic: 
  • @whiteflame Who is 'we'? You and the voting crew who are so braindead they say I had worse sources than the opponent no matter what because they can't retype their RFD?

    Sorry but I'm the CO2, your flame is going out.




    ale5
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Well, trash talking's never been my thing. You certainly have me beat on that (though I will be reporting any vote on our debate that doesn't meet the basic standards that are now being enforced on this site). But, if you want my opinion, I don't think you're CO2. With your usual brand of humor, CH4 seems more your speed, and you know what methane does to flames...
    someone234
  • LET'S GET GOING BOIIIIIIIIIS AND GURRRRRRRRRRLS AND GENDERFLUIDSSSSSSSSSSSS
    WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOHAAAAAAAAAAAAA


    Primaries vs Caucuses? It's not that simple. Why not both? ;)

    Why not Caucuses only?

    Why not increase the power of the informed voter over the uninformed ballot form-filler?

    Can I change the world one debate at a time? You bet!


    agsr
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Come on whiteflame, I'M HUNGRY FOR ROUND ONE. GONNA LEAVE IT UNTIL THE LAST SECOND, BOY?


    This big black flame can't wait all day...

    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Oh whiteflame... Oh darling, best of luck on Round 2, I'm so sorry if you feel too badly annihilated I'll be sure to inject you with some painkillers. You really did try hard but I was just too smart I'm so sorry!!!!!!!!
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • I still am at a loss as to why people don't believe I won that debate but whatever happens, I'll be back next time no less ready to win.

    Sure, I'm not smirking now but if you think I'm any less arrogant you are quite mistaken. I see this as a glitch, an anomaly where for whatever reason the voters didn't comprehend the angle I took which I genuinely executed to the best of my ability. There's no one out there who (at the high level like this) gets 100% winrate in debates. People who are obsessed with 100% winrate on sites tend to (not tend to basically always) avoid tournaments with other highly skilled debaters.

    Over many tournaments, it becomes obvious who the true champion is and isn't.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    Congrats to @whiteflame for winning this tournament.  
    Very impressive work by @someone234, you are a talented debater.
    someone234
    Live Long and Prosper
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    You are wrong @agsr. Whiteflame has to prove that we ought to abolish rather than fix, I need only prove that he hasn't.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    @with_all_humility is the only voter who mentally processed the whole debate and spotted how whiteflame tried to avoid his BoP entirely.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    You are wrong @agsr. Whiteflame has to prove that we ought to abolish rather than fix, I need only prove that he hasn't.
    Whiteflame can't disprove every hypothetical scenario how to fix a broken system.  If there is sufficient change to the system I would even argue if thats still the same system. Since you presented specific plan how to fix, it became your BoP to demonstrate in a reasonable way with lots of specificity how it would work and why better. Your propose changes to the system were pretty dramatic and not just incremental.  Thats just my opinion reading both sides.  
    In any case - great job, and I thought you did very well.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    agsr said:
    You are wrong @agsr. Whiteflame has to prove that we ought to abolish rather than fix, I need only prove that he hasn't.
    Whiteflame can't disprove every hypothetical scenario how to fix a broken system.  If there is sufficient change to the system I would even argue if thats still the same system. Since you presented specific plan how to fix, it became your BoP to demonstrate in a reasonable way with lots of specificity how it would work and why better. Your propose changes to the system were pretty dramatic and not just incremental.  Thats just my opinion reading both sides.  
    In any case - great job, and I thought you did very well.
    I did that. I explained exactly how my system integrates Caucuses into primaries and whiteflame never explained why we ought to abolish them rather than fix them.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    @someone234, For a change of that magnitude I feel that it would require for you to convince the judges.  @whiteflame provided specific concerns with your plan.  After carefully weighing the pros and cons and his counter arguments I wasn't convinced that your plan will work.  Your plan was more dramatic and complex than his plan of simply abolishing the caucus system. 
    I am not saying your plan was bad or well thought out, but it just wasn't good enough to sell me that it's worth it to put such a complex system in place instead of simplifying the broken system as whiteflame argued.

    i actually could have argued that whiteflame would have to go deeper to convince us that the caucus system as is should be abolished, but you accepted that part of his arguments so that's not where the debate went.

    Live Long and Prosper
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    @agsr it's extremely simple to combine cacuses and primaries. I explained how simple and undeniably beneficial it is. Whiteflame never explained why you must dispose permanently of something rather than improve it.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    @someone234, lets agree to disagree on that point. I don't think it's simple and he raised sufficient points why not.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @agsr his points why not implied I needed to refine the fix, not that we should abolish them for good.
    agsr
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    @someone234, he also argued re merits of your hybrid plan.  
    someone234
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @someone234, I rather clearly argued why any refinement of your plan wouldn't work, mainly because running caucuses and primaries in the same state isn't so simple. I spent a lot of my R2 explaining precisely how every refinement results in people either ignoring caucuses or ignoring primaries. You never rebutted those points, save for a final round argument that you knew was new. But even if we assume I didn't, the fact that you didn't choose to refine when you were given the opportunity to do so in R2 was your choice. Several voters held you accountable for having a vague plan, and many of those same voters weren't going to shoulder me with the burden of addressing every possible refinement you could have made to that plan. Voters aren't (nor should they) going to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to solvency. You have to explain how you're solving, and that requires a clear counter plan. If you didn't want to engage in a case vs. case debate (which it's sounding like you didn't), then bust out a Kritik, but don't pretend that I was the only one with a burden when, in the very first round, you admitted that you shared a similar burden the moment you presented a case.
  • agsr said:
    You are wrong @agsr. Whiteflame has to prove that we ought to abolish rather than fix, I need only prove that he hasn't.
    Whiteflame can't disprove every hypothetical scenario how to fix a broken system.  If there is sufficient change to the system I would even argue if thats still the same system. Since you presented specific plan how to fix, it became your BoP to demonstrate in a reasonable way with lots of specificity how it would work and why better. Your propose changes to the system were pretty dramatic and not just incremental.  Thats just my opinion reading both sides.  
    In any case - great job, and I thought you did very well.
    I'm not questioning your decision, just trying to understand your thought process.  How do you determine a debater who is supposed to be in the affirmative, and is forced to or decided to abandon the affirmative position and go into the negative against his opponent counter-arguments the majority of the time to lose the debate?  Does not abandoning one's position give credence to the debater losing his/her propositional argument?  While in the affirmative you are not supposed to be selling your proposition to the audience?

    I'm not saying your not address your opponent's counter-arguments/evidence, absolutely, but you also need to keep selling your proposition when in the affirmative.  Normally, this only happens if you don't have faith in your own claims or opposition.   If you a person spend all their time refuting his opponent's counterarguments while supposedly in the affirmative.  Has not the opponent in the negative caused his to abandon his opponent strategy

    Looking at it like a war, if a country who is supposed to be or has been on the offense finds themselves on the defensive. Does this not mean the advantage point of the war has changed?  In football, you want to be in the offense, but when a team is on the defense the majority of the time is that team not usually loosing?

    If a company runs a commercial and instead of selling their "product" they spend the majority explaining why their competition's product is not better than their's, have they not just basically said there competitions product is better? A commercial "the affirmative" is your chance to sell your product not spend the majority of the time highlighting your competitors.  
    someone234Pogue
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 423 Pts
    edited April 14
    @with_all_humility

    Truth be told, your explanation for your decision was a bit confounding. I didn't, as you say, "abandon the affirmative position and go into the negative". I pointed out that the vast majority of my case was dropped, built up those impacts, and focused on tearing down the negative case. That's a perfectly reasonable way to handle a round like this. The idea that I have to keep building up a positive case when my opponent isn't attacking any of the most relevant pieces of my case is strange to me. It's not abandoning my role in the debate, it's simply recognizing that my opponent wasn't interested in engaging on case, and thus shifting focus the arguments he made rather than trying to make more arguments in support of my case.

    Certainly, you need to sell your argument, and leaving your case entirely behind is a huge mistake that I've seen some people on the proposition make, but if my case remains virtually untouched, then I already have a conceded and elucidated set of benefits on the table. I can and should keep selling how important those benefits are and why I achieve them (and I think I did that), but when you're winning a piece of your case outright, you don't have to continue adding to it, particularly when your opponent is levying attacks that are largely focused on tearing down your position rather than your argument. I don't know what your experience with debate is, but it's not a failing of faith to continually argue that your case is dropped, the advantages are clear, and therefore you're going to spend your time focusing on why the other side's arguments essentially don't matter.

    This isn't a war. It isn't football. It's not a company or a commercial. It's debate, and there are multiple ways to win a round. I would disagree, however, that I was playing defense. Arguing on my opponent's case does not automatically make all of my arguments defense. If I'm explaining why my opponent's case is actually net harmful, that's offense, because it furthers a positive comparison of my case to his.
    someone234PogueWilliamSchulz
  • someone234someone234 609 Pts
    edited April 14
    @with_all_humility

    Truth be told, your explanation for your decision was a bit confounding. I didn't, as you say, "abandon the affirmative position and go into the negative". I pointed out that the vast majority of my case was dropped, built up those impacts, and focused on tearing down the negative case. That's a perfectly reasonable way to handle a round like this. The idea that I have to keep building up a positive case when my opponent isn't attacking any of the most relevant pieces of my case is strange to me. It's not abandoning my role in the debate, it's simply recognizing that my opponent wasn't interested in engaging on case, and thus shifting focus the arguments he made rather than trying to make more arguments in support of my case.

    Certainly, you need to sell your argument, and leaving your case entirely behind is a huge mistake that I've seen some people on the proposition make, but if my case remains virtually untouched, then I already have a conceded and elucidated set of benefits on the table. I can and should keep selling how important those benefits are and why I achieve them (and I think I did that), but when you're winning a piece of your case outright, you don't have to continue adding to it, particularly when your opponent is levying attacks that are largely focused on tearing down your position rather than your argument. I don't know what your experience with debate is, but it's not a failing of faith to continually argue that your case is dropped, the advantages are clear, and therefore you're going to spend your time focusing on why the other side's arguments essentially don't matter.

    This isn't a war. It isn't football. It's not a company or a commercial. It's debate, and there are multiple ways to win a round. I would disagree, however, that I was playing defense. Arguing on my opponent's case does not automatically make all of my arguments defense. If I'm explaining why my opponent's case is actually net harmful, that's offense, because it furthers a positive comparison of my case to his.
    I did. I attacked that there's an ultimatum between Primaries and Caucuses being fundamental to your case and having no rational grounds. I attacked that you don't abolish a household item when it's flawed, you either me d it or replace it with a better edition of itself.

    You never explained why we should abolish it
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • I did. I attacked that there's an ultimatum between Primaries and Caucuses being fundamental to your case and having no rational grounds. I attacked that you don't abolish a household item when it's flawed, you either me d it or replace it with a better edition of itself.

    You never explained why we should abolish it
    That wasn't an attack on my case. Basically, all you said is "ultimatums are bad because they stop the use of caucuses rather than attempt to fix them," but that only matters if you actually have an alternative that outweighs that ultimatum. I know you love that analogy, but it can't take the place of real impact analysis. I don't see why having an ultimatum is inherently harmful, just that it's potentially harmful by taking an option for voting off the table. That's not a disadvantage to my case, it's a potential advantage to yours, since it's then up to you to show how caucuses actually benefit the population and can be "fixed." 

    As for not explaining why we should abolish it... really? I mean, I spent a great deal of time explaining it. It's a simple solution to a difficult problem. It may not be a perfect solution, and I never suggested it was, but it's better than the alternative that you presented to try and keep it and simply fix what we have. And that's the key thing I think you and many others are missing: the moment you presented a counter plan is the moment that the debate became a comparison of our cases. I explained how abolition would solve the harms I'd stated, and provided extensive impacts based on that solvency. You presented a counter plan providing an alternate means to fix the problem by altering how caucuses function. As soon as those two were on the table, all either of us had to do was show that our cases were better. I know you disagree with that, and I know you're going to continue to do so, but that's how actual debates function. Just because I said I have the chief BoP in the debate doesn't mean I have to refute an infinite number of theoretical cases, mainly because that would be insane. All I have to do is show that abolition of caucuses would be net beneficial compared to whatever case you chose to present. I did that.
    someone234WilliamSchulz
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch