DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol
Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol
Any argument given by John_C_87 or Plaffelvohfen should be considered by definition as bad arguments. I will apply to Webster's dictionary for them the change the definition. lol
A good argument has to be relevant, well-constructed and logically sound. A bad argument is usually one or more of these: 1-It is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In the debates I had, a lot of people stated some seemingly relevant but in reality irrelevant facts. And because they are "seemingly relevant" you might sometimes fall in their trap and try to refute the fact they have stated. Theists do this a lot.
2- It is constructed in a complex manner in order to make it harder to refute. I have debated a theist not so long ago, one that used analogies instead of arguments. I persisted that he should state his actual argument in a normal manner but he refused. I was debating on his channel so I knew if I just left, he would consider himself victorious. Anyway, I debated him for 10 minutes or so and managed to get him to say this: "Texts are written by people. People are conscious and intelligent. So the universe has to have a creator who is conscious and intelligent.". I have no idea how, but he thought that this was a logical argument and persisted on it.
3-It just doesn't make any sense. I don't think I need an explanation for this. Sometimes the arguments are pure nonsense. I think it is called a non-sequitur? The logic just does not follow. A roommate of mine said this once: "You were inside when I got out, I just got in and you are still inside. So you could not have gone out.". Sometimes it is hard to catch but most of the times it is really obvious that it is wrong.
In theory that the legalization of marijuana would be a good argument?
The good things about that Law?
It benefits the marijuana industry?
It benefits those individuals, who are looking for some probable votes, from some of the pro marijuana supporting crowds?
It benefits the criminals, and the offenders who were let out of jail, because their drug of choice was legalized, that previously lead, to their previous incarnations?
It benefits, those apparent and previously poor states, that even though they already had various taxation and revenue coffers in place? That the individual taxation and revenue coffers, created from the legalization of marijuana, means that those states, will no longer suffer from their previous taxation, and revenue shortages?
The bad argument?
No one, that I know of who is pro marijuana, or is pro marijuana industry oriented, has produced, or provided, any real world, interview material about this particular subject matter?
That shows how negatively that an adults, marijuana use, around unborn babies, newborn babies, kids, children, or family members in general, are OK, with living with, being born into, or growing up with, or having to tolerate, an adults, criminal, or an offenders marijuana uses around them?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bad arguments    argument   Webster's dictionary   John  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bad arguments    argument   Webster's dictionary   John  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 43%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bad arguments    argument   Webster's dictionary   John  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
A bad argument is usually one or more of these:
1- It is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In the debates I had, a lot of people stated some seemingly relevant but in reality irrelevant facts. And because they are "seemingly relevant" you might sometimes fall in their trap and try to refute the fact they have stated. Theists do this a lot.
2- It is constructed in a complex manner in order to make it harder to refute. I have debated a theist not so long ago, one that used analogies instead of arguments. I persisted that he should state his actual argument in a normal manner but he refused. I was debating on his channel so I knew if I just left, he would consider himself victorious. Anyway, I debated him for 10 minutes or so and managed to get him to say this: "Texts are written by people. People are conscious and intelligent. So the universe has to have a creator who is conscious and intelligent.". I have no idea how, but he thought that this was a logical argument and persisted on it.
3- It just doesn't make any sense. I don't think I need an explanation for this. Sometimes the arguments are pure nonsense. I think it is called a non-sequitur? The logic just does not follow. A roommate of mine said this once: "You were inside when I got out, I just got in and you are still inside. So you could not have gone out.". Sometimes it is hard to catch but most of the times it is really obvious that it is wrong.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's about it...
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.16  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
The good things about that Law?
It benefits the marijuana industry?
It benefits those individuals, who are looking for some probable votes, from some of the pro marijuana supporting crowds?
It benefits the criminals, and the offenders who were let out of jail, because their drug of choice was legalized, that previously lead, to their previous incarnations?
It benefits, those apparent and previously poor states, that even though they already had various taxation and revenue coffers in place?
That the individual taxation and revenue coffers, created from the legalization of marijuana, means that those states, will no longer suffer from their previous taxation, and revenue shortages?
The bad argument?
No one, that I know of who is pro marijuana, or is pro marijuana industry oriented, has produced, or provided, any real world, interview material about this particular subject matter?
That shows how negatively that an adults, marijuana use, around unborn babies, newborn babies, kids, children, or family members in general, are OK, with living with, being born into, or growing up with, or having to tolerate, an adults, criminal, or an offenders marijuana uses around them?
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: legalization of marijuana    previous incarnations   revenue coffers   various taxation  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: perfect example    argumentation      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Simply being that you dont have one counter argument for it?
What's more important, the legalization of recreational marijuana, in an individual state?
Or the kids, children, or the families in that same state?
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: counter argument    legalization of recreational marijuana   individual state   kids  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra