Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websites project info: debate.com Statistics for project debate.com etracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis
The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
gahbage
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
mynameisjonas
Con (against)
mynameisjonas
Losing
22 Points

1-Round debates should not be allowed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 6/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 169 times Debate No: 4480
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (19)

 

gahbage

Pro

I am advocating that the minimum number of rounds allowed to a debate be 2. One-round "debates" defeat the actual purpose of a debate, because all that is done is the establishment of both sides. Nobody has a real chance to refute each other (except the contender, but then his arguments cannot be refuted). One-round "debates" are not really debates, they are just rounds.

As you can see, this "debate" is one round. So you may see the evils of a one-round "debate" (See above if you didn't catch them).
Report this Argument
mynameisjonas

Con

Pshhhhhhhhhhhhh. You've got no shot at beating me, gahbage. One round debates are da bomb. I believe they should be allowed.

I would elaborate, but I believe the horrid shrieking coming from the galley kitchen is my estranged wife sending an open invitation for pasta. I shall elaborate on my position in the next argument.

Your turn.
Report this Argument
 Debate Round No. 1
Post a Comment
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 5 months ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
believer, that was three reasons
Report this Comment
Posted by gahbage 5 months ago
gahbage
Oh. I see...

25 characters. (Damn you grammar check.)
Report this Comment
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 months ago
Ragnar_Rahl
""What if the purpose is not to have an actual debate at all?"

That would be best achieved by not starting a debate =P"

I think you misread the ambiguity in that sentence in replyingto it... he was not saying that the purpose as such was to not have a debate merely that to have an actual debate was not the purpose. At least that's my judgment from context.
Report this Comment
Posted by gahbage 5 months ago
gahbage
"What if you're in a debate that only needs one round?"

What would that be?

"What if one person is unable to give more than one side of the debate?"

If you mean unable to attend future rounds, then they should not accept/begin the debate.

"What if the purpose is not to have an actual debate at all?"

That would be best achieved by not starting a debate =P
Report this Comment
Posted by believer_720 5 months ago
believer_720
I disagree, only for one reason. What if you're in a debate that only needs one round? What if one person is unable to give more than one side of the debate? What if the purpose is not to have an actual debate at all?
Report this Comment
Posted by gahbage 5 months ago
gahbage
Um...how does this disprove me?
Report this Comment
Loading voting charts...

Show people this debate by sending them this public link: