The Instigator
Kenneth_Stokes
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mrparkers
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

This website has lost all value

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mrparkers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,036 times Debate No: 34550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Kenneth_Stokes

Pro

My position, Pro, is that this website has lost all respective value and has deteriorated because of frivolous users posting repetitive and debates of senseless leisure. Here are a list of the same debates that are posted at least three times a week, that could have easily been avoided if the user were to use the search system: same-sex marriage, drug legalization, abortion, immigration, war on terror, does God exist, death penalty, Israel-Palestine, capitalism vs communism vs socialism, etc. along with other debates that aren't truly debates as they are two opponents stating nonsense and whoever shows the most humor wins. The sorts of debates previously listed get views in the thousands while original, thought-provoking debates only get 50 views, or maybe over 100 if the debater has a lot of friends. Most unique debates never get voted on. Looking back at the first 500 debates or so, one can see that the topics were intellectually better and had much merit.

As Con you are to refute the claim that this website and it's users have not lost merit--if so, gained it--and the website has the same value, or better, than before.
Mrparkers

Con

I accept.

To quote the affirmative's position:

"My position, Pro, is that this website has lost all respective value and has deteriorated because of frivolous users posting repetitive and debates of senseless leisure."

Thus, to win this debate, the negative needs only to prove that this website holds even a little bit of value. In other words, if I can prove that this website still holds even the tiniest bit of value, regardless of what that may be, I will win this debate.


To define value:
  1. a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
  2. the monetary worth of something
  3. relative worth, utility, or importance
  4. a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Good luck.

Debate Round No. 1
Kenneth_Stokes

Pro

Very well. I'm just now noticing a major flaw in my generalized wording, but it is far too late (and unprofessional) to go back now. My intention for this debate was that: "As Con you are to refute the claim that this website and it's users have not lost merit--if so, gained it--and the website has the same value, or better, than before.", not what you quoted, however to avoid complications I will submit to your terms. I accept definition 3 of the 4 you have listed.

My claim is that, 1.) this website has no importance or utility for the debates that are common place are not as well-structured and the original ones a three years ago or so, meaning it will be better to utilize the debates from three years ago than the current ones, making them useless and unimportant, and in comparison to the older debates they are worthless. Furthermore there were fewer debates of leisure four to five years ago, and in some months, none. And 2.) the debaters from that time were typically in their mid-20's and debated more relative subjects, but now many of the common debaters are Freshmen in high school and debate over entertainment, which really isn't a debate at all.

Overall the site has no value as it is mostly rehashed debates week by week and the few unique debates get little to no views and are rarely voted on as such debates do not interest the common user as much as the debates of entertainment. The recent debates (past year) on this website has little to no value in comparison to what it had years ago.
Mrparkers

Con

Regardless of what the affirmative intended for this debate, it is my job as the negative to negate the resolution "This website has lost all value". Thus, to win the debate, I must only prove that the website has even a tiny bit of value, at least more than absolutely zero.


To prove my point, I will be focusing on the second, third, and fourth parts of the definition of value that I offered.

Monetary Worth:

According to The Worth of Web[1]
  1. Debate.org has an estimated worth of $324,128
  2. Debate.org makes about $619 per day
  3. Debate.org gets about 41,318 non-unique visitors per day
All three of these facts demonstrate a positive net worth. Clearly this website has not lost all monetary value. Personally, I would jump at the chance to purchase this website for a couple thousand dollars, which is a pretty good demonstration of both monetary value, and personal value as well.

Relative worth, utility, or importance:

First, let's talk about why debating is important and worthwhile.

The general idea of debating is probably one of the most important aspects of the human race. Being able to talk about issues and solve problems is extremely important for the advancement of society. Problems aren't solved by picking a random solution out of a hat, they're solved by proposing several different solutions, and discussing the pros and cons of each one to narrow down the most effective solution possible to a particular problem.

Debate is also vastly important because it it can educate people on particular subjects. I have personally never experienced a debate where I did not learn at least one new thing afterwards. For example, my last debate on same sex marriage has taught me that there are indeed non-religious arguments against same sex marriage, where I previously could not think of a single secular reason to oppose it.

I'm sure that the affirmative can agree that Debate is extremely important to our society, and the general advancement of the human race. This demonstrates clear value in the activity of debating, which is why Debate.org, which is a website where people from all across the world can come together and debate subjects that they're interested in, must pertain a lot of value. Debate.org is extremely important to a lot of people, and extremely valuable because it allows for an effective way to discuss issues with people that you would probably never meet in real life. It provides a structured and moderated environment which allows for fair debates that can then be voted on by the users to determine a winner. These are the kind of things that you would never find on your typical internet forum.

I personally find a lot of value in this website due to the fact that I have graduated high school and can no longer participate in its debate program, and the college I am attending does not offer a debate program. Debate was my favorite activity in high school, and now I have found a way to do this without needed to be a part of a program. None of this would even be possible without Debate.org.

A numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement:

See Premise 1.


Addressing the affirmative arguments:

My opponent argues that he sees roughly the same or similar subjects being debated all the time, and that this is an indicator that the quality of Debate.org has reduced down to nothing. While I have already demonstrated that the value of this website is at least above zero, I still find a flaw in the affirmative's reasoning...

Just because a certain few subjects are debated more often than others, it does not imply that the subjects are stale and that this website no longer pertains any value. The subjects that are debated here depend on one and only one thing: the users. Having a single topic being more important to the community than other topics does not mean the quality is lower, all it means is that these particular topics are more important to the users, and there is nothing wrong with that. My opponent suggests that newer debates are unimportant in comparison to older debates on the same topic, which is blatantly false, because every debate provides new people who are in the discussion, which means new ideas are being thrown around, which means that new conclusions can be achieved. No serious and legitimate debate is a waste of time. Learning something new about a particular subject that you are interested in is always a good thing, and throwing in your two cents is even more important.

Debate.org isn't just about viewing debates that you're interested in, it's mostly about participating in debates. Of course there's going to be repeats, and of course there's going to be topics that are generally more important to the community than others. But none of these facts represent a diminish of overall value, and certainly not to the point where the website becomes completely and utterly valueless. As long as people are learning something new in every debate, there is at least some value to be had.


Conclusion:

I have successfully demonstrated that the website, Debate.org, has at least some value, in almost every aspect of the definition that I have provided. I have adequately refuted the arguments my opponent has made, and have proven that repetition of topics or debates of topics the affirmative does not approve of does not imply a diminishing of value, and there is at least some value to be had as long as the debaters are learning something new.


Citations:
  1. http://www.worthofweb.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kenneth_Stokes

Pro

Although I still partially agree with myself I understand what you're saying. Vote Con.
Mrparkers

Con

Sorry if this debate isn't what you were looking for, but you do need to be careful with the resolutions you come up with. Even if the resolution was "This site has deteriorated in value", most of my points would be just as valid.

Vote Con please.
Debate Round No. 3
Kenneth_Stokes

Pro

Kenneth_Stokes forfeited this round.
Mrparkers

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
Kenneth_Stokes

Pro

Kenneth_Stokes forfeited this round.
Mrparkers

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Kenneth_StokesMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "Although I still partially agree with myself I understand what you're saying. Vote Con" Concession with two rounds remaining.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Kenneth_StokesMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession + F.F.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Kenneth_StokesMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote Con.
http://www.debate.org/debates/This-website-has-lost-all-value/1/
www.debate.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
59424
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:D2RPABU6PHASGYBMWQTNAPKTP7NFG7MV
<urn:uuid:bdc064e1-e85a-4b10-8861-b020726e3765>
2017-05-25T14:38:53Z
34.199.175.203
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:WD5FITCJM77HJDC75KHXBKDOIJW5JFMJ
<urn:uuid:1f7046d3-2d7c-47cd-831d-fef5cc831a87>
http://www.debate.org/debates/This-website-has-lost-all-value/1/
response
<urn:uuid:11a2e44d-25bd-4a55-ab06-c4e719651093>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf