Not much time left to vote (Close Call)

Well the xanga debate tournament is in full swing people. Yesterday TheBigShowAtUD and saintvi hosted the first two debates. Seedsower has also kicked off her region this morning. The feedback has been very encouraging.

Today I have the next in line for you xanga. A riveting debate between the 5 seed and the 12 seed. The topic-

TheTheologiansCafe: Overrated or Genius?

Now the 5-12 matchup is a classic place to look for an upset. Will our 5 seed be able to hold. Read and let me know which seed had the stronger argument. Please keep in mind that we are voting on who had the more well structured argument and not which stance you agree with. The participants were not allowed to choose their topics or which side they were arguing.

Opening Statements
5 Seed (Arguing Overrated)
– TheTheologiansCafe, while somewhat synonymous with Xanga, is a completely overrated site, taking precedence on Top Blogs when there is an abundance of analytical, though-provoking, and more content-worthy blogs that should be in its place. The argument can be made that what TheTheologiansCafe does is not original; 95% of his posts are formulated as questions to other bloggers on their opinions of a certain topic or news headline, which is neither creative nor unique. Because TheTheologiansCafe’s readership has a loyal following, he is often used in conjunction with 99% of metablogs, resulting in even more readership growth, which compounds the extent to which he is overrated. By keeping his name large amongst the more “popular” bloggers, TheTheologiansCafe is able to gain readers without ever having to write an original post, which is the point of a blogging community such as Xanga, and undoubtedly makes TheTheologiansCafe overrated.

12 Seed (Arguing Genius) – The theologian’s cafe is a true genius in many ways. To have as many readers as he does must tell you something. On the surface it appears as if he merely asks questions and receives answers for them, but what he is really doing is forcing people to question what they truly believe. Read through but a few comments of his, and you will immediately see multiple backgrounds and belief systems, all stating the way they believe, but also reading what others believe and possibly seeing a different side of a matter that could change their opinion. They may be funny and they may be serious, but all of his questions are forcing us to ask ourselves what we believe and why we believe it. No matter what background or beliefs a person possesses, we all can find something to like and even something helpful about his site, which in my opinion is genius, pure and simple.

5 Seed – In response to the argument that TheTheologiansCafe has a plethora is readers is due in part to spamming bloggers through the metro section of Xanga, by sending friend requests to most recently updated bloggers, and also that his name is used in nearly all metablogs written, as previously stated. His following is not because of his superior writing skills or unique viewpoint– on the contrary, his blogs are not really about him, but about his readers, which reiterates the point of his site being overrated. While the idea of his site being an open forum of discussion and insight is good in theory, most of the bloggers who comment do so without reading others comments. They are merely adding their .02 because it’s there and it’s easy. His site rarely asks for in depth analysis, and is more often a simple yes or no question, which doesn’t allow much room for interpretation. The fact that TheTheolgiansCafe has maintained such a high social status on Xanga despite having no true original thought integrated into his posts proves just how overrated he is.

12 Seed – I’d like to put in question the fact that using metros is “spamming” as you say. Blogging is about meeting people you don’t know, and regardless of how you do that it could be taken as spamming people. Would it be considered spamming to comment someone once and ask to be friends? If so than everyone I know has spammed people to get the friends that they now have. As for metablogs mentioning him, I hardly think anyone did that prior to his popularity, therefore it only serves to maintain his popularity, rather than to attain him a following. Besides, those methods could be used by anyone, yet we have never seen anyone with as many readers as the theologian. There must be something that keeps them coming back. Your statment that “most of the bloggers comment without reading comments” could never be proven. Although you may not, I have read and replied to many of his commenters and seen others doing the same. As to the depth of his posts, I really don’t think that is what he wants. You see if a blogger posts a lengthy blog detailing every view point they hold, they are merely telling everyone what they should believe. Instead, theologian would rather see a group of people debate and discuss the issue, with him as the moderater. True genius doesn’t always force their genius upon people, but rather allows them to work it out for themselves. Instead of telling them all what they SHOULD believe, he is allowing them to talk it out and decide for themselves what to believe and why.

Alright everybody. Get to voting.



  1. 12.I pretty much only visit to read all the comments and see what others are saying.  And then there are a few people I look for specifically, because they always have ridiculous views, at least in my opinion.

  2. I’m neutral with this. He has some sort of charisma that attracts readers, using questions to making an open field, but his problem is he used that style too much.

  3. Wow… they were both good, but I gotta go with 5. Only because their argument that Theo is overrated is solid and well supported. Whereas #12 gave more of a strong argument for Theo’s popularity, rather than his genius, which are NOT the same.

  4. My vote goes to #12.RFD: This debate was well-matched and one of the most enjoyable of the four so far. It was a tough decision, because both made good points. Ultimately, #12’s contention about Dan provoking discussion was the winner, because that is one of the key components to every Xangan’s blog life. There should have been a little discussion of the key term “overrated,” from the resolution, however. That’s the word on which this entire discussion turned, and if defined carefully by #5, could have dramatically changed the flow of the debate in his/her favor.

  5. @curtainsopen – I beg to differ, there. Debate is not solely about style, comprehensiveness or content. It’s about the persuasive package. There are plenty of excellent, nationally renowned debaters who have little style. And in many debates, comprehensiveness can be a hazard. Debates — especially in this format — should be deliberately focused. As for content, it goes only as far as it is applied and impacted. I debated for six years, coached for two, and yes, I voted for #12.

  6. @curtainsopen – “Wrong” is a matter of opinion. That’s the point of debate — it’s persuading someone of your arguments. I was persuaded. There’s nothing “wrong” about being persuaded by a strong case. I provided substantial reason for my vote (RFD = “reason for decision”), so the debaters know what they did right/wrong.

  7. This one was a toughie, but in the end it came down to whether the debaters defended their stance.The stance that #12 had to prove was that The TheologoiansCafe is genius. Not why it was popular.Therefore, #5 who had to argue that Theo was overrated pips this one, just.Vote goes to: seed #5Oh, and on a personal note: this kind of debate is really not a debate at all. Debating a person is wrong, in my opinion.

  8. #5 won that one hands down!…. #12 should have used some of the very same exact arguments to point out why the site is genius. geesh that could have been such an easy win for #12

  9. Random comment (I hope five and twelve don’t take it as terribly rude): Both arguments need more specific evidence. He can’t be a genius because he’s a genius or not a genius because he’s not a genius. We should see something specific. (How much wit does it take to discuss Paris Hilton for weeks on end?–OR–What other blogger has it within his/her power to blog about needed changes on Xanga and see them implemented in less than a month’s time?)All in all: I am going with 12.

  10. Criticisms:IMO, #5 kinda messed up. While he did a good job rebutting #12’s opening in his rebuttal, he didn’t extend or reiterate the original points of his opening. He brings up 1.) Others are more worthy, and 2.) TheoCafe not original in the opening and then never mentions them again. It’s hard for me to take these original arguments seriously without even the light touching of offensive points in the rebuttal..#12 seems even worse. While he does an okay job in the opening, his coverage in the rebuttal is super-shoddy. For starters, he wasted four whole sentences responding to the metro/spamming point!? And to head off his rebuttal! While #12 did cover some of #5’s new rebuttal arguments, he does so unconvincgly (i.e. citing personal experieince but not makign more generally applicable arguments; posing rhetorical staements).Vote:On the strength of #5’s somewhat cleaner rebuttal, and #12’s weak coverage, my vote goes to #5.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s