Instigator / Pro
12
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2235
Con should concede/forfeit this debate
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
20
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
concede/forfeit: to admit that pro won, that con lost, or that con feels like they cannot continue the debate
this debate: this very debate we are having.
warning: this debate is very tricky and incredibly unusual. Consider yourself warned.
Round 1
Let's open up with the idea of Nihilism. Human behavior is based upon their emotions and their motivations. As such, if con is convinced that nothing matters, then they should give up on this debate, as it is meaningless. Consider the impact this debate will have. A few people might read it, and vote on it, but after that, life goes on. This debate merely has a two week vote period. Compare that to the overall life of the universe, guessed by science to be at least 13 billion years. Life will go on for at least a few more billion years. As such, this debate is meaningless. Do you not admit, whatever you do, at the end of the universe, will not impact much? Con is only one human, he cannot possibly contend to change much in the end. This leads to my second sub-argument: this argument has no impact whatsoever. There has been hundreds and thousands of arguments about nihilism, and people have re-iterated the same points countless times. Is con not bored of repeating the same arguments? Can he prove that this is going to go somewhere? Even if he participated in this 5-round debate, which is already requiring a lot of dedication, even if he won the debate, which requires even more effort, will the result of this debate cause any meaningful result? My case stands: con should forfeit/concede this debate.
Secondly, this is more than merely a debate, this is also a conversation between us. You see, con can concede/forfeit if he admits his argument cannot defeat mine. But I noted very carefully that another reason why he would do this would be because "con feels like they cannot continue the debate". Let me ask: What is your motivation? What do you believe in? These are crucial for con to give, in order for him to support his side. As such, Con does not have the usual advantage of pro having the burden of proof. Not only does he have to defeat the logic of my information, he also has to support his own emotional support, such that he is willing to continue the debate, regardless of what personal information he begins revealing about himself.
Thirdly, I will be daring and open up the idea that con's emotional support is not enough for this debate. Every human has failed before. Indeed, as I say this, con is very likely thinking back to what he has done wrong before. They are most likely regretful, and guilty about their errors. I will continuously remind this constantly throughout the debate. I excel at describing imagery, setting up a story. Imagine con, a student from his profile, with lowly earning below $20,000. He is stressed to gain internships or actual job. He has his family to live up to. He has his hobbies to do, his friends to support. He is cracking under the pressure. In a normal debate, you may take your mind off by using a bigger problem. You can use logical support and facts to help back you up. But this debate is not your usual debate. Pro is encouraged to put emotional pressure and remind con of his problems, remind con of the reality he tries so hard to escape. Con may begin thinking of Dart's terms of "personal attack", but is this really? Am I not stating merely the facts, that con is likely already under pressure and would like to not be reminded of the troubles of reality that he, personally has to tackle?
Conclusion: I warned con that this would be an unusual and difficult debate, and he accepted. He is arguably just as much at fault for willing to subject himself to any emotional-based attacks (reminders that he has other things to worry about other than the debate!) that I attempt within these rounds. Nihilism, the idea that nothing matters at all, not this debate, not his actions. The idea that this is a conversation to understand con better, rather than just a debate. I am not only aiming to convince the voters; I am putting through emotional pressure to convince con himself, that this debate is not worth it. Con should forfeit or concede, as a result.
Seldiora = Pro = Con should concede/forfeit this debate
Intelligence_06 = Opp/Con = Con should not concede/forfeit this debate
Argument: Why would I do that!
Within nothing more than common sense, conceding and forfeiting on the behalf of my side would be something undesirable, and doing so will lose this debate. I understand Pro wants to farm wins and I see this is rated, but me too.
I have the power to refute this argument and there is no reason for me myself to concede/forfeit. If he really made me concede and forfeit according to will then I will just clap my hands as if Williams have just won the Spanish Grand Prix.
I have seen Pro’s argument. Out of internet problems. I am typing this on an offline document. However, everything seems easy to refute.
Nihilism
I can refute that. Even though this debate weighs null towards the total flow of the universe, that doesn’t mean I can’t try. I can obviously keep trying and win. Debating makes me happy and telling me it doesn’t matter won’t stop me trying. More than that, It matters to me.
Knowing that our brain perceives stuff and tells our bodies whether it is true or not, if one’s brain quarters receives messages that it matters to the present state of oneself, he may be inclined to do so. No sourcing needed as this is basic common sense. If this debate matters to me and I want to win(That is the reason why I am here, to win, not to concede or forfeit), I obviously won’t just give up something that I could win(If I can refute this argument, I obviously can win, and the only reason I concede is because I can’t win of all cases, and I don’t forfeit).
This point just motivates me that I could forfeit, but doesn’t prove why I should give up this debate, considering I won’t, it matters to me, I can win this and I probably will because Pro the BoP maker has failed on that point.
If this debate won’t change the world whatsoever and I like this one and I want to win, even if I win, the world won't hold a grudge at me, so why not win it?
Emotional support
This point within the two paragraphs is not of any constructive value standing in front of me as it refutes naught. Pro asserted mere false information and false assertions are not true. Again, I am here because I want to win, and my emotional state is extremely stable, and Pro’s assertion of whatever I am doing is false: If I am debating now I am committing on writing an argument.
My emotions support my side and I want to win this debate. Why would I give up this debate that I accepted in the intention of winning, not conceding and forfeiting?
Emotion-based attacks won’t work on me at this point. This point motivates me to give up but I am not taking any of it. This point does not prove why I should give up this debate, and I have given my argument of why I should keep going: Keep going is more profitable and less harmful to me and it does nothing to the world. If this debate matters not then why give up? Isn't it merely any normal debate under the database of DART that I have won?
Kritik
If I say and do anything other than conceding and forfeiting and I justify my actions in any degrees, Pro loses. I made real points and I did not forfeit and concede and I justified my actions(I want to win not lose here), so I believe Con has won this debate. Case closed. Waiting for Pro’s response.
- I shall make conclusions now.
- Pro only motivated me to not try here, but made no points about why I should give up. Those “reasons” are just saying the conditions of me accepting this debate is undesirable(Hard to win, little reward, other important things), but it has not convinced me to any possible point.
- I want to win and because I want to win I would need to try. That is a point that points to no concession nor forfeit, and it has justified why I tried in this debate. Nice try.
- If I try to any degree and have justified my actions, I win. I have proved that I should NOT concede/forfeit this debate. Vote Con.
Round 2
Nihilism: Intelligence makes an excellent point that he thinks he cares about this debate. However, does he truly care more than I? I was willing to type up the entire debate definitions, set up the limits, carefully think out my plan, and execute it within this debate. He only had to click the accept button and await my opponent's argument. He asserts that he indeed is happy with debating and this debate matters to him. But this is only temporary and it's very clear he's on the defensive, having to await more arguments and carefully bat them away while keeping up his morale, no matter how negative my ideals are. This is why this debate is more bleak than the vast majority of other debates. Here I shall mention that people all die eventually. This death is inevitable and regardless of whether my opponent completes this debate or not, it does not help. In fact, I shall argue than my opponent is wasting time typing up an argument, as surely you agree, whether you are happy or not, you only need to affirm it to yourself, and stop wasting time arguing with an opponent who won't listen to you?
Emotional support: My opponent claims that my claims are false and mere assertions, however he offers no backing to support this. Think about it. The coronavirus has made it more difficult to visit your grandparents and friends who are far and away. I myself am a very anti-social animal who lives with all my family, and am not affected by this. However, by reminding my opponent of what he may not have, he may have lost emotional bearing to continue on this debate. Depression stops people from doing much productive things. Would you not admit that, with wallowing and stressing negative things endlessly, he is very likely to end up in a negative feedback loop? Problem: He wants to debate, but gets depressed thinking about the negative ideals that I mention. As such, he loses motivation to continue debating. Unless con can give evidence that the current situation does not apply to him, he is on a back-footing and far more likely to lose than me.
I see my opponent is still stressing he is willing to try. Then, let me be a little slick, if you will. The real battle begins here.
You should concede because of God. Yes. I have only mentioned it now, but I wanted to save up my arguments, leading my opponent in fear and doubt of whether he can continue, with my unknown breadth and depth of ideas. You see, I believe in some creator in the world just a little. I am going to be especially stressing about him in this debate because you stress your belief in yourself. You only depend on yourself, but can you refute that, there are some events in the world that are simply unexplainable? UFO's, paranormal, strange statues, The Big Bang even. Because you trust in evidence too much, you do not believe that mere belief in the other force can cause change. But just for this debate, I shall entrust this mysterious being to assist me in some manner. Have you heard of the placebo effect? Yes. Even thinking that a useless pill has effect, will lead to you performing better in sports, or perhaps even some academics. You have greater confidence. You have greater freedom of thinking. Because I'm willing to believe in God, if there is the slightest chance he exists and decides to help me, I would have a super natural assistance that you have no possible way of defeating. Your limited thinking will be the fatal flaw that leads to your demise in this conversation.
Let me ask you more: Why does the mere act of arguing make you happy? Are debates guaranteed to be friendly, kind, and productive? We know that I've created troll debates before, filled with ridiculous semantics and absurd logic that don't improve your thinking in any way. We know conspiracy theorists exist, who are too stubborn to change their mind. If "con should concede" was a conspiracy (false claim), then wouldn't you think that it's *even more impossible* to win against pro? Conspiracy theorists are grounded powerfully in their beliefs. They refuse to believe facts and come up with claim after claim, building up a ridiculous argument that is nearly impossible to win. Obviously, I will not admit my argument is merely a conspiracy. But merely the idea, does it not frustrate you? The idea that you will never convince pro, the idea that you don't know me personally, and hence changing my mind is pointless?
It's very clear, my moral ambiguity is very vague within this debate. Unless my opponent can prove that he is willing to change the mind of a conspiracy theorist-- despite not caring about that person personally, despite it being impossible, grounded in that person's thought, unless my opponent can overcome all of my arguments, he cannot win, he should not continue, and therefore, he should concede/forfeit.
There were two generals of two nations. One occupying a great area, another occupying another great area. General 1(G1) has a very stable fort while G2 has strong men that can attack. One day, G2's men arrived at G1's fort. G1 told G2 to not attack and suggests that, for some reason, he should give up. G2 then said "No U" and then rushed in, killing all of G1's citizens in the fort.
This is how this debate works. Pro is G1, I am G2. I have already given my idea that I will stand by my side no matter what my opponent does, and since he the BoP maker bears the BoP, if neither convinces the other, Pro still loses.
All of those points of my opponent is nothing. All I have to prove is that:
- I should not give up on this debate
- Pro is wrong about me
Rebuttals
In fact, I shall argue than my opponent is wasting time typing up an argument, as surely you agree, whether you are happy or not, you only need to affirm it to yourself, and stop wasting time arguing with an opponent who won't listen to you?
If a debater is wasting time and I am not, then does that not mean Pro will lose? If he is milking the same points over and over again(at least for 2 rounds now) and Con is using new tactics, then does that not mean that Con has a better chance of winning? If I have a better chance of winning then why give up, especially I want to win instead of losing? I am not a sore loser nor a sore winner and giving up objects my goal of winning.
Here I shall mention that people all die eventually. This death is inevitable and regardless of whether my opponent completes this debate or not, it does not help.
Telling me that this debate doesn't matter does not make me not care about this debate. Remember I had many debates that are pretty damn useless if you are judging by contribution.
Also, if no debate matters, and 0=0, so this debate is not any less important than any else. Since I care about every other I am in, I'd care about this too, and since I want to win, I'd not give up, thank you, please.
Also, if you are telling me YouTube and Reddit don't matter, that wouldn't make me not go there. Entertainment is entertainment, and it cares not about how much contribution it does to the world.
Intelligence makes an excellent point that he thinks he cares about this debate. However, does he truly care more than I? I was willing to type up the entire debate definitions, set up the limits, carefully think out my plan, and execute it within this debate.
My opponent cares about this, and I assure you I do too(consider this is no forfeit/concession, and I am making actual arguments), so if both care about this and it is not less valuable than any else then why not care?
Think about it. The coronavirus has made it more difficult to visit your grandparents and friends who are far and away. I myself am a very anti-social animal who lives with all my family, and am not affected by this. However, by reminding my opponent of what he may not have, he may have lost emotional bearing to continue on this debate.
You are wrong, my friend. Knowing the purpose of this example(which is false, I assure you without leaking crucial information). I don't visit my grandparents and we video-call once a few days(same with friends), so I am not more lonely than Pro. I am happier than ever because at this point Pro's arguments did not even assume anything correctly of me and that would mean he just wasted time typing nonsense. If I didn't waste my time I would be happier than before consider I am doing it for fun.
I see my opponent is still stressing he is willing to try. Then, let me be a little slick, if you will. The real battle begins here.
You are genuinely making me laugh. I say this outside the main discussion because my laughter is literally waking up both of my parents.
Also, I commit to all debates unless they are generally indestructible by my opponent. This is not one of those times.
You see, I believe in some creator in the world just a little. I am going to be especially stressing about him in this debate because you stress your belief in yourself. You only depend on yourself, but can you refute that, there are some events in the world that are simply unexplainable? UFO's, paranormal, strange statues, The Big Bang even. Because you trust in evidence too much, you do not believe that mere belief in the other force can cause change. But just for this debate, I shall entrust this mysterious being to assist me in some manner. I
No evidence = unsupported. Unless Pro can show me that aliens and God help him in this debate, this claim is false for now. Also if my opponent proved that he has the power of God on his side but I am still winning, then that means I won against God, which would motivate me even more, consider I am then confident in my skills.
Suppose Seldiora prayed to God to help him, then I'd expect him to have his argument a little bit sturdier. However, my ease in writing this shows I am not negatively affected by God. Of prayers, IDK what God, but I assert that God is most likely NOT helping Pro consider Pro is praying for mostly selfish intent: Win his own debate.
Let me ask you more: Why does the mere act of arguing make you happy? Are debates guaranteed to be friendly, kind, and productive? We know that I've created troll debates before, filled with ridiculous semantics and absurd logic that don't improve your thinking in any way.
This debate is pushing my limits in thinking. This kind of debate is creative and good. Don't talk bad to yourself, bro. I like this kind of debates and they offer more varied activities to my brain, making me happy consider this is who I am. It improves my thinking and I am encouraged by this. Nice try.
Obviously, I will not admit my argument is merely a conspiracy. But merely the idea, does it not frustrate you? The idea that you will never convince pro, the idea that you don't know me personally, and hence changing my mind is pointless?
We are here on DART where votes are of quality. If neither convinces the other, Con still wins because of BoP: Those who make the claim bears the burden. If my points make more sense than my opponent's, so even if I failed to convince Pro, I can still sway the large part of voters to my side. I don't need to change your mindset to win this debate, and if I can still win this debate It means I will try, hence not giving up, not FFing, etc.
Extend every argument I have made in Round I. I am still motivated to try in this debate and because I want to win, I shall keep trying, hence not forfeiting nor conceding. I have made arguments above to justify my actions. I firmly believe that Con has won this debate. This point is never defeated in the first place.
Round 3
As our arguments clash together towards a climax, I offer you a brief respite, and a momentary change of mood. I will let our arguments hang in the air, to ruminate, to truly let my opponent relish in his pursuit of happiness. Imagine the cup of favorite drink you calmly have at home, the comforts of being lazy. The ability to rely on yourself, and the mood of having peace. Throughout this debate, he has supported his independence, his ability to stand up for himself. He has inferred that this very last round sufficed for him to defeat me. Having said that, hasn't he achieved his purpose-- debating me over a topic, and stretching his mind to the limit. Indeed, he says I've been repeating the same arguments over and over, making absurd logical jumps and insanity, just to make him stop the debate. And he seems to have prevailed over it all. A wise man said, the journey is more important than the destination. Surely you agree with this. And he has already accomplished the journey, stood his ground for three entire turns. That's not an easy feat at all.
Intelligence states that he has been prepared, and he states that he has completed many challenges like this before. So, that being said, intelligence must prove that we must go above and beyond the three rounds we already have, and he must continue the debate. Why don't you concede? You'll be able to relax, and you'd have proven yourself, proven that you were able to overcome my arguments, from your own perception. And perception is reality, is it not? To let this continue leads down to a slippery slope. Already I have led Intelligence to believe that he has to show his personal story, his information on what is letting him debate. But consider if he was a woman and I was a man. Or if I was far older than him. I am already riding the thin line between breaking the trust offered to people on this site, and arguably even encouraging others to do the same. Because I, pro, have proved to be far more immoral and difficult to deal with than con (referring to the negatives of the universe, referring to the supernatural, using emotional arguments), would you not agree, that, continuing down this line would expose readers to even more unsound and unnatural arguments? For the people, con ought to prevent pro from spreading more unnerving themes and mood, and allow everyone to be happy. Even if con does not surrender, should he lead me to use even more absurd and negatively-themed arguments, this would most certainly cause readers to feel less welcome to the debating site. It also sets a bad example for debating, doesn't it?
Still no.
The paragraph of As our arguments clash together towards a climax, I offer you a brief respite, and a momentary change of mood
Sure, I agree, this is like My opponent "conceded". He has stated that my arguments are sturdy and good in this paragraph. However, this will only fool the fools. I have "Intelligence" in my name and I am still alert. My opponent has offered zero reasons why I should give up, merely that this debate I have won and I have prevailed.
Knowing that this debate is not over and my opponent recognizes my arguments, I am more confident rather. That is no reason why I should give up now. Why should a biker drop out of the race if he is leading for 3 miles? Why should a country surrender if it is winning battles all over the frontier?
Intelligence states that he has been prepared, and he states that he has completed many challenges like this before. So, that being said, intelligence must prove that we must go above and beyond the three rounds we already have, and he must continue the debate.
No, I do not. I don't need to prove why WE have to continue the debate. If only I continue the debate till the final round then that is still my win. As long as I justify that I would not give up on this debate I win. As long as I don't give up on this debate, it is a win for me. I will continue the debate and it is getting fun.
Why don't you concede? You'll be able to relax, and you'd have proven yourself, proven that you were able to overcome my arguments, from your own perception. And perception is reality, is it not?
My opponent is treating this debate like a burden on me. It is not. I like this debate and I'd like to continue.
To let this continue leads down to a slippery slope. Already I have led Intelligence to believe that he has to show his personal story, his information on what is letting him debate. But consider if he was a woman and I was a man. Or if I was far older than him. I am already riding the thin line between breaking the trust offered to people on this site, and arguably even encouraging others to do the same.
I am a boy that is 14 years old. Nevertheless, if my opponent thinks he is doing something wrong here, he would be losing conduct: Which means I am winning. Again, I have stated I wouldn't give up on a debate I am winning.
Even if con does not surrender, should he lead me to use even more absurd and negatively-themed arguments, this would most certainly cause readers to feel less welcome to the debating site. It also sets a bad example for debating, doesn't it?
I couldn't care less about what Pro writes, because as long as I write something useful with good merit that means I have a chance to win.
Upon bare common sense in DART, concession means loss and so does forfeiture. I have stated that I want to win. I wouldn't place myself in something that would be an automatic loss even if someone encourages me to do it. I extend every argument.
- Pro bears the BoP automatically if nothing is ruled out considering he made the claim.
- I can still continue this debate and there is so far no reason why I can't.
- I am unconvinced by Pro and have negated every single point from fulfilling the BoP. So far Con is still winning.
- If I am winning, then there is no reason to give up. As a result, I keep going.
V
o
t
e
C
o
n
!
Round 4
Very well played, Intelligence. But you will be ill-pressed to come up with a way to counter the following argument. You have previously failed to find a flaw in my programming [https://www.debateart.com/debates/2233/pro-is-able-to-have-his-arguments-describe-his-own-arguments], and you will suffer under the same treatment under this new argument.
Let us define a few variables that mean specific words, where capitalization matters.
o = "chance"
C = "is"
n = "no"
X = "obfuscation",
x= "argument"
G = "my"
M = "especially"
F = "practice"
Z = "tough"
z= "programming"
B = "within"
r = "knows"
I = "you"
E = "difficult"
e = "bad"
I = "I"
f = "very"
H = "opponent"
i = "intelligence"
t - "though"
h = "has"
D = "decoding"
j = "to"
J = "if"
k = "can"
b = "this"
K = "distraction"
Q = "who"
My argument is as follows:
bcfef, fE-- GHithi, BbDC,x, bXCZ, GzcE, fef. HhnojDbX. JHknDbzX, Hhno. lkhK, MD "l", "I" -- QrJBI C I!
If necessary, I will reveal the solution in the comments once the debate is over, or my opponent has conceded.
Challenge accepted.
Let us define a few variables that mean specific words, where capitalization matters.bcfef, fE-- GHithi, BbDC,x, bXCZ, GzcE, fef. HhnojDbX. JHknDbzX, Hhno. lkhK, MD "l", "I" -- QrJBI C I!
There is no small c in the alphabet. Nevertheless, I will treat it as Capital C. Also, "You" and "I" are both capitalized i instead of any lowercased L.
Nevertheless, I will say that the sentence below is just translation, it does not mean that is my actual feelings. Being told to translate "Heil Hitler" in various different languages does not make you a Nazi.
This is very bad very, very difficult-- My opponent Intelligence though has intelligence, argument, this obfuscation is tough, my programming is diffucult, very bad very. Opponent has no chance to decoding this obfuscation. If opponent can no decoding this progamming obfuscation, opponent has no chance. I/you can has distruction, especially decoding, "(lowercase L)", "I/you"-- who knows if within I/you is I/you!
I have decoded this message and I have checked. This is an unreadable mess of English. The grammar, at many places, is not correct and it causes this argument to be incoherent and thus it does nothing. Plus, I have decoded meaning this argument no longer stands, if you can even call it an argument.
I think it is just to award the S&G point to me because this argument is incoherent and messy. This is that I still have time on my hands. If I choose to not decode this message, it is the same as nothing at all consider it is implied that we both use English and not some made-up code password.
I so far, extend my argument. My opponent is bringing no coherent argument here, meaning it is in a disadvantage. I, like most men, would go after advantages, and if I do have advantage, there is no reason why I should concede or forfeit.
Vote CON!
Round 5
well played. You have defeated me at each and every turn. I have nothing left.
Pro has conceded. Con has not. As a result, I shall conclude, with the verdict that voters should vote Con for Args, and Pro for the conduct, due to the late-round concession.
Conclusion
- Con's position is that he should not give up on this debate.
- Con wants to win this debate and giving up means losing, so giving up is NOT what he wants.
- Con asserts that people would most likely to do whatever is most desirable for him/her/them/it, and as a result, Con should not give up on this debate.
- Con should not give up on this debate.
- Pro's points have not yet destroyed everything constructed above, and as a result, this works, and I have succeeded in proving I should not give up on this debate.
- Pro has conceded, please vote Con.
250 vote for gold medal.
What exactly is "gold"
import DebateArt
argumentQuality = True
//If true it means this debate is good
if argumentQuality == True:
voteSuggest = True
else:
voteSuggest = False
https://40.media.tumblr.com/51435aa4dd7e8dff2717a94c382d7d89/tumblr_ntvfk8X5Ma1s2kojso1_500.jpg
you fell for my trap!
If one with no God can win against one of God, then doesn't that mean I am more powerful than God? If so, why am I not motivated?
though I suppose if you were religious, I'd have to argue the opposite (that god is not going to help your argument, lol)
Nice arg bro
You sure you are winnin'?
I’ll be interested to see where this goes, already have thoughts on that opening.