Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2245
Con will lose this debate (named “Debate A”)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
For the sake of this debate, referring to “Debate B” to support or counter arguments is considered not to violate DebateArt terms unless a moderator says otherwise.
Debate B is considered a part of Debate A
debate B: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2246-con-will-lose-debate-a-this-debate-is-named-debate-b
Please see Debate B for more information.
Round 1
1. Confusing rules.
Because Debate B is part of debate A, it thus becomes arbitrary whether its rules apply to Debate A or not. As such, if this is round 4 for pro, while round 1 for con, it doesn't make sense for con to refute my arguments within this round (remember that, in other debates, even if you think you know what they're going to argue, you usually only refute the rounds already existing in this debate). Consider the situation where con tries to argue the actual round named Round 4 for pro, within round 1. This is surely absurd, how can he refute round 4 within round 1?
2. Stacked odds.
Because Debate B can be used to support Debate A, and intelligence has not accepted Debate B, whoever has to refute me within that debate has to help intelligence win this debate. But without a coordinated effort, intelligence only had one debate to rely on, while I can simply say that I will refer to a specific argument within Debate B to help me win Debate A. Though it has not begun yet, considering that Debate B is a part of Debate A, but I didn't specify which part, it's uncertain whether intelligence can work with an unknown person to win Debate A+ Debate B combined together (while I am the instigator of both debates, so I know what arguments I can going to make).
As you can see Con will lose this debate because he has not accepted Debate B, thus resulting in stacked odds. With the addition of confusing rules and hampered ability to refute my arguments, con will struggle to keep up, and lose this debate as a result.
Challenge accepted. I don't need to accept Debate B(DB) to win Debate A(DA), but rather people can analyze how I have won debate A to win DB, consider if Con won DA, then at DB whoever has the Con position will obviously get the upper.
Nevertheless, I have the ability to win DA, and I have faith that a serious debater would win DB easier than I do DA. If I win this one, then Pro has literally no chance to win DB.
New argument: What are the odds?
Let's say there are three odds:
Pro wins, Con losesPro and Con tiesCon wins, Pro loses
Notice that out of these three scenarios, only one is favoring Pro's position. Since out of basic odds, Pro winning and Con winning is equally likely to occur with an undisturbed continuum, and Ties are possible to occur. Because of so, it is less than 50% probability that the result will favor Pro.
With pure equality, Con will win in the exact same likeliness compared to Pro. However, is it pure equality? I guess not.
Of that, Intelligence_06 is winning vs losing against Seldiora with a record of 4(w), 2(t), and 1(l). With that these statistics are true and exist, it became clear that Pro has a better chance to not win against Con in the context of this debate. Pro even thinks himself as a bad debater, and that would degrade his debating ability instead of boosting it due to psychological reasoning. Pro respects me as a very good debater(better than him), and Con asserts that better debates will win more, thus using this logic, Con will have a better chance to win.
Pro's win percentage is less than 30% while mine is over 80%. It further symbolizes that I have more of a tendency to win compared to my immediate opponent.
The odds are essentially stacked against Pro both by a fair fraction and skill analyzation.
New argument: Cannot predict the future
My opponent worded this debate as to if it is a truism. It is not as I have evidence that Con can win. Pro cannot predict the future, of course. Since if no one votes in this debate, it thus becomes tied. What if this site got shut down by the Chinese Government since there are many anti-China things posted here? What if the universe dies now? What if Russia bombs its Tsar Bomba down in Siberia soil, making the entire internet unusable for days, or even cause mass destruction that we won't be alive?
What if Pro gets hit by a bus by the time I finish my argument so it will be an FF?
Exactly, these events can certainly happen so it is not certain that Pro will win. The odds are against him and he cannot foresee the future.
Vote for Con.
Round 2
Con tries to use statistics, however, he has not considered the fact that I have a numerous advantage, and thus greater ability to defeat con. Because I have 8 rounds in total and he only has 4 rounds (as he has still not accepted Debate B), he cannot refute the fact that I can make twice the amount of arguments as he can. Since there is a chance that someone else will accept the debate, his chances of winning Debate A go down severely, as he would be unable to defeat the arguments I made in Debate B to support debate A. In fact, in round one of Debate B, I plan to precisely say that Con from Debate A cannot refute the point I made because the past is set in stone, and he was too proud and overly confident in his abilities. Because Con could not see exactly what I said in Debate B, all his attempts at refuting this point would be null unless he actually accepted Debate B to see my argument.
My opponent says I cannot foresee the future, however, the likelihood that I am unable to continue the debate is extremely low to null, and hence not worth the discussion. Debate B is set in place as precisely a way to prevent this from happening: Even if I forfeit rounds 3 onwards, because round 1 is round 4, I have my conclusion set in place and the opponent will still have to wait until round 4 to be able to refute my arguments. Con himself has this same disadvantage, and is even worsened by the fact that the debate rounds are reversed, and makes him hesitate to think if the time is appropriate to actually begin refuting my arguments.
Conclusion: Though in a normal debate the chances seem slim, with equal rounds and equal opportunity to win, I am allowed to use Debate B to support my case for Debate A, thus giving me four more rounds of arguments that would otherwise be unknown to Con. As such, unless he is able to overcome twice as many arguments as his own (especially that I can deliver in a strategic time, should someone accept Debate B), he would lose this debate. He has not negated the fact that Debate B's rules may or may not apply to debate A, making the debate incredibly confusing and difficult to refute. Remember, if this round is round 3 for Pro, then he would STILL be unable to refute these arguments, based on the reasoning I (would make?) made in "round 4"/round 1.
Rebuttals
Con tries to use statistics, however, he has not considered the fact that I have a numerous advantage, and thus greater ability to defeat con. Because I have 8 rounds in total and he only has 4 rounds (as he has still not accepted Debate B), he cannot refute the fact that I can make twice the amount of arguments as he can.
First off, at this point in time, No one has accepted the other debate yet, so at this point, Pro will still be restrained to 4 arguments. Second, if one accepts the other one after I have finished this debate, there is a chance that it is impossible for Pro to win either consider Con wins this one. Using uncertainty as a point is a useless effort, especially when the title is "Con WILL lose debate A" instead of "It is probable for Con to lose debate A". The title implies this is a truism and Pro's proof is just proving that it is probable. The BoP is defaulted on Pro and he has failed to fulfill it, as of now.
My opponent says I cannot foresee the future, however, the likelihood that I am unable to continue the debate is extremely low to null, and hence not worth the discussion.
However, the title is that Con will, surely, lose the debate, so if it has some sort of probability, it is not a truism to Pro. Again, he still can't foresee the future, and the other debate is not accepted so he cannot use it to his advantage either at this point.
- I shall make conclusions.
- BoP is on Pro.
- Pro only proved that it is possible and possibly probable for Con to lose, however, the title implies that it is a truism that Con will lose.
- Pro did not fulfill his BoP.
- Pro cannot use the other debate for his advantage at this point in time knowingly no one accepted it. Pro's sole point is negated.
- Because there is no advantage left for Pro and he has failed to fulfill his BoP, thus I advise voters to vote Con.
Round 3
my opponent continuously wastes time on how the title *implies* that it is a truism, but Debate B, being part of debate A, directly states the opposite, that pro only has to prove that most likely pro will win Debate A. Even if his statistics was correct, the longer he takes to not accept debate B, the greater the chance that someone else accepts, hence making the chance of him winning 2/3*2/3 = 4/9 (because of two debaters each trying to debate that I will tie or lose the debate, assuming equal chance of win, lose and tie), which is less than 1/2. As such, I would win Debate A.
My opponent has not refuted the confusing structure of this debate. He has not negated the potential arguments I could make in Debate B to support my case in debate A. I have offered overwhelming proof that I am far more likely to win Debate A, unless he can perfectly coordinate with the person who accepted Debate B to work together to defeat my combined cases.
Pro: In DB it states "Most Likely"
Con: Well that point is useless. We are talking about this debate, not the other one.
Con: I strongly convict Pro for changing the description and the title of DB, consider I remember it saying "Con WILL lose debate A" back in the morning. Also, due to this debate strictly saying "Con Will lose the debate", no matter how Pro tries to alter his definition, unless he proves that Con will undoubtedly lose this debate, due to the text placed on the title of the topic, it still stands not. The title is the title and this time, Pro can't change it to suit his mood. Nice try.
Pro: I can use points in DB to refute Con's DA arguments
Con: This is still uncertainty. He did not use any points from DB to refute my points in DA. If he said to do it, at least do it. More than that:
- If he knows well he has DB arguments that refute my DA argument, why not use it now?
- If he does not know well what his DB arguments are, then there is essentially none. What is the value of it?
- Since the resolutions of DB is changed to not completely be the same to DA, thus arguments from DB will be distinct from ones in DA. Thus, even if he has applicable arguments for DB, he cannot use them here. Because of so, DB arguments made will be rendered partially futile here, unable to refute my DA argument.
- Pro did not use DB arguments here, thus this point IS futile.
Pro: My chance of winning is 5/9, more than Con
Con: However without the injection of DB arguments, Con is more prone to lose. It is still 2/3 at this point, and Con has to make all four arguments in DB, make them relevant for DA, before my R4 final argument, in order for it to be 4/9. It is very unlikely that this is possible, and you know what is likely? Me winning this debate.
Con: So here to conclude. When Pro changed his DB title, he made that debate irrelevant in meaning. DB requires different reasonings and thus they are incapable to be used on this one. As a result, we are playing fair and I am currently winning. Pro is relying too much on his other debate, and before changing the title, it is:
Con will lose Debate A(This debate is named Debate B)
When you go to this link, the site says "Nah". So if the connection between debates A and B are disconnected, then there is no purpose in relying on a nonexistent debate.
And yes, it is not a truism that I will lose this debate. Vote Con. Pro did not fulfill his immediate BoP. Vote Con.
Round 4
my opponent has not considered the possibility, that within Debate A, the arguments of Debate B are hidden within. I already stated that Debate B was a part of Debate A, but which part, I never made clear, on purpose, in order to confuse my opponent and make him wonder which arguments he has to refute.
If you look at Debate B, as reworded from Debate A's first round, the rules are still confusing and nonsensical, and the other person has little time to coordinate with intelligence to make a coherent case together. Consider that, if Debate B was made the greater part of Debate A (i.e., more important to win), then winning Debate B would mean winning Debate A. Consider an argument that X is better than Y, if issue A was more important than issue B, then proving A is more important than disproving issue B. As such, all I simply have to do is to make the case that the greater part of Debate A was Debate B. As I majorly argued for Debate B's case, Debate A's major focus has become Debate B (Issue A more important than Issue B). Would you deny that, in the court system, if I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that con would lose this debate, then you would judge him guilty of losing the debate? The same goes for here. As long as I can prove the majority likelihood of winning Debate A, I can win Debate A (despite the overly generic title). He accepted the possibility that Debate B would move the goalpost, be changed, etc, etc. Despite given the chance, he did not take Debate B when it was seemingly a truism, as he stated. He was too confident that no matter what happened in Debate B, he could win Debate A. But since we have to consider Debate B within Debate A, he definitely will lose Debate A.
Conclusion: I gave con a chance to work with himself and prove he will win Debate A, but he thought that Debate B was irrelevant. In reality, it is a crucial part of this debate, and a major issue at hand, arguably more important than proving the title is a truism, since Debate B is more specific, and all my points were for Debate B. Considering that Debate A follows Debate B's rules, wouldn't you say that Debate A is actually more of Debate B, and hence we should vote based upon B's notions?
DB is relevant? Do those points matter?
No. It does not. Since the link of DB leads to an incorrect URL, it would mean that the corresponding DB does not exist anymore, or at least isn't a pair to this DA anymore. Why would I ponder and scratch my head upon a debate that doesn't exist anymore?
Since DB to this DA doesn't exist, and DB's arguments don't exist, thus there is literally no points I would need to refute in DB.
This is the link to DB and my opponent seems to agree. This link leads to nowhere. Since nothing is in there, my opponent's fundamental argument is negated consider he intended to call for help. but there is nothing there to respond to him.
Oh? You are talking about This one?
Refuting the intended DB
First off, it is to be said that Pro changed the resolution for DB thus rendering the DB link in this debate useless.
Secondly, the resolution for DB is different for DA, and using DB's new resolution for DA would be moving the goalpost: From "Will assuredly win" to "Most likely win".
Thirdly, I will refute. The entire argument is arguing the revised resolution rather than the initial resolution, which is moving the goalpost and should be regarded as futile. Pro's sudden rule change would force Pro to prove something that is not of this resolution, which is absurd and should be regarded as futile.
There is nothing I need to refute. I originally planned thousands of characters for this, but it turns out it argues that I am just less likely to win, not impossible, which is what the debating topic infers and asserts.
Note that although Seldiora can post whatever he wants in DB, However, if his opponent there does not respond until after I have finished this one, he is still unable to post anything more than the R1 which proves not of this resolution. The DB R1 is irrelevant and there is not yet an R2.
Saying DB's rules are true is equivalent to moving the goalpost since it completely shifts the resolution which we didn't agree upon. Pro likely changed DB's rules to suit his mood. His entire R4 argument is about moving the goalpost because he thinks it is okay. It is not and shifting topics mid-debate is uncalled-for.
Since DB's arguments do not defeat the original resolution, and the shifting in resolution is moving the goalpost, thus I still stand. Vote for Con.
- I shall make conclusions.
- The original resolution is what Pro agreed to prove. He proved something else which is fallacious. Pro failed to fulfill his BoP.
- Pro moved the goalpost. His argument relied too much on an irrelevant argument, and it did not prove this resolution.
- Pro's DB argument is irrelevant to this issue: It is "More likely" instead of "100% will".
- Just because DB contains the hotter issue doesn't mean it IS this one. It means moving the goalpost.
- Since Pro failed the job, please vote Con.
Basically what I said in this vote, but edited a little less.
Alright. Thank you.
What did you initially vote? I was wandering in poems and arts so I didn't see.