Instigator / Pro
5
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2297
Con made, or will make a mistake in this debate
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
TNBinc
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
14
1534
rating
5
debates
80.0%
won
Description
Mistake: a error, a fault, something not right, such as logical fallacy, spelling error so on and so forth
Round 1
All humans are flawed. They make mistakes all the time, through oversight, through emotional worries, or through merely being human. Con cannot deny the fact that he is human. Indeed, a psychology study shows 10 common flaws in human (https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/) -- the belief of karma, the idea that we would rather go through pain than boredom, our overconfident nature, our selfishness and vanity, so on and so forth. The fact that that this debate has five rounds makes this even harder for him. He has to have no spelling or grammar errors. He cannot forfeit, because then conduct would go to me. Now that I have linked a study myself, it then follow through that unless con wants me to accuse him of the mistake of not having sources, he must supply a source. This is very difficult; this only concerns con himself. If he posts a link to his profile to show examples of him not making mistakes, one, he hasn't one all the debates, meaning that his argument wasn't strong enough, and thus, a mistake. Even if he was Oromagi or Ragnar, he cannot make a generalization argument, just because you have yet to make a mistake does not mean you won't make a mistake. Finally, con cannot post as little as possible, perhaps a truism like "I think, therefore I am", because not directly addressing my arguments could lose him the argument point, and thus would be a mistake. Now you see the problem that concerns con.
Finally, con has already made a mistake accepting this debate. Through accepting, con implies he understands what mistakes are. This is common knowledge. But even if he makes it through all five rounds without making a mistake, has he really learned anything? He would have just wasted time overcoming my false assumption (since he would have perfectly gone through all rounds). What would he have gained from this meaningless debate? And isn't waste of time, one of the worst mistakes you can make?
I win if I do not make any mistakes. Conversely, my opponent wins if he proves I have made a mistake.
So far, I have not made any mistakes.
I will use Grammarly as a mistake check website. If Grammarly shows no suggestions, it proves I did not make any mistakes.
Furthermore, I will provide screenshots from the Grammarly website to ensure my opponent understands I did not make any mistakes.
According to Grammarly, I did not make any mistakes in this round. I have provided the screenshot in a Google Doc.
While I agree--most humans have some flaws--the resolution is only specific to this debate, asking if I have made a mistake. According to Grammarly, I have not.
Seldiora says accepting this debate is a mistake. It is not; this is a chance to increase my rating by 10 points, give or take.
So far, I have not made any mistakes.
I will use Grammarly as a mistake check website. If Grammarly shows no suggestions, it proves I did not make any mistakes.
Furthermore, I will provide screenshots from the Grammarly website to ensure my opponent understands I did not make any mistakes.
According to Grammarly, I did not make any mistakes in this round. I have provided the screenshot in a Google Doc.
While I agree--most humans have some flaws--the resolution is only specific to this debate, asking if I have made a mistake. According to Grammarly, I have not.
Seldiora says accepting this debate is a mistake. It is not; this is a chance to increase my rating by 10 points, give or take.
Round 2
My opponent has made the mistake of not noticing my mistake. When I say something wrong, it's logical that it is correct to prove it wrong. Consider if my argument was complete nonsense and my opponent failed to point it out, that would be a mistake. But not only did I say "he hasn't one all the debates", meaning "he hasn't won all the debates", I also made an error by saying "The fact that that this debate has five rounds makes this even harder for him". Remember that Intelligence 06 thoroughly defeated me because of my typo Orogami, meaning Oromagi, correct? Despite people understanding this, they are still different and can result in massive difference, and go from a viable premise to complete nonsense. As such "he hasn't one all the debates" is not even noticed by con, and as such, this is a mistake on his side. I have won this debate. Vote for pro.
Thanks, Seldiora.
It is not my role to notice your grammar mistakes. All the resolution says is I will make a mistake (which I will disprove); it did not say anything your errors. That is not a valid mistake.
The Orogami/Oromagi debate is different from this. In that debate, the resolution had another meaning.
Please explain how your grammar mistake is my mistake.
All I understood from your argument is "I made a grammar mistake,"
Just because I did not notice does not mean it is my mistake; it is yours since it is your grammar. Therefore, spelling and grammar points go to me.
If a debater has many grammar and spelling mistakes, voters would have to guess what the word/phrase is when they understand an argument. I must use a similar approach.
You also have half-conceded in your argument by saying you made a grammar mistake. Vote Con, Pro used his argument time just to half-concede.
I rest my case, which is still unaltered.
The screenshot is here.
It is not my role to notice your grammar mistakes. All the resolution says is I will make a mistake (which I will disprove); it did not say anything your errors. That is not a valid mistake.
The Orogami/Oromagi debate is different from this. In that debate, the resolution had another meaning.
Please explain how your grammar mistake is my mistake.
All I understood from your argument is "I made a grammar mistake,"
Just because I did not notice does not mean it is my mistake; it is yours since it is your grammar. Therefore, spelling and grammar points go to me.
If a debater has many grammar and spelling mistakes, voters would have to guess what the word/phrase is when they understand an argument. I must use a similar approach.
You also have half-conceded in your argument by saying you made a grammar mistake. Vote Con, Pro used his argument time just to half-concede.
I rest my case, which is still unaltered.
The screenshot is here.
Round 3
Con seems to be doing excellent -- flawlessly, as he would say. He has stood his ground and proved twice with Grammarly that he has no spelling or grammar mistakes, and he has not forfeited nor failed to negate any of my arguments. But by depending merely on one source, is this not potentially a source of bias, and mistake? A journalist, Jacob B. has noted that even the premium service of Grammarly makes mistakes (https://medium.com/swlh/grammarly-premium-makes-a-lot-of-mistakes-3b5eb431e9d1). The article notes many many issues with Grammarly, especially unable to detect names or context of specific words. The AI assistance is still not as good as actual human grammar checking. Unless my opponent can prove that he will still remain flawless even without the help of Grammarly, he will likely get into a pitfall where he commits a mistake one way or another. Consider this debate done with another person, [https://www.debateart.com/debates/2284-con-made-or-will-make-a-mistake-in-this-debate] he even forfeited round 2, giving up after I accused him of a single spelling error. He could've contested this, he could've fought back. But he didn't. He forfeited. My opponent has far less experience than con in the other debate. How can he be so sure he won't be equally intimidated merely by my accusations, and give up? It worked for the other debater.
Con seems to be doing excellent -- flawlessly, as he would say. He has stood his ground and proved twice with Grammarly that he has no spelling or grammar mistakes, and he has not forfeited nor failed to negate any of my arguments.
That is one step from saying you concede, but OK.
Unless my opponent can prove that he will still remain flawless even without the help of Grammarly, he will likely get into a pitfall where he commits a mistake one way or another.
Fine then. By the way, that is not a mistake.
You said I did not have to use Grammarly. So it shall be. I will use an alternative called Paperrater. Paperrater highlights any mistakes; if there are none, there are no mistakes.
I will show screenshots from Paperrater from the first two rounds as well as this round.
They are here.
There are no highlights; therefore, there are no errors.
As far as I understand, Pro did not fulfill his BoP yet and only talked about his grammar mistake as well as how Grammarly is inaccurate.
Round 4
Con has not contested the fact that someone else already failed this debate. He has failed to tell us what is wrong with this argument. As such, he has made a mistake, and lost this debate.
Rebuttals:
Seldiora says:
Con has not contested the fact that someone else already failed this debate.
So? How does that mean I will fail this debate? The resolution is only specific to this debate, not anything else.
Seldiora says:
He has failed to tell us what is wrong with this argument.
What do you mean by this? Like I previously said, the resolution is only specific to this debate, and not anything else.
Seldiora says:
As such, he has made a mistake, and lost this debate.
How is that a mistake? You use another debate to say I will lose this, and that is your mistake. That is not correct logic, which means I win the arguments.
Conclusion:
- Pro did not fulfill BoP.
- I have refuted Pro's claim multiple times.
- Pro is one step from conceding as shown in rounds two and three.
- Pro is using incorrect logic, which means I win the arguments by sufficiently proving that I have made no mistakes.
- I have fulfilled BoP by using a direct source from Grammarly and Paperrater, while Pro has sources off-topic. Therefore, I win the sources.
- Pro already pointed out he made a grammar mistake while I have made none which means I win the spelling and grammar points.
- My argument still stands the same since round 1: Pro has not done anything to refute it and has only provided faulty arguments. Grammarly is a reliable source, according to these articles.
Here is the screenshot from this round.
Round 5
Con has seemed to make it all the way to the end, but for what? He assumes that raising his points is not a mistake, but perhaps he has better things to do. He could’ve been exercising, he could’ve been studying, he could’ve been working. This debate doesn’t help at all in terms of knowledge, in terms of money, in terms of physical. A number that seems to indicate your skill in debating would be meaningless in terms of this debate, as normal debates require lengthy research and battle over multiple arguments. You can clearly see here it’s basically two people who won’t listen to the other and make this debate unproductive. Con showed that he merely said the same thing four times in a row just to make a number go up by ten. Considering my rating is nearly the worst of of all active debaters I don’t know how that is something to be proud of. Con has made the mistake of wasting his time for four entire rounds, potentially five, a mistake in this debate.
Rebuttals
Seldiora says:
You can clearly see here it’s basically two people who won’t listen to the other and make this debate unproductive. Con showed that he merely said the same thing four times in a row just to make a number go up by ten. Considering my rating is nearly the worst of of all active debaters I don’t know how that is something to be proud of. Con has made the mistake of wasting his time for four entire rounds, potentially five, a mistake in this debate.
My rating is very average (1524). I think 10 would really benefit me. Currently, I am 56th on the leaderboard. 10 points would make my rating 1534, which is 47th.
It also increases my win percentage. Currently it is 66.67%. Winning this would make it 75%.
This further proves it is not a mistake. This is also the same claim you made in the first round, which I already refuted. Do you have any other arguments? You are simply being redundant with your arguments which I already have refuted.
Seldiora says:
Con has seemed to make it all the way to the end, but for what? He assumes that raising his points is not a mistake, but perhaps he has better things to do. He could’ve been exercising, he could’ve been studying, he could’ve been working. This debate doesn’t help at all in terms of knowledge, in terms of money, in terms of physical. A number that seems to indicate your skill in debating would be meaningless in terms of this debate, as normal debates require lengthy research and battle over multiple arguments.
The first two sentences are basically saying that you concede. You indirectly said you concede three times (round 2, round 3, round 5). Actually, reading and participating in debates helps me become a better debater. It is not a waste of time.
Argument
Five rounds are over, with this being the last one. I have not made a mistake so far. Pro says accepting this debate is a mistake, but how? I accepted this debate in order to become a better debater.
Pro also has not pointed out any mistakes I have made, which means he thinks everything I said that he did not "refute" is true. This means I did not make any mistakes.
Pro did not fulfill his BoP, but instead tried to refute my claims. This was unsuccessful which basically means he did nothing to counter my claims in this debate.
Conclusion
- Pro failed to even talk about his BoP.
- Pro had faulty rebuttals.
- Pro conceded three times indirectly.
- Pro is being redundant in his arguments which I already have refuted, thus proving he probably has nothing else to say (a concession).
- I have made no mistakes as proven by Grammarly and Paperrater.
- Seldiora had little sources whereas I had many.
- I fulfilled my BoP to the dot.
- I had good grammar and spelling
- I have used a better argument than Seldiora has.
Please vote Con! Pro has not even talked about his BoP and I have clearly fulfilled my BoP.
Here is the screenshot from this round.
Thanks for voting
And yes, I do think inside the debate that would be a good habit. Plus it's something you might reflect back to for a good example of how you did it before.
On a tougher debate I would be more inclined to delete it, but this one is too straight forward.
Again, in future just put that stuff inside the debate (possibly in the penultimate round, so that the person has a chance to respond).
oh ok did not know that.
Oh sorry I was just trying to provide a summary of the debate for those who did not want to read the whole argument. Can you please delete it?
I suggest not doing that type of summary in the comments. Inside a debate it is fine, but in the comments it risks trying to bias voters.
Here is a summary of the debate:
round 1:
Pro shows how accepting the debate was a mistake
I refute and say Bop as well as evidence
round 2:
Pro says he made a grammar mistake. He further says not noticing that was a mistake (does this mean he wants to give spelling and grammar to me?) Pro half conceded.
I remind Pro it is not my duty to correct your grammar mistakes but to argue against. I successfully argue my claim.
round 3:
Pro says I am doing great (which is one step from saying he concedes). He says Grammarly is unreliable.
Pro uses incorrect logic to show someone else lost the debate therefore I am going to lose.
I show even with another editor, Paperrater, that I made no mistakes. I correctly state that that is incorrect logic.
round 4:
Pro has nothing else to say other than repeating his round 3, which I successfully refuted.
I have nothing to say other than my argument still stands which has not swayed my opinion.
round 5:
Pro has nothing else to say other than repeating his round 1, which I have already refuted multiple times.
I conclude that I have made no mistakes proven by Grammarly and Paperrater and that Pro has not pointed out any mistakes.
Pro used off topic sources while I used sources that are coherent with the debate.
Pro even admitted he made a spelling/grammar mistake while I have made none.
round 4:
Please vote!!!
Our ratings are different.
That is not logically justified.
Is it not a fallacy to assume that one persons failure results in another persons failure? But what fallacy is this?
what do you mean "what is wrong with this argument"
Well you did day a mistake not multiple mistakes. If that isn't what you meant I might offer constructive criticism by saying in a formal debate setting l I'll e this it behooves you to be precise in your language. As it stands now you would lose on a technicality.
You could argue that, but intuitively the logic doesn't follow. Kinda like how two wrongs do not make a right, compounding it with more single instances of a mistake does not negate that a mistake occurred.
If I were to accept this challenge I would simply make two or more mistakes rendering pro's claim that con will make a mistake false.