Instigator / Pro
0
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#2853
Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 4,800
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
I will make my argument extremely simple, yet deadly, so that readers can understand and appreciate it instantly without needing to sift through jargon and stuff.
I am not in love with Con. I am claiming that Pro does not love Con and that the 'fact' that Pro is in love with Con is nonexistent. Thus, it follows that Con cannot appreciate it and de facto fails to appreciate it.
I will let Con have a head start at offering definitions and such that enable him to weasel out of this axiomatic paradox that I have trapped him into. You see, Con will claim I am lying and I do love him, yet I can equally push back and say Con is feigning appreciation.
This is a unique situation where the one proposing actually maintains the defensive position when it comes to burden of proof, since I am able to force Con to have to prove something he can't (that Pro is in love with Con) when I can conclusively say I am not.
Appreciate (Dictionary.com):
1a: to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of
appreciate the difference between right and wrong
b: to value or admire highly
She appreciates our work.
c: to judge with heightened perception or understanding : be fully aware of
must see it to appreciate it
d: to recognize with gratitude
I appreciate your kindness.
"That Pro is in Love with Con": A statement that has proved to be negative by pro's own statement.
In other words, the premise is: Con has failed to [Appreciate] [A statement that is false].
Let's see if I fulfill the definitions of all possibilities of appreciating the false statement.
to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of
Because lack of love has little to no significance or impact, as Pro has noted there is no love, I have successfully grasped the significance of the idea of "Pro is in love with Con". I stand no chance in the love affair, and so I would not need to waste time confessing, as Pro has already set out the rejection of the statement. Hence, I understand the nature and significance of the false statement.
Value or admire highly
Even though it seems that lack of love has no significance, I hold the idea of Pro being in love with Con a high virtue. Love is one of our indisputable rights, regardless of homosexuality or heterosexuality. As you can see, I highly value pro's right to be in love with con, even if he is not currently executing that right.
to judge with heightened perception or understanding : be fully aware of
Now that Pro has admitted the statement is false, the idea of "Pro is in love with Con" is fully appreciated in this circumstance -- I am fully aware that it is a false fact. Say for example, had the statement been "Con fails to appreciate Flat Earth Theory", even though the theory is fully false, I can still value it as a tool to teach critical thinking, and be aware that all the evidence points to Flat Earth being false.
to recognize with gratitude
Even though it seems absurd that a rejection would be recognized with gratitude, I am glad that Pro outright said the answer, instead of waiving rounds, forfeiting rounds, jumping around the premise and making it impossible to determine the truth value of "Pro is in love with con". Since he has proved it is false, I gracefully thank Pro for making the premise crystal clear.
As you can see, Con fully appreciates the idea "Pro is in love with con". I support the right to be in love, and I thank him for revealing the truthfulness of this statement. And I am fully aware that it is a false idea, similar to Flat Earth Theory (for now).
Round 2
Alright, I am fascinated that Con gives four different definitions of 'appreciate' yet avoids the word 'that'.
Let's use the same site he used for his definitions of 'appreciate', dictionary.com:
adjective, plural those.(used to indicate a person, place, thing, or degree as indicated, mentioned before, present, or as well-known or characteristic):
That woman is her mother. Those little mannerisms of hers make me sick.
Or another in the same context?
So, let's now see how all his attacks fall short...
Flat Earth itself vs Flat-Earth Theory
You can appreciate flat earth theory itself and believe that the Earth is Round, this is a fair enough defense and/or attack from Con. Unfortunately, you can't appreciate that the Earth is Flat or alternatively appreciate that the Earth is Round if you believe the other opposing theory is true (hence you believe 'that' which is being appreciated isn't there in existence to appreciate.
This is because you cannot:
1a: grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance ofb: value or admire highlyc: judge with heightened perception or understanding : be fully aware ofd: recognize with gratitude
Something that:
a: has no nature that is real, lacks worth and quality in any real sense of either and is significant only as a nonexistent possibility that never came to fruition.
b: can't be valued or admired highly as it isn't there to be either.
c: can't be judged with heightened perception since there is nothing to perceive other than the lack of it, same for full awareness of
d: you can recognise the lack of it but gratitude of what? the thing that doesn't exist?
The idea of something isn't that thing.
Con has conceded something (because it is central to building his counterattack on me)
Con has conceded that he doesn't believe I deeply love him, he potentially could be deluded and believe that Pro's 'being in love with Con' is a real thing and then claim to appreciate it saying I'm in denial and/or lying. It is crystal clear that this isn't the path Con chose to handle this topic, instead it is the case that Con agrees entirely with Pro that Pro isn't in love with Con at all and that it thus isn't there to appreciate.
Con can't now retract on it without creating a self-refuting case.
Good luck.
Pro's entire argument rests on the crux that you cannot appreciate something that doesn't exist. Yet everyday, we appreciate the very idea of fiction. As researchist on Wordpress explains [1], "So, ‘lifeness’ I think is a function of the degree to which readers can relate their lives to the lives of those depicted in fiction."
Furthermore, the site also draws a nice cake to simply explain there are multiple levels of appreciation, which creates a deeper definition than dictionary/Merriam Webster: there is unconscious delight, lifeness, philosophy, and aesthetlic delight. As such, just as I can appreciate that "Harry Potter killed Voldemort", despite this being a fictional and false event (relative to real life), I can also appreciate that "Pro is in love with Con".
As previously mentioned, I perfectly respect his right to love me, as well as fascinated by the idea of someone being in love with me. I have not yet experienced love so I would be delighted at the prospect. Even though he did not write it as eloquently as J. K. Rowling, I can imagine the possible scenarios and the multiple different ways that Pro could be in love with Con. Similarly, the flat earth theory might seem insane, but it is absolutely hilarious to think about. The idea of people falling off earth, airplanes going in ridiculous circles, and the US guarding Antarctica with maximum security brings tears of joy to my eyes. As you can see, there is unconscious delight and lifeness in this incredible world with a completely different design. I can appreciate both its ability to make people think critically as well as the humor of flat earth world.
If this wasn't enough, consider fictional quotes which are assumed to be false, but I can still appreciate their message.
“I am nothing special; just a common man with common thoughts, and I’ve led a common life. There are no monuments dedicated to me and my name will soon be forgotten. But in one respect I have succeeded as gloriously as anyone who’s ever lived: I’ve loved another with all my heart and soul; and to me, this has always been enough.”
-- The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks
-- The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks
I appreciate that the main character of The Notebook is nothing special, in that he can create such a sympathetic scene. (even though the main character does not exist)
Dropped arguments
Because lack of love has little to no significance or impact, as Pro has noted there is no love, I have successfully grasped the significance of the idea of "Pro is in love with Con". I stand no chance in the love affair, and so I would not need to waste time confessing, as Pro has already set out the rejection of the statement. Hence, I understand the nature and significance of the false statement.Even though it seems that lack of love has no significance, I hold the idea of Pro being in love with Con a high virtue. Love is one of our indisputable rights, regardless of homosexuality or heterosexuality. As you can see, I highly value pro's right to be in love with con, even if he is not currently executing that right.Even though it seems absurd that a rejection would be recognized with gratitude, I am glad that Pro outright said the answer, instead of waiving rounds, forfeiting rounds, jumping around the premise and making it impossible to determine the truth value of "Pro is in love with con". Since he has proved it is false, I gracefully thank Pro for making the premise crystal clear.
Round 3
I have not dropped any arguments whatsoever. This debate is very straightforward actually (despite the semantics involved). Con believes I don't love him and I believe it too. Con claims to appreciate the significance of the lack of love yet that is a different thing.
The significance of a lack of love is not identical whatsoever to the love itself. Con is, in fact, defending the side that claims he appreciates what Pro loving Con could/would be, this is insufficient to meet the burden of proof of Con in this debate.
I have fully explained why in my Round 2.
Con's argument in round 2 is based upon the crux that "you can recognize the lack of it but gratitude of what? the thing that doesn't exist? " as well as "has no nature that is real, lacks worth and quality in any real sense of either and is significant only as a nonexistent possibility that never came to fruition"
However, he has not addressed the difference between the fictional aspect of pro being love in con being comparable to Harry Potter defeating Voldemort. Everyone can appreciate a good story, and I certainly do here. As Pro has completely failed to negate the idea in round 2 that fiction can be appreciated (while being similar to the full definition of appreciation), it's very clear that Con appreciates "that Pro is in love with Con". I not only support the right to love, I can also imagine the potential future if pro had been in love with Con. I fully understand that it is a fictional event, yet I can also fully understand what it means to love someone. To devote yourself. To share in pain and in pleasure. To rely upon them. And to be spiritually/emotionally together even when you are physically apart. Even if fictional characters are difficult to imagine, we can still regard our suspension of disbelief and accept the false nonexistent as our own reality.
As such, vote for Con.
Only 12 hours remain for voting.
thanks for the vote, but please go into more depth.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:1, 1 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Two sentences don't do enough of an overview of a 3 round, roughly 20,000 character debate. The voter must go into a lot more detail than what is presented.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
That said, I'll still need to review his vote obviously
Bugsy460 is the new account of user Ancap460.
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Ancap460
Since we do not disregard his past simply because he moved to a new account, he meets the voting requirements.
I'll get to this this weekend.
I address it 100% directly.
I understand the confusion now with my RFD. I had a grammatical typo and it was a short typed RFD, which isn't fair to y'all as debaters, and I'm sorry. I was saying don't drop the win condition Con creates in the second round and not answer it in the third, their win condition being the fictional appreciation. You never answer it directly and just extend your second round speech as an answer without telling a judge why it is an answer. I hope that clarifies more, and if it doesn't, then we can discuss it after the voting period to not violate any rules.
Also, I hope you have more than your baseless accusation and the fact I voted against you as the reason that I'm not eligible to vote, because the system auto allows people to vote when they meet the requirements.
Bugsy doesn't meet the minimum stat requirements to vote on debates. He hasn't completed 2 without any forfeits to the end of voting period, nor has he posted 100 forum posts.
I curious if you'd care to (please) vote on this debate. You'll either laugh or cringe, either way I'm @ing for your attention.
There is a rule on this website that until the voting period is over a debater can't actively explain to a voter why their vote was 'wrong' other than by asking to look at a point in the debate. It is a rule known as 'anti-voter-manipulation' similar to the rule that bans revenge voting and quid pro quo win-win voting arrangements.
So, I can just encourage you to read the Round 2 you said I sacrificed my win condition on, I guarantee you that is the Round you have not properly read.
I read the whole debate, and I'm sorry you feel the need to report my vote without asking me first. The problem is this is directly countered because you can appreciate something that isn't real, people appreciating fictional depictions proves this. This means that Con can appreciate the fictional scenario. Is there a more specific argument you think I'm not weighing that preempted the fictional point, since you dropped it going forward?
did you actually read my Round 2 at all? Your RFD implies you didn't, if that is your full RFD then this comment is my report of it to Ragnar and Misterchris
If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
I first see that BOP is on Con, so the question is do they prove that "Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them." I believe Con appreciates the fictional scenario that would lead to Pro being in love with Con, especially since there's no argumentation against it.
Notes
Pro
Don't drop there win condition in the second round. That will do you in any debate where the other debater is good enough to say you dropped the biggest piece of offense.
Con
Don't be afraid to use yourself as a piece. Pro says that they don't love you, but say that you PERCEIVE him to love you, for example. When you are a piece of the resolution, that means you can affect it.
this debate oddly reminded me of Fauxlaw's "it is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist"
War takes many forms and everyone is defeatable.
sorry, not dictionary.com. Merriam webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appreciate
This debate doesn't involve you or require your assistance to either side.
Accepting this debate means that RM loves you. The resolution means that Con did not acknowledge/appreciate pro’s love for him, and not “Pro is not in love with Con”.
This is open challenge. I accepted it since pro cant prove “lack of appreciation” lol
Imagine if this is open challenge though.
what??! what is this debate, even?