Instigator / Pro
8
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Topic
#3035
There is 0% chance of CON winning 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 3 points ahead, the winner is...
gugigor
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 995
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
11
1499
rating
52
debates
35.58%
won
Description
This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!
Round 1
Notice how the title refers to probability, not possibility. Many uncertainties, like divine intervention or alien invasions, are not taken into consideration by statistical analysis.
"There is no way that a test that is unreliable is valid...Statistical validity is threatened by the violation of statistical assumptions" [statisticssolutions].
This means that a statistical result is invalid unless the dataset conforms to statistical assumptions. Among those necessary assumptions, there are the dataset rules. If your dataset contains elements that violate the rules set up in the statistical analysis, then your claim about "chance" is invalid. I will provide an example. Though with cheating possible, rolling a seven with normal dice simply isn't a valid option. No valid statistical dataset can include a non-zero probability of rolling a seven.
Similarly; claims of CON having a chance to win are statistically invalid due to violating assumptions and relying on invalid uncertainties.
Conversely;
since the rules of this debate make CON's victory not a valid option;
I am 100% justified in claiming that CON has a 0% chance of winning this debate.
There is little obligation for people to follow Pro's rules. The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience -- which Pro has no way of predicting. I argue that we must uphold moral imperative of freedom of speech and allowing differing opinions. Pro arbitrarily censors those who oppose him merely to boost his confidence. Yet the benefits of debating are critical thinking, ability of research, and organization. With his rule set-up, he clearly impedes the very purpose of debating. Imagine if he had said Con must murder an innocent to win this debate. The detriment to society would be immense as a human life is immeasurably precious. Similarly, Pro values his own "Debating rule" ideal, without any justification whatsoever. There are reasonable rules for setup, for example, debate structure, but Pro's rules are not within common sense. It does not make sense to force judges to be discredited, and therefore we must not follow Pro's description layout.
Round 2
CON has confused our current debate with this debate. They aren't synonymous. This debate refers to a rigged debate in which votes for CON are reported and removed.
Any debate in which votes for CON aren't reported and removed is not this debate.
I admit that in our current debate, votes for CON are not going to be reported or removed. All of CON's accusations against me fall flat in front of this fact. I am neither silencing him nor undermining the purpose of debating. I am merely outplaying him. Since our current debate and this debate aren't the same, the outcome of our current debate in no way dictates the outcome of this debate. CON possibly winning our current debate doesn't disprove the resolution. At most, it would disprove that I instigated this debate.
The probability of something which is impossible to happen is 0. [probability]
- P1: If the rules are followed, then CON has a 0% chance of winning a rigged debate he can't win.
- P2: The rules must be followed for a statistical claim to be valid [R1].
- C: The only valid statistical claim is that CON has a 0% chance of winning this debate.
Logic and mathematics support my claim. VOTE PRO!
Pro tries a suave maneuver where he says "this debate" is not our current debate. Even if I was not resisting Pro's ideals, the rules set out still fall under the same principle of censoring opposing viewpoints with zero justification whatsoever.
Remember: The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience. Therefore in the rigged debate, Pro would have to be incredibly persuasive and support the oppression of free speech, successfully forcing moderators to remove all votes that give a majority of points to Con. But Ben here has no way to prove that Pro is a strong debater with excellent anti-free-speech arguments or good knowledge of the social contract (or perhaps obligation to follow rules). For example, if the rigged debate had Pro so confident that he forfeited all rounds, yet I was con and I presented the argument in favor of free speech, surely the moderators would feel the moral obligation is stronger than the mere rule set out in the debate.
Rules are meant to improve societal benefit. The moderators are the only ones in true control; they are the ultimate authority that Ben cannot predict. Vote for Con.
Its a blatant contradiction then. If you don't agree with what you put in your description, then.... don't do it.
Your description and arguments need to agree. I get the attempt to be cute. Doesn’t fly.
I would just mention that the debate we are commenting on isn't rigged. I have no plan of removing votes, nor do I have an agreement with moderators to remove the votes. I of course know that moderators aren't gonna agree with the description. Even if you believe I wanted an auto-win, you would still know that my plan was to abuse the description to win the debate rather than actually remove the votes. Reading my R1 clearly shows that I do accept the possibility of losing as real, but I only regard it as invalid in STATISTICAL terms.
And I think your wrong - the description of THIS debate:
"This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!"
I understand your conduct point.
I severely disagree with your sources point. CON uses a single source and does not demonstrate which impact it had, other than PRO's victory being unfair, which doesn't at all disprove PRO's victory. My R1 source basically proves that my claim of chance is valid since a debate won by CON would violate statistical assumptions. Unless by sources point you merely mean to punish for what you see as conduct failure, I don't see any reason for giving it to CON rather than tie.
With arguments point, I am not sure I understand. I clearly stated that it is impossible to roll a seven on "A" normal dice. But you base both your rejection of my R2 source and your rejection of my R1 argument based on a misunderstanding that with two dice it is possible. My argument in R1 was that only with cheating (aka, using two dice or re-painting the single dice) can you roll a seven. Thus, to claim that there is a non-zero probability of rolling a seven with that one dice would violate assumptions (that seven is not a valid option on a normal dice), and thus not be a valid claim of chance. CON never rebuts my logical evidence, so I am curious as to why you gave him the argument point.
I ask you to at the very least re-vote with a correct understanding of my R1 dice example, and nurces points based ot give soon a misinterpretation of said point.
As stated in my R1, the debate you are commenting on is not the same as this debate. I have no plan of removing votes.
Well there goes your plan to remove votes
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debate, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
**************************************************
Thank you for voting.
Until Round 2, Con doesn't even mention the concept of a win condition nor does Con explain what makes it more than 0% likely the audience will vote Pro since the rules dictate it.
Sure, report my vote. Then I will explain why he didn't really.
Just a heads up... in round 1 con did already mention only the audience had to be persuaded. In case you missed it
Actually, it is. The debate wherein the moderators refuse to accept the rules isn't actually this debate.
nice try... but not good enough!
Not how descriptions work bud
You did read the description, didn't you?
No. Not Elo farming. I honestly enjoyed writing this argument.
If you read my debates, you will see that I like to debate strange topics, especially those where one side should have a considerable advantage.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
This and the section above it, read them and combine them.
It implies voters shouldn't reward cheating autowin debates yet it's also fallacious voting to vote against the autowinner just because they did that.
RM: How is a debate like this allowed?
Ragnar: Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.
RM: Wrong. They are.
...
I don't believe I was semantically misrepresenting your words. I had no way to infer you meant how could this debate be allowed to be rated instead of unrated from the first post in the conversation, nor your second.
Please quote any part of the CoC which dictates what debate types must be unrated? To my knowledge it is not there. If I'm correct, you are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to change that.
What? I've said this completely calmly, lol - are you that bad at reading moods? No - there is no nitpicking here, I've explained (in detail) why you are wrong here. You can back up your arguments or you can hand wave emm' away - your choice - this isn't me "picking a fight" this is me seeing something untrue and correcting you, I'm sorry - but you have to be one arrogant little prick to assume that me correcting you is me "trying to pick a fight" - see - now I'm frustrated, but that's more or less because you don't like what I have to say.
Anywho - the questions are rhetorical - that should be obvious bud - second of all -what? I said that automatically accepting a description as uncontestable fact was highly abusable, not to mention against the actual principles of accepting to be against the instigator - please explain (in detail) why that is nitpicking and how I am trying to pick a fight with you. Do you believe me interacting with you in a way that is disagreeing is me picking a fight with you? There is a very clear difference in me picking fights and me arguing, please learn it.
Your anger and nitpicking don't matter to me. I exolained to you the answer, you nitpick the 'Pro outlining their case' exception to the rule scenario to disprove me... What was the point in asking me? You only look for fights when you ask or tell me things.
Dude, why do you always look for semantic loopholes to disagree with me on issues of moderation?
I'm saying post-creation, this debate should be forced unrated.
My problem is that if that were the case, then kritiks would be effectively useless - I don't think that the mere fact that something is stated in the resolution that it should be opheimed, it makes much more sense to just have both debaters come to agreed definitions and such before the debate - but the fact that your opponent can see the description does not mean they accept the description - if you notice- a description is optional in a debate, whereas a resolution is not - as a debater, whenever you accept a debate, you are not accepting the resolution or the description - you are accepting that you are arguing for or against the resolution, that is literally it.
Given your logic, if there was something in the description, say - an argument for the resolution, - then that must defacto be accepted and is unarguably... which - is not only highly abusable, but quite stupid. I'm sorry, but no - your plain ole' wrong here - I have done the research too - nothing in the CoC says that accepting a debate means you accept what is said in the description - in fact - just like the resolution - it makes more sense that you are AGAINST the description, just as you are against the instigator's position. That is the point of debates
If you really think I'm wrong to believe that I have not manually approved the creation of each debate before it goes live, you're welcome to challenge me to a debate on that topic; or any of the subtopics such as which debates are allowed to be rated.
As for minutea of this specific debate: I really don't want to say too much ahead of time for fear of influencing the debate arguments.
The person who accepts the debate sees the description, the person who instigated wrote it, therefore by oure logic both sides agreed to it upon acceptance.
I've been punished both for setting trap descriptions and for accepting and complaining/rule-bending. Ramshutu punished me both times, I don't say I agree with his hypocritical voting but I do say that both approaches have been happening.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
This and the section above it, read them and combine them.
Please quote the part of the CoC that specifically says or implies that the description is automatically accepted, because I've actually investigated this before, and found no such principle.
Elo farming?
Wrong. They are. That is why the CoC says that autowin truisms are rendered unrated troll debates by force. It's something you enforce sporadically if at all.
Debate resolutions and descriptions are not pre-approved by admins.
You are a brave one
I actually can see a strategy here... I won't say what it is.
I think I could win this.
How is a debate like this allowed?