Instigator / Pro

drlebronski

1449

rating

debates

35.71%

won

Topic

#3201

i will lose this debate

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

drlebronski

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 08.18.2021 02:02AM
Last updated date: 08.29.2021 03:58PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

gugigor

1499

rating

debates

35.58%

won

Description

Rules:
no forfeits.
no semantics.

Round 1

drlebronski

08.20.2021 02:19AM

Pro

Forfeited

gugigor

08.21.2021 03:31PM

Con

From my point of view, "I will lose this debate" refers to Con and not pro.

Since pro has violated his own rules, he loses, therefore "I (Con) will lose the debate" is disproved.

Good game.

Round 2

drlebronski

08.21.2021 06:59PM

Pro

lets take a look at the definition of I "the one who is speaking or writing" In fact I was the one who wrote the resolution NOT my opponent

Since pro has violated his own rules, he loses,

Yes I do lose

gugigor

08.22.2021 03:58PM

Con

From pro's point of view, he has to argue that he's going to lose the debate. But from my point of view, it's whether Con will lose the debate. Therefore, there is no contradiction, and I win the debate.

drlebronski

08.28.2021 02:57PM

if i do win this debate then i lose this debate

949havoc

08.23.2021 05:34AM

Oops. Sorry guys. I went to vote on this debate, but I do not yet qualify to vote. I did read the Voting Policy, but forgot the restriction on new members. I will try to qualify in the next 6 days to enter a vote.

Intelligence_06

08.20.2021 07:45AM

-->

@drlebronski

Wow, this is "Show, don't tell" taken to the extreme.

Intelligence_06

08.18.2021 03:16AM

-->

@drlebronski

How is it possible for this debate to have no semantics when there is no real "content" to feed the topic statement with except the topic statement itself?

949havoc

08.28.2021 02:54PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro has lost the debate by virtue of breaking the no forfeit rule.
Con has lost the debate for the incorrect argument, the only argument by Con, offered in both rounds, that Con is the instigator and composer of the topic statement when, clearly, the instigator is Pro.
This debate results in the unusual tied loss. No one wins.

Nyxified

08.23.2021 04:58PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The resolution is a paradox. To lose a debate, you must be proven wrong, but if you lose this debate, you're proven right, which means you should win, which means you're proven wrong and should lose (this repeats forever). Neither side can then conceivably be correct in any meaningful way.

Conduct point to con as pro literally forfeit 50% of the debate and the "no semantics" rule is ridiculous. There's no way to understand what is being debated if we do not have an absolute meaning of the resolution as established by the way the resolution itself is worded. Both sides engage in semantics anyways.

zedvictor4

08.23.2021 07:05AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

In order to win the debate both Pro and Con must lose the debate, sort of a double catch 22 situation.

Both violated rules, conduct was good and both presented with minor grammatical oversights.

And In the end, neither overcame the inherent dilemma.

So undoubtedly a tie.

RationalMadman

08.23.2021 06:20AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con broke the rule about 'no semantics' meaning Con abusing the term 'I' the way that he did, itself was a violation.

Pro violated the forfeit rule but correctly points out, in Round 2, that this further cements the resolution as true since he is securing his own defeat.