The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,880 times Debate No: 18497
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (194)
Votes (8)

 

Double_R

Pro

Resolution

As Pro my burden in this debate will be to defend the logic of the following statement:

"You did not address his arguments, that means you concede them. That is how debate works." Cerebral_Narcissist


Rules

My opponent may make his first argument in round 1, or may simply utilize round 1 for acceptance.

The burden of proof will be shared. The participant that makes the stronger case for or against this statement wins.

No Semantics. Any further clarification of the resolution should be defined by referencing the discourse of the following link:
http://www.debate.org...
izbo10

Con

Ok this is simple all I need to do to defeat this is present a simplified debate and let the people here decide whether each side has conceded.

pro: god exists
god defined: an all loving all powerful all knowing creator of the universe
all things that begin to exist have a cause
The universe began to exist
the universe has a cause

That cause is god

Con:
If a all loving being exists,evil cannot exist
evil exists
Therefore an all loving being does not exist.
Therefore god does not exist.

Now that is a simplified debate. It is simply idiotic beyond belief to believe that either side conceded the points of the other. The audience has to decide whose argument was better. The idea that not rebutting the argument makes for a concession is ridiculous. The audience has to decide which argument was better.

A person may feel that their own arguments are more worth while then to spend there entire time debating the other persons arguments. It is completely up to the person who is debating whether they need to address the opponents arguments or present there own new arguments against the point. Being this is the case, the audience is obligated to judge the merits of an argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro


I like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge of defending his views.


Concession: the admitting of a point claimed in argument(1)


I must say, I am quite puzzled by Cons opening round as his argument seems to have nothing to do with the resolution. This debate is about whether unaddressed arguments should be considered concessions. Yet he begins by presenting a simplified example of a debate, then stating that if he can prove neither side in his example conceded, he somehow wins.


We are not debating what happened in Cons own made up hypothetical scenario. This debate is about real debates and how they should be judged. To that end, he presented no argument besides his very simple one sentence message that the audience has to decide which argument is better. Yes they do, what we are debating is how they should decide this. Hopefully Con will bring an argument for this in the next round.


Pro Case


1. The participants are debating each other, not the voters.


If the voters are to decide for themselves whether they should accept a debater’s argument then it is up to them to draw their own rebuttals. But there is no way for a debater to respond to the rebuttals of the voters because there is no way for the debaters to know what those rebuttals are. For example, if I make a case that the new healthcare law should be repealed, it is possible that one of the voters saw a news report that said the opposite of what I was arguing. The report might be completely false but if my opponent does not mention it then how would I be expected to answer back to this rebuttal? The obvious answer is that I can’t. Debates are not a public question and answer session; it is an argument between the two participants. The voters have a responsibility to judge a debate based on what the debaters said, not what they would have said had they been in the debate.


2. Debaters are judged by their ability to defend their position.


Anyone can make a statement that sounds good, or start reciting facts. The only way to determine that the statements being made are sound is if they are challenged. Facts can easily be wrong, and in some cases made up. Statements that sound good often do because they are based on false premises or logical fallacies. And in many cases the person making these statements are simply repeating what they heard or read somewhere and do not even understand what they are arguing for.


If a debater understands an issue then he/she will be able to address any argument that affirms the opposite of their position. A debater that can not address their opponents counter arguments demonstrates that they do not understand the issue being discussed. A strong debater is able to determine what is wrong with any counter argument and communicate that message effectively to the voters. That is what is being judged. Anyone can plagiarize, that doesn’t make them a good debater.


3. Concessions do not necessarily determine the debate


I will remind my opponent of the statement I am defending:


"You did not address his arguments, that means you concede them. That is how debate works."


Notice that in this statement he specifically states that “you” conceded the unaddressed arguments. He does not state that every debate must be won or lost based on this concept. In fact many arguments in any debate are not adequately addressed, nor is it necessary. Con argues that a person may feel that their best strategy is to spend time making their own arguments rather then refuting their opponents. This is true. I have done this many times. But if I chose to do that, I must be prepared to accept that my opponent’s arguments will be considered true. If I feel my argument is stronger then I will simply have to make it, then explain to the voters why my argument is stronger.


For example, I did one debate about whether Obama is a great orator. My opponent made a case that he is not a great orator by describing his tone of voice in his speeches, repetitiveness, hand gestures, etc… I made a counter argument by first defining what a great orator is, then demonstrating how Obama fits into this definition. Technically I conceded my opponents entire case, but it didn’t matter because what I showed was that his case did not affirm the resolution, while mine did.


The voters must take the arguments that are still valid at the end of the debate. If arguments are not addressed then they must be applied. Only from there can they decide who made the best argument.


Conclusion


My opponents “argument” did not make any sense in upholding his position as to why unaddressed arguments should not be considered concessions. Meanwhile I have showed that a debate is between the participants not the voters, and how voters are judged by their ability to defend their views which they can not do if they do not address counter arguments to their position. When it comes to deciding which arguments should be addressed, that is of course a decision made by the debater. A good one will be able to focus on the important aspects of the debate rather then the trivial ones.


(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


izbo10

Con

I wish I could thank my opponent for the debate but that would insult people who actually try to present good solid arguments.

First of all he is claiming that he doesn't understand how showing a debate that does not concede an argument but does not disprove his claim. The important part is the first word in the topic of the debate. All unaddressed arguments are considered concessions. If I can show one possible debate that it would not be a concession he has lost. Now, unless he is going to argue that it is not possible to have that exact debate then he loses.

Now, that he lost before I have even addressed his other points, it proves my side further. If you disprove the entire side without addressing the arguments it is not conceding.

I do however want to go over his points just to show why I feel this was terrible.

You are debating the other debater. Yes that may be true but in most debates you are trying to convince the argument. Seriously that is what he is trying to do here and he is being intellectually dishonest enough to do this. Seriously, I have to say Double R it is truly sad that you don't even grasp what you are trying to do in a debate. A debate is to convince the audience. So if you can convince the audience on your own arguments and feel you can do so without addressing your opponents arguments that does not mean you concede.

I agree with part two. But what he doesn't understand again is that a debater may think it is better to present there reasons for why they take a position and feel the audience is educated enough to see through the opponents arguments rather then go over there arguments.

Sadly all I have to say is part 3 contradicts part 1. That is truly sad and if my audience is not smart enough to figure out how please don't ask me to explain think about it.

In conclusion, I know people will say my conduct is terrible but it is his lack of intellectual honesty that is the problem here. He presents blatantly terrible arguments and I guarantee if he sat and thought about it for more then 2 seconds he could see through them. So, before saying I lose conduct think to yourself, is it good conduct to make intentionally dishonest arguments. There is no way he can seriously think what he is saying has a semblance of truth to it.
Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

Cons Example


My opponent begins his last round by asserting that all he has to do is show one example in one debate of an argument that is not considered a concession, and he wins this debate. This assertion is based off one word in the title resolution, completely disregarding everything else that was stated in round one before he accepted. Although this is a highly semantical argument (strictly forbidden in the rules), I will not bother to address this point beyond that because Con has utterly failed to accomplish what he claims he has. I would like to remind the voters of the one sentence argument Con is now claiming has won him this debate:


“It is simply idiotic beyond belief to believe that either side conceded the points of the other.”


In Cons example neither side addressed the other sides arguments, so they both conceded them. Because of this all arguments stand, leaving the judges to vote simply on whose arguments they felt were stronger. Cons issue seems to be that he feels that this is what a debate is supposed to be. His example is really not a debate but a speech contest for which deciding on a winner is utterly pointless. That is like watching an Obama speech and a Rick Perry speech, then asking a bunch of liberals whose argument they thought was better. The winner in this case is not decided by who made the better argument but who voted on it.


Cons example has nothing to do with whether an unaddressed argument should be considered a concession. A concession does not mean that the debater agrees with the unaddressed argument, it means that the voters must interpret it that way for the sake of judging. In a debate you must be able to defend your arguments by refuting counter arguments against them. If neither side does this then they both failed in that aspect making the contest at that point even.


Pro Case


1. The participants are debating each other, not the voters.


“So if you can convince the audience on your own arguments and feel you can do so without addressing your opponents arguments that does not mean you concede”


Con here is stating that debaters are trying to convince the audience of their arguments. This is true, but judging how well they do this is a very different concept. To properly judge this you must have an understanding beyond that of a typical audience member. Figure skaters for example, can convince the audience very easily that they performed better then their opponent. All they have to do is stay on their feet and most of the audience will be impressed. The judges however know better. They understand what to look for and how to score them. That is why the audience does not decide who wins the gold metal.


On DDO members are required to participate in 3 debates before voting. This is for good reason; someone who has never debated will not understand what to look for. When someone makes a counter argument it is very easy for their opponent to shy away from that argument and start spouting nonsense that sounds good. Politicians are very good at this. Judging a debate requires people who know how debate works. Real debaters understand dishonest tactics, such as diverting attention away from their opponents argument instead of addressing it when they are about to be proven wrong. Allowing concessions promotes this and ruins the quality and purpose of any debate. It would allow debaters to stay in their own world of argumentation without ever understanding the opposing point of view and never getting down to the root cause of their disagreement. That is the point of debating.


A debater who does not address his opponent’s arguments is not debating. If Con wishes to have a chance in this debate he must explain what he believes a debate is. He must explain why refutation should not play any major role in voting. He must explain how any issue would ever be resolved if neither side responds to the other sides arguments. Cons interpretation of debating is utterly pointless.


2. Debaters are judged by their ability to defend their position.


“…a debater may think it is better to present there reasons for why they take a position and feel the audience is educated enough to see through the opponents arguments rather then go over there arguments.”


Once again, the debaters are debating each other, not the audience. Anyone can “see right through” an argument. That does not mean that particular audience member is correct. There is no way for a debater to answer to the objections of the audience, nor should they have to. That is the job of their opponent. If their opponent can do this then that is what they should focus on, if they can not do this then they deserve to lose.


Once again, debating is not a speech contest. Speech is the equivalent of golf, while debating is the equivalent of football. In golf, the players play their game with little regard to what their opponents are doing. Football is completely different. Anyone can claim that they have a better argument, it is not until they “step onto the field” and have their arguments challenged that they can prove it. If they can not defend their arguments then they do not belong on the field.


3. Concessions do not necessarily determine the debate


“Sadly all I have to say is part 3 contradicts part 1. That is truly sad and if my audience is not smart enough to figure out how please don't ask me to explain think about it.”


If my opponent is not smart enough to realize that he should explain how part 1 contradicts part 3 then the audience should not give him credit for an argument he didn’t make. However since I should provide a rebuttal to avoid conceding this point, here it is: Part 1 and 3 do not contradict each other. Think about it.


There. That makes our arguments on this point even.


Conclusion


Con has made no real attempt to uphold his end of the resolution. He relies on insulting my arguments as opposed to refuting them, and just repeats his same old statements instead of elaborating on them to show how he is correct.

izbo10

Con

I am going to make this short and sweet not bothing with his stupidity.

concede-To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit. See Synonyms at acknowledge.

http://education.yahoo.com...

In my example neither side is admitting it is true. Let me explain. The conclusions are mutually exclusive. The one guy is arguing god exists. He can not concede the argument that concludes therefore god does not exists. The other guy is arguing god does not exist. He is still arguing that god does not exist and hence does not concede. He does not have to address the argument, but that in no way means he is admitting it true,just or proper.
Debate Round No. 3
Double_R

Pro

I will remind my opponent of the resolution:


“All unaddressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions”


Should be considered by who? While I think this is self explanatory and was made blatantly clear throughout this debate, allow me to remind my opponent of one of the statements I made in the last round:


“A concession does not mean that the debater agrees with the unaddressed argument, it means that the voters must interpret it that way for the sake of judging.”


This entire debate has focused on how debates should be judged by the voters. Now Con is trying to claim that my argument is invalid by waiting for round 3 to present a definition that has nothing to do with the voters.


Con has put no effort into this debate and relies on the audience here to refute my arguments for him. Since none of my arguments have been addressed there is nothing left for me to say. Had Con presented an intelligent counterargument we might have accomplished something with this debate. Instead the only accomplishment here was in showing further why debating him is so pointless.

izbo10

Con

izbo10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
194 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Izbo10 appears to be speaking a dialectic of English, called "Logorrhoea"
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I am not sure anyone else on this site speaks Izbo.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
If anyone can translate Izbo's attack on me in to English then please PM it to me.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Premise 1: morals are the study of what humans do to benefit society and harm society

Premise 2: We can look at facts about what actually does benefit society and harm society

Premise 3: Objective is Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Conclusion: Morals are objective cause they are based on facts of what benefits society.

Which premise are you disagreeing with?

"1.
Obviously.

We have had this argument before, we will not have this argument again until I have taught you what objective means."

Cerebral

Cerebral_Narcissist

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 9,672
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message

10/12/2011 8:50:06 AM
Posted: 13 hours ago

At 10/12/2011 8:48:11 AM, izbo10 wrote:

You object to 1 and attack premise 3 this is the stupidest approach ever.

Where? Why can't you read?

How can someone who has studied philosophy at university not tell me what objectivity means? Someone who prides himself on logic... yet does not know what underpins logic...

What is that Bertrand Russel quote... only what we see here are my statements after having passed through that lump of faecal matter you presume to call a brain. Where did I attack P3? I've not engaged with your argument at all, only to tell you that P1 is invalid.

His quotes in a row. Just so everyone can see how fuckin retarded this guy is.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Cerebral has even blown me away today, I even underestimated his stupidity. I made a syllogism on why morality is objective. I asked him what premise he disagrees with. He states he disagrees with premise 1. Then he proceeds to attack only premise 3 and claims he isn't. Even though premise 3 is the definition of objectivity and he keeps asking me to define objectivity. It was truly pathetic to see.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
This retard stuff is quite amusing and entertaining.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
No retard, you have posted two quotes of mine several times. You have yet to show how my two quotes are mutually exclusive. To an English speaker they are not. I can't even pay you to make a decent argument.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Nothing to say about my last comment huh Izbo?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Wow you can't even read I have posted them several times idiot. Stop being intellectually dishonest and admit you were caught.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Retard, what are these two statements and how are they mutually exclusive? You have been challenged the onus is on YOU to provide EVIDENCE. People here have the right to be judged on what they actually said and how they actually behaved.

Why do I need to engage with a compulsive liar who can't even tell me what objective means?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually argues. Con uses Ad Hominems. Con then forfeits round 4. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd normally make some sarcastic joke about how Con forfeited rounds and insulted readers, but its kind of late so I'll think of one tomorrow.
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All points Pro - and why not? Izbo forfeited a round, continuously insulted users, while the root of the problem is that he himself doesn't understand the topic... Con barely has a workable grasp of the English language, and posted no sources save for a useless dictionary one.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Self explanatory. Con uses ad hominin in round 2, horrifying spelling, and forfeited. This is a clear win for PRO! Update LOL@ Thett3 RFD!
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Izbo forfeited (therefore dropping R's arguments) and we all now that drops=concessions :)
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were difficult to understand and they never actually addressed the resolution directly. They were all irrelevant. This was not a debate. It was merely Pro explaining his side.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for insulting within the debate rounds and trolling the comments, Con loses spelling and grammar for obvious reasons, Con does produce an argument but it is barely in English, and ultimately taken to it's logical conclusion it actually affirms Pro. Pro provided more sources.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I am convinced that after reading the entire debate, Izbo10 is unwilling to read or respond to his opponent in a debate or even make an argument pertinent to the resolution. His games, a particular characteristic of himself, are quite entertaining but when perused under scrutiny, fails.