The Instigator
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrDelaney
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

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 3 votes the winner is...
MrDelaney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 103189
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

FanboyMctroll

Pro

I can disprove or provide doubt for any debate, point of view or fact you provide. Everything has 2 sides of the story to it and every topic can be disproved or challenged. For example, you get caught speeding, I can take it to court and challenge it by stating "When was the last time the radar was calibrated"? As it might not be reading the speed correctly therefore I was not speeding. Another example might be an incriminating e-mail that is sent, I can argue that I was hacked and I didn't send it. Or incriminating pictures, I can argue they were photo shopped. So name me any topic you want to discuss or believe in and I will cast doubt on it and show that it can be disproven. Even scientific data can be altered to a certain point of view by the author. Therefore there is nothing that is certain. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Debate a topic, anything you like and I will show you how I can refute it.
MrDelaney

Con

First off I’d like to sincerely thank FanboyMctroll for this debate. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we’ll both have a fun and engaging time. The concepts of doubt and certainty are at the core of everything we discuss here on debate.org, so I think this is a fascinating and fitting exercise.

FanboyMctroll proposes that he can cast doubt on any fact or topic. He is arguing the Pro side of this proposition, and I will (obviously) be defending the Con side. I do not believe he has the ability to cast doubt on any fact or topic.


In order to defeat his claim definitively I need only show that there is at least one fact or topic which FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt upon. The burden of proof will be on FanboyMctroll to demonstrate that he is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.


As he stated in his opening round, this will be done through the means of an example topic. He has been gracious enough to allow me to choose the topic which will serve as an example for this debate. As he put it himself: name me any topic you want to discuss or believe in and I will cast doubt on it and show that it can be disproven.”

I will reserve my own arguments for the next round and allow FanboyMctroll to attack the example topic on his own terms first. And so, I give you the following topic which FanboyMctroll must now attempt to cast doubt upon.


The topic is: FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.

Debate Round No. 1
FanboyMctroll

Pro

Very well written introduction Mr. Delaney, so lets get this debate started.

Please do not tell me the topic of doubt is whether I can cast doubt on any topic, because if that is your topic of reasoning then I will go find a crack pipe and start singing kumbaya with my rose colored glasses and dropping acid as I debate philosophical issues of why the sky is blue.
MrDelaney

Con

I see that FanboyMctroll was, unfortunately not a fan of my topic choice.
The topic at hand, which he must attempt to cast doubt upon, is:


"FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.”

This debate has two outcomes as I see it:

1) FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on the topic at hand, thus making my case for me.

2) FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt on the topic thus proving my case.


I can tell you sincerely that I did not choose this topic to be a smarta** (though I’m sure it could look that way). The point here is that FanboyMctroll made a claim of absolute certainty in an attempt to claim that certainty is an impossibility. His position is self refuting. This is evidenced by the ironic fact that the only way he can prove his point is to argue against his own proposition.

As I said in the first round: “In order to defeat his claim definitively I need only show that there is at least one fact or topic which FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt upon.” I believe that I have accomplished this already.

If FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on my chosen topic then he will be making the case against himself. If he is unable to cast doubt on the chosen topic then his proposition will be proven false.

The one thing that is clear here is that FanboyMctroll's stance is self refuting. This means that FanboyMctroll is not able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.


I look forward to his response and sincerley hope that he does not actually "go find a crack pipe."

Debate Round No. 2
FanboyMctroll

Pro

I can't cast doubt on this debate, because I started this debate and I'm not casting doubt on myself, the whole point of this debate was to show that any view or fact can have doubt to it.

My opponent is trying to argue "It is what it is" argument, that's like saying the sky is blue, ok and??

My opponent is essentially debating nothing and is trying to cast doubt on me for debating this. This is the most pointless debate ever, and so I'm forfeiting because there is no point in discussing nothing. This is like trying to tell a sociopath that they are crazy. They will never understand that because it's beyond their realm of understanding, they think they are normal. You can argue until the cows come home but the argument is pointless. It's like telling a religious person that religion is BS, if they are religious they won't believe you anyways, people are set in their ways. That's what this debate is like " I know your debate but what am I" Pointless
MrDelaney

Con

I had truly hoped that this debate might be a bit more fun and spirited. But in the end it seems that my opponent has simply given up and accepted that his position is self refuting.

This debate began with FanboyMctroll's claim that "any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on."
And we have now ended it with him saying clearly, “I can't cast doubt on this debate.”


He claimed that I am “essentially debating nothing.
I would point out that I have laid out a fairly clear argument of self refutation since the inception of this debate, which FanboyMctroll has made no effort to rebut, nor explain why he finds it be to fallacious.


Lastly, FanboyMctroll has said clearly in his last round that he is forfeiting the debate.


Given the self refuting nature of his claim, the fact that he flatly admitted he cannot cast doubt on this debate and the fact that he clearly said “I’m forfeiting,” I would ask that you therefore vote for Con in this debate.

FanboyMctroll is clearly not able to cast doubt on any fact or topic. This has been shown clearly through evidence, argument, and even by his own admission.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 12 months ago
FanboyMctroll
Good points but I have gotten off in court every time, all you have to do is create doubt. Works every time, have never been convicted.
Posted by rextr05 12 months ago
rextr05
Yes, you can use the argument of calibration time in court. Thing is, that argument has been used since radar has been used. Will you win that case ...... absolutely not, unless the cop states it hasn't been calibrated in an unacceptable time period. Cops will usually state the calibration date with their opening remarks. Calibration argument out the door b4 you open your mouth.
Likewise re emails. It's incumbent upon you to prove you've been hacked, not just your say so.
Posted by rextr05 12 months ago
rextr05
Yes, you can use the argument of calibration time in court. Thing is, that argument has been used since radar has been used. Will you win that case ...... absolutely not, unless the cop states it hasn't been calibrated in an unacceptable time period. Cops will usually state the calibration date with their opening remarks. Calibration argument out the door b4 you open your mouth.
Likewise re emails. It's incumbent upon you to prove you've been hacked, not just your say so.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 9 months ago
DNehlsen
FanboyMctrollMrDelaneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A well placed paradox broke down Pro's entire argument.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 12 months ago
PowerPikachu21
FanboyMctrollMrDelaneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con creates an internal problem with Pro's side. Con points out if FanBoy can cast doubt on "I can cast doubt on any view", then he'd essentially be arguing he can't cast doubt on it. And by not attempting to, he can't cast doubt on this resolution. Pro concedes: "This is the most pointless debate ever, and so I'm forfeiting because there is no point in discussing nothing.". Arguments to Con by default then.
Vote Placed by XDM 12 months ago
XDM
FanboyMctrollMrDelaneyTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is refuting. He lost before con even accepted the debate.