The Instigator
seladore
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Albert
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Cats always land on their feet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 31839
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

seladore

Pro

I will argue that cats always land on their feet. Albert will argue that cats do not always land on their feet.

Both For and Against must use logic in the form of academic argument. This is the only rule.

I will begin.

Cats do always land on their feet because my pet cat has always landed on its feet.

My pet cat has always landed on its feet. I have had my pet cat for five years and I have never seen it not land on its feet. I have seen it jump off the couch, the table, and have even thrown it off my roof, but in all such cases it has always landed on its feet.

Therefore cats do always land on their feet.
Albert

Con

Although cats have astounding reflexes and agility, this doesn't assert cats always land on their feet. Without evidence to support claims, regardless how logical they appear, can never be absolute unless clear evidence is proven.

Example, if we claim no Tyrannosaur-Rex exist, we're asserting the ability to collect data from the entire world at the same time. Otherwise it maybe argued the Tyrannosaur-Rex moved while you were at location X.

Therefore, to make such a universal absolute claim, your asserting this ability.
Debate Round No. 1
seladore

Pro

Con's argument is invalid for two reasons. Firstly, it broke the rule of having to use the stucture of academic argument because it lacked clarity. Secondly, his argument sought to disprove Pro's with the factor of evidence, which was not described by the rules.

Con's argument is invalid because it broke the rule of having to use the structure of academic argument through a lack of clarity. Academic argument must be above all clear, and must contain a thesis, a body-paragraph, and a conclusion. Although his argument has the last three of such elements, the second sentence of his introductions elaborates his thesis, which belongs in the body, and his body-paragraph is a lone example of his thesis without a restatement of his it. On top of this, his grammar is bad. His argument fails in clarity, so it cannot be called academic, and according to the rules of this debate becomes therefore invalid.

Con's argument is invalid because it sought to disprove mine by invloving evidence, which was not a factor included in the rules. For example, Albert said that claims without evidence can never be proven. But the opening argument clearly stated that debators must use logic and academic argument, and that 'This is the only rule'. Con failed to debate within the rules of this debate. His argument is therefore invalid.

Con's argument lacked clarity, which disqualified its academic form, and it tried to use the factor of evidence as a reason against Pro's argument, which was against the rules. Therefore Con's argument is invalid.
Albert

Con

Although cats have astounding reflexes and agility, this doesn't assert cats always land on their feet.

Without evidence to support claims, regardless how logical they appear, can never be absolute unless clear evidence is proven. Example, if we claim no Tyrannosaur-Rex exist, we're asserting the ability to collect data from the entire world at the same time. Otherwise it maybe argued the Tyrannosaur-Rex moved while you were at location X.

Therefore, to make such a universal absolute claim about cats, your asserting the logical perception of your pet cat is universal without adequate evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
Albert

Con

Pro has failed to use logic in the form of academic argument.

It's clear for anyone who understands english that "fu*k" isn't a reasonable reply. However if he stubbed his toe, or reversed over his cat and said "fu*k" it would be reasonable. Since this debate has rules and parameters, his reply must fit within the code, and be judged accordingly.

In conclusion, I see no logical reply from Pro therefore shall not offer any new evidence for my position.
Debate Round No. 3
seladore

Pro

seladore forfeited this round.
Albert

Con

Pro has failed to use logic in the form of academic argument, by not posting.

Because my opponent hasn't replied, it's a automatic forfeit of the rules. Due to lack of information to go on, ill simply fill in time talking about how my dog encouraged me to buy a cat and continually drop it from great heights. My dog volunteered to record the data, and even buy a new cat if the first died.

So I conclude, Pro has failed to post a creditable argument within the rules.
Debate Round No. 4
seladore

Pro

seladore forfeited this round.
Albert

Con

Pro has failed to use logic in the form of academic argument, by not posting.

Because my opponent hasn't replied, it's a automatic forfeit of the rules. Due to lack of information to go on, ill simply fill in time talking about how my dog encouraged me to buy a cat and continually drop it from great heights. My dog volunteered to record the data, and even buy a new cat if the first died.

So I conclude, Pro has failed to post a creditable argument within the rules.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
no not always.
in dark they cant guess where the land is so they may land on any body part and get injury after all they are animals.
No votes have been placed for this debate.