The Instigator
Surrealism
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Debate Halting Problem

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 2 votes the winner is...
Surrealism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 69051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Surrealism

Pro

RULES:

1. Opponent must make a prediction of the winner of this debate in the first round.

2. Their prediction will be used as the resolution.

I've wanted to debate this for a while.
Zaradi

Con

Accepted.

I predict that the Con side (i.e. me) will win this debate. Which would make the resolution something along the lines of...

Resolved: The user known as Zaradi will win this debate.

I'll go ahead and throw in a few definitions while I'm at it so we can avoid semantical non-sense.

"Zaradi" - me. http://www.debate.org...

"Will - used to express probability and the likliness of an action

"This debate" - the debate we are currently having at this moment. The link to it is here http://www.debate.org...

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Surrealism

Pro

I will present a simple argument to affirm the resolution.


Premise One: If the user known as Surrealism fails to confirm the resolution, then the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Burden of Proof) [1]

Premise Two: The resolution can either be true or false. (Disjunction Introduction) [2]

Premise Three: If the resolution is true, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Definition of the resolution) [3]

Subpremise One: If the resolution is false, then the user known as Surrealism cannot prove it to be true. (Law of Noncontradiction) [4]

Subpremise Two: If the user known as Surrealism cannot prove the resolution to be true, then they fail to confirm the resolution. (Definition of confirmation) [5]

Subpremise Three: If the resolution is false, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Conditional Syllogism, Subpremise One and Two) [6]

Premise Four: If the resolution is true or false, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Disjunction Elimination, Premise Two and Three, Subpremises One through Three) [7]

Premise Five: The user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Modus Ponens, Premise Two and Four) [8]


I thus turn over the floor to my opponent.

SOURCES:

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://www.millersville.edu...
[3]http://www.debate.org...
[4]http://www.millersville.edu...
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6]http://www.millersville.edu...
[7]http://www.millersville.edu...
[8]http://www.millersville.edu...
Zaradi

Con

Role of the Ballot:

The role of the ballot is to determine who does a better job debating the resolution by evaluating the arguments each side makes against each other. This is the only fair way to evaluate a debate because it better eliminates judge bias compared to evaluating a debate based on if the resolution is true or false. This mean you're determining the victor of the debate by who makes the better arguments, rather than who proves the resolution to be true or false. If Pro makes the better arguments, then he "wins" the debate, meaning you negate the resolution. If I make the better arguments, then I "win" the debate, meaning you affirm the resolution.


Thus, my argument is simple: I won't make an argument. Without making an argument, it's impossible for me to have the better arguments, meaning that I cannot "win" the debate, which means you have to vote con as the resolution is negated: I cannot "win" the debate without making an argument, since the way in which we decide the winner of debates is on who has the better argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Surrealism

Pro

My opponent mentions that debate winners are to be determined by the quality of arguments, not by the truth of the resolution. This is correct, and falsifies Subpremise Two of my argument.

My opponent then explains how they will win the debate by not making an argument and demonstrates how this will allow them to win the debate. The problem is that my opponent structured their explanation as an argument which can be written in the Premise-Conclusion form.

Premise One: If the user known as Zaradi does not make an argument, then they do not have better arguments than the user known as Surrealism.

Premise Two: If the user known as Zaradi does not have better arguments than the user known as Surrealism, then the user known as Zaradi cannot win the debate.

Conclusion: If the user known as Zaradi does not make an argument, then they cannot win the debate.

The problem is that this is itself an argument, and so Zaradi has made an argument against the resolution. And, since they probed that my argument was flawed, they actually have a better argument than I do.
Zaradi

Con

My opponent's simply trying to make arguments for me. I never said any of that, nor structured my argument in that fashion. I'm simply not making any kind of argument. If I don't make any argument, then it's impossible for me to "win" the debate, which means you vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Surrealism

Pro

My opponent may say that they are not making an argument, but that doesn't mean that they aren't. Look at their last sentence.

"If I don't make any argument, then it's impossible for me to "win" the debate, which means you vote con."

From this sentence we can see my opponent does have an argument. They are saying two things:

If I don't make any argument, then it's impossible for me to "win" the debate.

If it's impossible for me to "win" the debate, you vote con.

Those seem to be premises of my opponent's argument. My opponent clearly has a better argument than I do.
Zaradi

Con

So this debate comes down to two things: Am I making an argument, and what about his argument?


My "Argument":


My opponent continues to strawman my position: I'm not making an argument. Making a statement saying that "I'm hungry" isn't an argument, but rather just a written sentance. Saying "I won't make an argument" fulfills the same thing. You prefer my interpretation of my argument because, well, I'm the one who made the stupid thing and one would hope I know what I'm talking about (I do know what I'm talking about, just to comfort those of you at home). Because I don't have an argument, I can't win the debate, which means you vote con.



Hey wait a second, what about my opponent's argument?


I've made literally no response to my opponent's arguments at all, which means that you're prefering his argument over mine simply because my "argument" is contested on whether it's valid or not. His is simply unrefuted and not responded to, which means that it's inherently superior to my "argument".

But his attempt to cross apply my "argument" to refute his subpremise two doesn't even work since it doesn't do that. It's just true that if he's failing to show how the resolution is true, then he can't affirm it. All arguments intend to show either one of two things: how your side is right or how the other side isn't. His subpremise is still true.

But even if his subpremise two is false, his argument still stands just fine without it. His subpremise one does enough work to show that if the resolution is false, then it's hard to show that it's not really false. If he can't do that, then it's impossible for him to fulfill his Burden of Proof (which is his first premise).

So there's literally no reason not to prefer his argument over my "whatever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-it". Which means that, just based off of the quality of arguments (if you call what I did an "argument"), his is superior and, thus, he wins the debate. Because he wins the debate here, you still vote con.


This means there's two different ways you negate the resolution:

1. I never even made an argument, which means you have to give the win to Pro by default (which means you negate).
2. Even if you consider what I said an "argument", his is still superior to mine for the three reasons I listed above, which means he still wins the debate (which means you still negate).
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by KonstanBen 2 years ago
KonstanBen
Okay, I fixed it
Posted by KonstanBen 2 years ago
KonstanBen
Wait, I'm sorry, I meant to vote Aff, saying that neg won the argument. This back and forth was just confusing.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ohohoh, pro's got a tough opponent. How will he ever win?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
SurrealismZaradiTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: An amusing application of logic. Con's resolution was paradoxical and negated the moment she made an argument.
Vote Placed by KonstanBen 2 years ago
KonstanBen
SurrealismZaradiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The Aff better interpreted the Neg's words and twisted the arguments in a more favorable way.