The Instigator
Clovis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
christopher1006
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Debate Instigators Should Never Be Con

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...
christopher1006
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 68193
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Clovis

Pro

I am starting this debate as I have recently been continuously frustrated in that I click on debate topics that I would be interested in taking only to find that the instigator has taken CON on the position. This is not how debates should be instigated and I will be arguing that point.

The definitions should be self explanatory. The person who instigates the debate is the one who has issued the public challenge. They should take the PRO and not the CON when instigating. Simple.

If there are any questions comment or raise them in the first round.

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Arguments
Third Round: Conclusions

I want this debate to be a rather short one as the topic is exhaustive.

Thank you.
christopher1006

Con

I accept this debate as the con. I thank the pro for the opportunity to discuss this intriguing topic.
Debate Round No. 1
Clovis

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting.

1. Illogical

Debate resolutions are statements of affirmation. No matter how they are worded (as long as they are not a question) they are a defensible position. For example: We Should Colonize Mars or We Should Not Colonize Mars.

These are standard debate resolutions. When someone initiates a debate, or initiates a statement in general, you automatically assume that they are in agreement or at least not in disagreement with what they are saying.

For example: Vegetables Are Delicious

If someone were to say that you are not going to wonder if they are Pro or Con on that statement, since the statement was initiated it is assumed that the initiator has some sort of conviction towards the statement. It would be illogical for someone to say "Vegetables are delicious" and when asked "Really?" they say "No they're actually disgusting, I'm Con on that statement". It's completely illogical.

2. No Different For Debates

This principle of assumption and the illogical nature of affirming something then taking the Con side of it is no different when initiating a debate.

Example:
The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad [sic]

This is a current debate that is in the challenge period. When you read the title you think that the person initiating the debate is for this statement just as you assume the guy praising vegetables is for his statement. Then when you look at the debate more carefully the instigator is the Con. This is misleading due to the logical assumption that someone affirming a statement agrees with it.

If we do not assume this then things get really misleading which is deceptive and irritating.

3. All Debate Resolutions Can Be Written For Pro

There is no reason for a debate to be instigated by Con as all resolutions can be written to fit a Pro position. Take our previous example: The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad.

The rewrite looks like this: The Russian City of Volgograd should not be renamed to Stalingrad
or
The Name Change of the Russian City of Volgograd Was Good

These are two statements that are good resolutions that could be defended from the Pro position. This would clear up the illogical and confusing nature of not knowing if the initiator is defending or attacking their own resolution.

Conclusion

It is illogical, deceptive and counterproductive to initiate a debate resolution (or any affirmative statement) and then turn around and take the Con side.

All debate resolutions can be rewritten so that the Pro can defend the position they want.

Therefore, there is no excuse for illogical, deceptive and counterproductive behavior.

Debate instigators should never be Con.

Thank you.

christopher1006

Con

Debate: A discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something. – Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Resolution: The act of finding an answer or solution to a conflict, problem, etc : the act of resolving something. – Merriam-Webster dictionary.

The flow of my round will simply address the pros points in the order that they were presented, I will still number them for clarity in reading.

1.

Debate resolutions, by my definition which is the standing definition as pro did not provide any predetermined examples or definitions themselves, are as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Therefore, the pro is stating a purely subjective statement that lacks reasonable support. By my definition, the resolution is merely the topic to be debated. The resolution is not inherently tied to the standpoint of the instigator but is a topic to be resolved.

In fact, Debate.org lacks any form of rule set declaring that the instigator must be in affirmation of the resolution. Their only specific rule is this, “The "Instigator" is the person who initially starts the debate, and the "Contender" is the person whom accepts the challenge to debate.” Using this definition by the site hosting this debate, I will assert that this is in fact evidence that the ability of the instigator to be a con is not in fact illogical, but reasonable and supported by the sites rules and external definitions.

2.

For simplicity, the con will use the pros example. In their argument, they claimed that the resolution, “The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad”, was illogical in that the instigator of the debate decided to take a standpoint in negation. Using my definitions and previous statements, this is disproven. The pro has their main evidence as personal assumptions on the logical solutions humans would come to. They lack any evidence to prove that this is true other than their opinion, which is not proven to be representative of humans in general.

3.

The pro states as their third point that because all resolutions can be written from an affirmative standpoint, they should be. They claim that “There is no reason for a debate to be instigated by Con as all resolutions can be written to fit a Pro position.” [sic] without stating how this is anything other than their opinion on the subject. In fact, the con would like to argue that this point and even this debate can be entirely reversed using their logic and some minor changes. It could easily be changed to declare that all resolutions should be written from a negative standpoint because it is reasonable to assume that debate topics should be defended by others.

Conclusions

Therefore, the con must conclude that the pro is taking an opinionated standpoint without evidence as to the logic of it. The only possible result of this is that the voters must vote against them due to their lack of providing any sources outside of their subjective reasoning to fulfil their burden of proof.

There is nothing inherently wrong with instigators deciding to argue against a resolution for the purpose of a debate.

Debate Round No. 2
Clovis

Pro

Clovis forfeited this round.
christopher1006

Con

I ask voters to refer to my conclusion in round 2 as I will not take advantage of this extra round. I thank the pro for debating this interesting topic with me. I hope the voters will ignore this round and focus on the second round where the pro was active.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RealCS 2 years ago
RealCS
Shrek, you got shrekt.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
@christopher1006: So you a newbie - you're going to get crushed unless you were good at debating before joining this site.
Posted by christopher1006 2 years ago
christopher1006
This is my first debate on this site so critiques are very much appreciated during and after voting.
Posted by Clovis 2 years ago
Clovis
Anyone can accept this debate. Unless I am mistaken. Take it if you would like.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
If the resolution is controversial, it sparks more interest and thus adds to the page views.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
You should have instigated as con
Posted by Shadowguynick 2 years ago
Shadowguynick
I'll take it, if you would have me.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
I recall a debate like this a few months ago... never read it, but wanted to. Hopefully someone decent will accept this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Clovischristopher1006Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Clovischristopher1006Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Args were too close to award, but, for not forfeiting, Con earns the conduct point.