The Instigator
cosecant
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lawrentian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent.... .

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 56212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

cosecant

Pro

This statement has history as it's witness, dear opponent.
Lawrentian

Con

I find my opponent quite ironical and hypothetical as he or she is effectuating the use of a DEBATE when he affirms the resolution: "debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent".

Apart from his or her ironical stance on the matter, I'd like to provide the basic framework for this debate.

Win: to be successful or victorious in an argument

Surest: assured

Debate: argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

As my opponent did not provide his or her own definitions, it shall be agreed by consensus that we use these definitions throughout the debate, unless my opponent later disagrees.

Debate is a more efficient and effective method of winning an argument since it avoids violent methods and brings an intelligent aspect to the argument. Furthermore, debate is one of the only impartial methods of contenting because victory is based off of ones argumentative ability as well as ones knowledge on the stated resolution. However, other methods such as fighting are not "the surest" since it does completely show the winner of an argument, but instead, just who is a better fighter.

I will provide more evidence/contentions in my next speech. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
cosecant

Pro

I begin by an assertion.Yes, it is very ironical but, it is the symptom of "cutting a tree and write 'don't waste paper' on it".
Secondly i would like to clarify the meanings.

1)It is not WIN but WIN OVER.The definition you provided is not appropriate.
2)SUREST is not ASSURED but according to you it must have been MOST ASSURED.
3)The word opponent is not appropriate as a debate can be conducted among friends as well as for other reasons.

=>The words WIN OVER means (what i want to say is) to make your contender agree with your view and express it publicly.
=>"brings an intelligent aspect to the argument", are you purporting that there are other methods bringing non-intelligent arguments?
=>"Furthermore, debate is one of the only impartial methods of contenting ", i appeal to any viewer to translate this for me..... .One of the only methods?!....
=>"because victory is based off of ones argumentative ability", this too needs checking.
=>"However, other methods such as fighting are not "the surest" since it does completely show the winner of an argument, but instead, just who is a better fighter.", does not completely show or does not show?.

When confronted to opposing views, one way is to directly to confront the argument and the other way is to win over the person by your kindness. Which do you think produced the desired effect?.
Lawrentian

Con

A brief roadmap: In this argument, I will propose my contentions, only, and then include my rebuttals in the third and final round.

However, first I"d like to clarify a few things from my opponent"s first case. My opponent stated that his definition of win over is "to convince". On the other hand, I proclaimed mine to be "victorious in an argument". Though the wording may be different, both definitions basically lead to the same idea and are practically identical. To victor in an argument, one can directly infer that the argument has been bought and convinced. Furthermore, for the definition of "surest", my opponent argues that surest means most assured, not assued; however, I strongly disagree since as supported by numerous dictionaries such as Thesaurus.com, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, etc, surest means to be confident in one's beliefs or ideas, in other words assured. Most assured may make complete sense; however, it overemphasizes the true value of what the word "surest" upholds and therefore is not suitable for this debate. Finally, my opponent argued about the definition of "opponent" which I do not quite understand how it affects the course of the debate. Yes, an opponent can mean several friends. So what? He or she fails to elaborate on his point.

Ladies and Gentleman, hello, this is Lawrentian here to negate the following resolution: "Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent."

Contention 1: Purpose
What is the basic purpose of the idea of debate? Sources such as Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, Oxford Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, etc. agree that debate, is to "argue about a follow subject or topic". As supported by the majority of the dictionaries, to debate means to argue and convince one another on a specific topic. How more specific must I need to get? What more evidence can deny the fact that the basic purpose of the existence of debate is so that one can convince another, most specifically an opponent, on an argument. What consists of a debate? Let"s see, we have a framework, multiple contentions and rebuttals. How can it ever be possible for an argument, in another form other than debate, to reach into more depth than that of debate. Debate not only provides arguments to convince an opponent, but also requires rebuttals and evidence to defend or attack ones/the opponent"s contentions. If to win over really means to be victorious in an argument and convince like my opponent and I agree, debate has ought to be the surest method because it exposes the vulnerabilities and strengths in ones argument, enabling the judge to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. Debate is not only to argue, but also to master the art of convincing; in other words, winning over.

Contention 2: Contradiction
My dear opponent argues that debate is not the surest way to convince one on an argument or topic. As a result, he/she wishes to defend and argue for his belief so he instigates a DEBATE on DEBATE.org. Hmm, do I sense a contradiction? My opponent clearly instigated this topic because he/she firmly wanted to argue the fact that debating is not a beneficial and efficient method to argue a problem; however, ironically, he/she does exactly what his resolution disagrees with: using methods of debate to convince an opponent on a topic. Therefore, as stated by the law of paradox, irony and contradiction, my opponent clearly agrees that debate is an assured method to win over your opponent. I would like to remind the judges that my opponent does agree that his stance on this debate topic is ironic and contradictory as shown in the first sentence of his 2nd round argument. He or she claims that it is a symptom, similar to that of cutting trees which I do agree with. However, even if it were to be a symmetrical symptom, it does not change the fact that he or she is contradicting his/her stance on the debate, therefore making his arguments ironical and moreover: unreliable. Based off of my definition of surest, by effectuating the means of debate to argue a topic that disagrees with the efficiency of debate, my opponent DOES agree debate is an assured or "surest" method of convincing an opponent or "friend".

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
cosecant

Pro

The conclusion will be as simple as possible.

PART 1:
1) My opponent still support that ASSURED = SUREST. Yes the meaning is good but the form is not good.The University of Cambridge refuses it if the forms do not match according to comparison. To quote contender:"Most assured may make complete sense; however, it overemphasizes the true value of what the word "surest" upholds and therefore is not suitable for this debate."

2)If you agree with qualifying yourself as an 'opponent' here, then, why did debate.org brand you as a contender?.

3)"but also requires rebuttals and evidence to defend or attack ones/the opponent"s contentions."=> I consider debates more of explanations than a series of attacks.

4)" How can it ever be possible for an argument, in another form other than debate, to reach into more depth than that of debate."=>You are supporting the fact that there are other 'arguments' other than debates. Kindness is another argument. To quote myself in an earlier point: "When confronted to opposing views, one way is to directly to confront the argument and the other way is to win over the person by your kindness. Which do you think produced the desired effect?."

5)" If to win over really means to be victorious in an argument and convince like my opponent and I agree"=>I agree that kindness is also an argument, not only debate.

6)"debate has ought to be the surest method because it exposes the vulnerabilities and strengths in ones argument, enabling the judge to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong."=>Are you negating the fact that debates can be carried out exclusively by two persons?.

7)"Debate is not only to argue, but also to master the art of convincing;=> If you have mastered the art of debate, have you mastered every arts of convincing?

PART 2:
1)i requote myself:"Yes, it is very ironical but, it is the symptom of "cutting a tree and write 'don't waste paper' on it"." I am not negating the effects of debate. Secondly if i consider cutting trees wrong, does it means that i cannot use paper to say that?

2)"My opponent clearly instigated this topic because he/she firmly wanted to argue the fact that debating is not a beneficial and efficient method to argue a problem; however, ironically, he/she does exactly what his resolution disagrees with: using methods of debate to convince an opponent on a topic. Therefore, as stated by the law of paradox, irony and contradiction, my opponent clearly agrees that debate is an assured method to win over your opponent. "==>On the other hands, if at the end i am not convinced of what the contender says, it might also show that debate is not the surest way. Another way , less of hostility may be.....
_______________________________________________________________________________
THE START:

If debates was surely the way to convince contenders then let us analyse something.
1. The Christian missionaries: Is it through debates and logic that they convert? Or less logic and more love and kindness?
2. Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik and the like: What is the outcome?
3. After every debate, does someone accept the other views?

Convincing people does not go entirely on logic. Some people are blind to facts. Some more kindness does the job.And that is the final word.

I congratulate you on your patience.
Lawrentian

Con

Lawrentian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
Since i used a debate as the means to say what i want, it is the symptom of "cutting a tree and write 'don't waste paper' on it"..... .
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
If by "win over" you mean "convince", then I'll take this debate.
Posted by Figure-it-out 2 years ago
Figure-it-out
And yet you put this up for debate.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
What do you mean by "win over" and what do you mean by "opponent"?
Unless you clarify your resolution, this debate will be a wordplay.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
cosecantLawrentianTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am nullifying this debate because it is a stupid wordplay.