The Instigator
Shakespeare
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Debate is too definite.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 11115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Shakespeare

Pro

Debate is too definite.

We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round!") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded.

Here are some examples of debate topics:

'Merit pay based on student achievement is necessary'
'Capital Punishment Doesn't Go Far Enough'
'Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy'

Controversial topics? Yes, but there is no wiggle room. There is one very loud, unspoken rule that one cannot change their mind in a debate. "Hell or Glory, I don't want anything in between."

That is the difference between debating and philosophizing.

Everyone is stubborn. Everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone Says I Love You.
Itsallovernow

Con

1. "We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round!") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded."

In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it. I debate "The marraige of Homosexuals Should Be Legal.", I decided to argue against my belief that it should be legalized. Of course, there are always going to be points that our oppnents would bring up that are true, thus a debate is formed. However, we should look at the objective of a debate.

A debate is something, like the one here, that two or more entities argue based on their claims. The goal of the debate is to influence, in government, to approve the resolution into a bill/law. The debate in itself is not definite, because they could argue endlessly. The only definite thing, is the votes, which are not part of the debate itself, but a subsquent retaliation to the debate.

"There is no wiggle room."
The "wiggle room" can be looked at as rebuttals. It allows you to negate your opponents points and prove them wrong, thus "wiggling" out of forfiet/losing. If you rebutt against my arguement in an attempt to win, you attempt to "wiggle out", thus proveing my point through your own actions. If you do not, then you accept my arguements and lose this debate.

Thusly, I should win this debate.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 1
Shakespeare

Pro

Itsallovernow says: "In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it."

This is true, but relentlessly hypocritical.

Wow! I was not informed, prior to joining debate. org, that winning arguments would be turned into legislation. We are not on Capitol Hill. I have been on the floor of the House of Representatives, and this is not it.

Here is how debate (even in politics) is definite:

We take extreme positions. Debate topics are rarely ever questions. Every blue moon, they begin with 'in most cases,' or ' sometimes.' When a topic is proposed, it is automatically understood that 'whether you agree with it or not, whether an astronaut is singing in the shower, or a beauty queen is break-dancing, in all cases THIS IS TRUE!'

If you were to debate '98% of Homosexual Marriages Should be Legal,' there would be that 2% wiggle room for your opponent. That is a 2% chance of losing that I doubt you want to take. Debaters are afraid of even a small percentage of 'indefinite.'

Stay tuned.
Itsallovernow

Con

1. First of all, I find my opponent sarcastic comment: "Wow! I was not informed, prior to joining debate. org, that winning arguments would be turned into legislation. We are not on Capitol Hill. I have been on the floor of the House of Representatives, and this is not it." Rude and offensive.

My comment: "The goal of the debate is to influence, in government, to approve the resolution into a bill/law." Was to provide a reference so the audience and yourself would be able to familiarize yourself in a way that both could understand easier. I did not say that this was Congress.

2. My opponent said to my comment "In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it."
He says
"This is true, but relentlessly hypocritical."
This doesn't matter. Lawyers do this "rentlessly hypocritical" act all the time. Whether or not it is hypocritical is irrelvant, for my point stands as truth and negates yours.

3. My opponent says: Here is how debate (even in politics) is definite:

We take extreme positions. Debate topics are rarely ever questions. Every blue moon, they begin with 'in most cases,' or ' sometimes.' When a topic is proposed, it is automatically understood that 'whether you agree with it or not, whether an astronaut is singing in the shower, or a beauty queen is break-dancing, in all cases THIS IS TRUE!'

Actually, in government, when a topic is proposed, there are those for it, against it, and neutral people. The debate is what gets those votes. If you eliminate the votes, then you would quickly realize that the debate isn't definite, because it could go on forever without reaching a consenus. The resolution is definite, but it is the object of debate, not the debate itself.

4. My opponent says: "If you were to debate '98% of Homosexual Marriages Should be Legal,' there would be that 2% wiggle room for your opponent. That is a 2% chance of losing that I doubt you want to take. Debaters are afraid of even a small percentage of 'indefinite.'"

I have never heard of a debate like this, and my opponent would be negating that and his odds at winnng would not be only 2% because of the resolution. Furthermore, you did not contend with my point that all of your rebuttals would be contradicatory to your debate. Therefore, I assume you accept the point as truth.

It is for these reasons I heavily urge you to

=VOTE CON=
Debate Round No. 2
Shakespeare

Pro

Lol. It's okay, not everyone can get wet at my arid sense of humor.

First of all, how many times do the neutral guys get the vote? (especially recently)

The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate.

Your argument keeps drifting to political debate, which is only one kind of debate, but let me indulge you:

A republican senator says 'President Obama's tax cut plan is beneficial for the majority of American workers and their families, but...'

But what? Shedding any light on a hole in your argument is detrimental to your position.

Another example: My rebuttals are not contradictory to my debate. I am reinforcing my debate by sticking to my argument. You are not going to give me samples of debates where opponents were mercilessly bound to their side of the debate (like this one).

You keep bringing up debates that continue on forever to infinity and beyond, but there are differences between debate topics and flat-out conundrums. I am not saying that a debate winner's antics are the definite say on a matter, but that he is tied too strictly to his antics. The other guy must have a point, but it is not debate etiquette to entertain that notion, whatsoever.

There is chili powder(red) on the affirmative and turmeric powder(yellow) opposing. So far the win is in Chili's favor. He gets bold and tries to make a point by dipping his toes in on the turmeric side of the debate. After this is done, Chili struts back over to his side with a smug grin on his face, but when he turns around, Turmeric has the evidence against Chili's argument in the form of little red specks on the other side of the debate. Chili's argument is weakened and he loses :(

The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate.

Although I love it, debate is too definite, and constricts you to an immovable argument.

Let us have a movable feast!
Itsallovernow

Con

Whoa, that was a tad perverse and appeals to my own sense of humor.

1. "First of all, how many times do the neutral guys get the vote?"

I wasn't suggesting people in legislation advocate neutraility. For if they do, the bill doesn't pass, thus making them Con. They are mas o menos (more or less) the "swing votes".

2. "Shedding any light on a hole in your argument is detrimental to your position."
Unless you rebut it, of course. This way, sustaining yourself and minimalizing weakness.

=Main Point=

You stated: We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round!") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded.

Every arguementation is a point. And you said "My rebuttals are not contradictory to my debate. I am reinforcing my debate by sticking to my argument." However, you definately contradict yourself when you stated that you were reinforcing your debate by sticking to your arguement with your statement above! Your rebuttals prolong the debate since you do not, nor will ever, agree with me. Thus, this debate could carry on into eternity! It would not be definite until it was resolved! Then it would no longer be a debate, because it would be resolved!

=Other Points=

3. "You keep bringing up debates that continue on forever to infinity and beyond, but there are differences between debate topics and flat-out conundrums."

A debate can never end until it is resolved, because you will not submit and I will not.

4. "The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate. Although I love it, debate is too definite, and constricts you to an immovable argument." I will continue to assert no debate is definite, because every debate is infinite until it is resolved. Then, there is nothing to debate!

If by your analogy, you are asking that I like chili, then yes, I do. I love chili with every fiber of my being, especially chili omelettes.

For the reasons above, I believe I have won.

Good luck, and

=Vote Con=
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Did I? Did I?....Oh, wait, I suppose I did = )
Posted by Shakespeare 7 years ago
Shakespeare
Except I didn't misspell Capitol. You misspelled misspell.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
I compromised on the "Vote Con" topic. All in favor?
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
If there is spell check, why did you mispell "capitol"?
Posted by Shakespeare 7 years ago
Shakespeare
Itsallovernow: There is such a thing as spell-check.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
I like it. It has impact.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
I think I'll follow your advice...thanks!
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Itsallovernow, this is just a suggestion.
In your debates you say VOTE CON after every round.
You should try to make it sound a bit more professional like "I heavily urge a Con vote"
Also, maybe you could just say that in the last round instead of every round.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Cosidering most of the debate included me, and I want to build my reputation here, I'll accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
ShakespeareItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Shakespeare 7 years ago
Shakespeare
ShakespeareItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70