The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 8/22/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,305 times Debate No: 5041
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (9)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

It is within my belief that debate.org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes. To define what I mean by this, I'm saying that the chances of debate.org version 3 being accessible before or at the time this debate concludes are at least 51%.

Just to insure that this won't be a wait fest, I'll go ahead and provide a contention.

For now, my one and only contention shall be that the webmaster stated that version 3 would be up by the end of July. Given that it is long past the end of July, I'd say this serves to show either something unexpected came up or that the webmaster is simply doing some extra insignificant tweaks. It is reasonable for us to assume that debate.org version 3 should be functioning any day now. And it further serves as being evidence since the webmaster has not posted a note to the right of the main page as he usually does to inform us of a massive delay. And given the fact that it has been under development since last year, I'd say any more massive delays are very much unlikely.

Given that I intend to use the time limit of this debate to my advantage, at the very least, this debate shall take 12 days to complete (with my four additional rounds combined with the 3 day time limit, that makes 12). I also have a suspicion that there will also be more to add on to the time limit, but I shall elaborate moreso in the next round.

Oh and I'd disadvise my future opponent resorting to tactics which are devised to get out of having to argue the intended debate.

That is all for now. Some of this may need to be elaborated on
oboeman

Con

This is an intriguing debate, as to which I look forward to.

I would like to point out that the intended debate is subjective, as there are multiple members (opponents) participating. Therefore, all one has to go by are the wordings and definitions themselves. However, I will attempt to be fairly reasonable by most standards. For example, I will not infer that "running" in the resolution has to do with physical exercise or the like.

There are numerous ways regarding how I can, and thus plan to, win this debate.

Here is the first:

"It is within my belief that debate.org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes. To define what I mean by this, I'm saying that the chances of debate.org version 3 being accessible before or at the time this debate concludes are at least 51%."

This debate entails not whether debate.org version 3[.0] will indeed "be up and running by the time this debate concludes." Instead, it merely entails the probability of debate.org version 3[.0] being "up and running by the time this debate concludes." Thus, whether or not it indeed is implemented or not is irrelevant. And simply because something may have a particular probability rating does not mean it is destined to (or to not) occur. Anything is possible, regardless of minute probability. Therefore, regardless of whether or not version 3[.0] is indeed "up and running by the time this debate concludes" is largely irrelevant. This debate focuses on its probability, not whether or not the event indeed occurs. How does my opponent quantify this probability?

It is seemingly within the belief of the instigator that version 3 will be accessible on debate.org by the time this debate concludes. I cannot claim my opponent does not have this belief. However, my opponent cannot prove to indeed have this belief. Still, in essence, my opponent is predicting this potential future event (regarding debate.org version 3 being accessible) to be true. It is only a matter of faith to have confidence and strong belief in the currently unknown. And faith, being anything that cannot currently be explicitly proven, is not a valid argument in debate, as the future has not yet occurred. Thus, as the future has yet to occur in this reality, anything can be assumed as possible to occur, rather than intrinsically inevitable.

I question (a) whether or not my opponent indeed has this belief, and (b) whether or not my opponent can prove this future event to hold truth.

"The webmaster stated that version 3 would be up by the end of July…it is long past the end of July…either something unexpected came up or that the webmaster is simply doing some extra insignificant tweaks."

Voters beware; my opponent begins by using a fallacious statement, assuming that the webmaster must hold truth. As members have already seen, this in itself is not necessarily true. Thus, the webmaster is not to be considered holding truth all of the time. And even if every statement issued by the webmaster has been true before any talk of a newer version, the potential for the webmaster to have false statements still exists.

Simply put, the webmaster might be wrong. Seemingly, my opponent is using the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. To apply this to this debate, it is unreasonable to assume that because the newer version was supposed to be out in July (although obviously was not), that it therefore is going to be out sooner rather than later. Essentially, the webmaster is (or has the potential to be) both (a) not always correct, and (b) when wrong, not always closer to more right than more wrong (i.e. when claiming the newer version to be available on debate.org in July, though a false statement, does not mean debate.org version 3.0 will necessarily be available closer to July from the present than, for example, October).

Speaking of webmasters, it is also rather difficult to tell who exactly the webmaster is. Clarification was not given in the opening argument of my opponent. For what could be, my opponent could be referring to the member HansMeyer (claiming to be a certified webmaster), or Kleptin, or perhaps Webmaster. It could also be Phil or Crystal on debate.org. It could also be Yraelz or even my opponent, Logical-Master (assuming same entity as Kleptin) in this debate.

"It is reasonable for us to assume that debate.org version 3 should be functioning any day now...further serves as being evidence since the webmaster has not posted a note to the right of the main page as he usually does to inform us of a massive delay... it has been under development since last year … more massive delays are … unlikely."

Seemingly, the argumentation used by my opponent is based upon a false premise. It is NOT reasonable to assume that debate.org version 3[.0] should be operating sooner rather than later. Evidence does not necessarily constitute as proof. In order for something to be certain, proof is essential. Though it may serve as evidence, by abstaining from posting notes on the right of the main page, it does not constitute proof that further delay is unlikely. Other factors and variables could be at play here. For example, the webmaster could be on vacation. Or it might have been made illegal to post on the right side of the main page. Perhaps congress has passed new, secret legislation preventing debate.org from posting on the right side of the main page. This brings in two major points. Firstly, the main point is that it can be unknown as for why no notes have been posted recently on the right side of the main page. Absence of evidence is not proof. Secondly, as my opponent may undoubtedly agree, proper and logical legislation has not been functioning within adequate parameters in the recent past. I could even go so far as saying that, because of this inept property of congress, one could even use inductive reasoning to say congress might have done the same on debate.org, preventing any further notes on the right side of the main page. The main sub-point of this particular point is that inductive reasoning can be and has the potential to be rather subjective. It remains arbitrary to individual discretion to a large extent. However, my opponent is claiming that, merely because no further notes have been posted, and that debate.org version 3[.0] has been under development for many months now, more delays remain unlikely. This is inductive reasoning, using and examining patterns, essentially making generalizations from individual instances. Logic is not insured with such reasoning techniques. This debate ought to use deductive reasoning to be ideal, instead, in order to derive more explicit conclusions.

Reasonable inductive reasoning dictates that, since it has been this long after the projected launch(es), it will more likely than not be even longer. The probability is not raised simply because the days are progressing since it was supposed to be launched.

Though my opponent might use the full three days for each round, I remind that this debate no longer focuses on if version 3.0 is implemented by that time, but instead the inherent probability of it being implemented by that time.
I anxiously await the conclusion of this debate,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

CROSS EXAMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before I respond to my opponent's case, I must be sure about the following. I ask that he not bring up new points in this round, but merely answer my questions instead.

Question 1) You say that inductive reasoning should not be used in this debate, yet I cannot help but notice that you then go on and claim that "Reasonable inductive reasoning dictates that . . ." So, if we shouldn't use inductive reasoning in this debate, why are you intent on using it?

Question 2) To add, you say that your inductive reasoning is "reasonable" Why is that? And isn't the word "reasonable" subjective (which you claim to be against the practice of).

And believe or not, that's all the questions I intend to ask. This should clear up any confusion. I'll start my rebuttal in the next round. Later
oboeman

Con

Answers to queries made during cross-examination:

I was merely offering an example as to how inductive reasoning is too subjective for use in this debate. It is up to my opponent to conclusively show that a higher probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running has been inherent since this particular debate was implemented.

The debate resolution begins with "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be." Thus, while vigilantly acknowledging the words "will more likely," it is easily observable that this resolution is definite. In fact, my opponent is essentially claiming that it will more likely than not be, while I, as the contender must only claim that it will not more likely than not be up and running. I am not necessarily saying it will not be up and running, but merely that it will not more likely than not be. That is, simply put, a higher probability (of it being up and running) is not definitely and inherently with the standpoint of my opponent in this debate.

In order for Pro to win, the resolution must be deduced, rather than merely induced, to be true. Deductive reasoning will more likely than not determine the winner of this debate. Deductive reasoning is true and inherent. Inductive reasoning is dependent upon individual interpretation and subjectivity, making a higher potential for it to be arbitrary.
Inductive reasoning, of course, can be used as an argument, but does not necessarily make it valid.

I can, however, state that inductive reasoning can help to determine possible events potentially occurring in the future. Even though it is arbitrary, I can conclude that it is NOT MORE LIKELY than not that debate.org version 3 would be implemented (originating from the initiation of this debate).
When saying "reasonable," I meant it to be synonymous of logical, right, correct, etc. That which is logical (or right or correct) is not always subjective.

It is hoped that this clarifies any confusion residing within the realm of this debate.
I await further argumentation.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Alright, looking over CON's case, the main problem with it is that he is simply criticizing my position without actually strengthening his own. In other words, he is all offense and no defense. However, I submit that it is CON's burden to show why his position outweighs mine. Sure, you could acknowledge all of the so-called "flaws" he has pointed out in my own, but a defended position beats a non defended position any day of the week.

CON: "In response to my opponent arguing that he believes the resolution is true, my opponent can't prove that he believes the resolution is true, so HA!

Rebuttal: Red herring fallacy. My opponent previously finished telling you that this debate was about the proving that "Version 3" will be running in time for this debate's conclusion, so why on earth would he insist that I prove that I believe something? Not only that, but if you look at how I structured my R1, my clarification on the matter of me having this belief was not part of my ONE and only contention.. Thus, not only is this a red herring fallacy, but strawman as well. Therefore, you have no logical reason to consider his rebuttal here when making your verdict.

CON: "My opponent said the webmaster holds all truth, but the webmaster could easily be wrong"

Rebuttal: Once more, my opponent resorts to the straw man fallacy. I request that he point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time. Unfortunately for him, there is no such place in my R1. Furthermore, my conclusion is what I am trying to prove (which is that V3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time of this debate's conclusion), hence, if I am to argue that "The webmaster said something", and then am to conclude the aforementioned conclusion, then it is quite clear that I am by no means insisting that the webmaster's word is absolute as I wouldn't be speaking in terms of likelihood. Rather, I'd simply come out and state that debate.org version 3 will DEFINITELY come out by the time of this debate's conclusion.

Furthermore, the webmaster could have very well been wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that he is of the highest authority and of the most knowledge concerning this website (hence, why he is called the WEBMASTER), therefore, is the most credible source we debaters have access to.

CON: "We don't know who the webmaster is"

Rebuttal: The Webmaster is either Phil or Crystal. Though what relavance is there here? Unless CON can provide some conclusive information that is associated with their identities and in fact changes the probability of the new version of debate.org being released later rather than sooner, than this is a red herring and is to be dismissed immediately.

CON: "It is unreasonable for us to assume that debate.org V3 will be up sooner rather than later. And evidence doesn't constitute as proof, so just because you have some pretty good evidence (that the webmaster has abstained from posting notes), it doesn't PROVE that debate.org version 3 will likely be up and running.

Rebuttal: Quite the contrary. It is rather reasonable for us to assume that debate.org V3 would be up sooner rather than later. As insisted in the previous round, some of my points may need elaboration, and this is apparently one of the aforementioned points in need of elaboration. It is a fact that the web master has been working on the 3rd version of this website for nearly a year now. We must also take into consideration that when developing something, the probability of it being completed increases the more it is being worked on. For instance, if one is to work on putting together an exercising device, the probability of it being completed increases in direct correlation to the more steps one finishes in completing it. This is simply because the difficulty of the job lessens upon the completion of each step( in other words, the less work their is, the easier the job becomes). One could insist the same when taking into account the third version of debate.org. In response, the contender shall no doubt point out possibilities such as the webmaster getting sick, getting tired of debate.org, or something along those lines, but merely citing possibilities will do him no good, because as even HE pointed out, this debate is about determining probability (and as you can see, the above explanation insist probability), and last I recall, probability gladly welcomes possibilities. If my opponent wishes to make any argument on these other possibilities, then he will need to provide sufficient evidence that there is a 50% or more chance of these other possibilities occurring. Otherwise, you've got absolutely no reason to consider such an argument.

As for evidence not constituting as proof, I fear that my opponent is going on a path to nowhere with this statement. I wholeheartedly agree that evidence does not constitute as proof, hence, why I have "likelihood" built into the resolution. here to determine what is most likely, which can be done without conclusive evidence as we're simply going off of which side has the strongest evidence.

CON: "Deductive reasoning is far too subjective for us in this debate"

Rebuttal: What is the meaning of "this" debate? One could try and maintain that position for ANY debate. Now, I will concede that there is some level of interpretation involved in inductive reason (though heck, it is a fact that deductive reasoning relies on how reality is INTERPRETED in the first place), but so what? My opponent's job is to prove that my position is illogical. Unless he intends to argue that inductive reasoning is inadmissible PERIOD, then I see it as fair game in this debate. Besides, my opponent seems content with using it under the guise that he is using "REASONABLE" inductive reasoning, thus, I shall submit that I am using "reasonable" inductive reasoning as well. Speaking of reasonable inductive reasoning . . .

CON: "Reasonable inductive reasoning dictates that, since it has been this long after the projected launch(es), it will more likely than not be even longer."

Rebuttal: The problem with my opponent's argument is that he never really shows how the above premise would lead to the conclusion that debate.org V3 will more likely than not take even longer (thus, he really doesn't possess any defense in this debate). All he does is label the word "reasonable" on it and request that you take his argument into consideration rather than mine. Ladies and gentleman, I've made it clear as to how the above premise leads to my conclusion, ergo, my argument should be taken into consideration before his, although I will allow him the opportunity for elaboration.

In the mean time . . . he says that inductive reasoning should not be used in this debate and that we should use deductive reasoning, however, at no point does he even ATTEMPT to provide a deductive argument. Rather, he uses an inductive argument. I provided him with the opportunity to clarify on this during C/X, but essentially, it is as I had feared. This is nothing more than a contradiction. I challenge my opponent to provide a deductive argument that upholds his side of the resolution.

CON: "Though my opponent might use the full three days for each round, I remind that this debate no longer focuses on if version 3.0 is implemented by that time, but instead the inherent probability of it being implemented by that time."

Rebuttal: Quite false. The addition of 12 days adds on to the time limit. I could have easily continued this debate on the day I started it as well as responded as quickly and promptly as possible, but this would merely make it less likely that debate.org V3 would have activated by the time of this debate's conclusion as less time would be allowed for this site to be properly maintenanced.
oboeman

Con

Well, my position is simple. It entails that if I can show that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to more likely than not be less than or equal to 50% I win. Accordingly, due to questionable statements issued by the webmaster, the likelihood of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate would be random. In essence, there is no way for one to deduce for sure whether or not this likelihood would place high or low on the percentage scale. To say that it will more likely than not be up and running by the conclusion of this debate is a matter of faith. I will hereby define faith in this debate as any claim that cannot be proven and deduced to be true/false by involved members (debaters in this debate). The purpose of a debate, on a professional level, is to vigilantly obtain mutual agreement between involved members. Mutual agreement has the potential to not be obtained with faith-based reasoning. Thus, unless my opponent can conclusively prove that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 to be up and running from the initiation of this debate to be greater than 50%, the argumentation of my opponent is invalid (as it cannot be proved).

"I request that he point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time."

To the contrary, my point is that my opponent has insinuated into arguments that, because the webmaster said so, there is therefore a greater than 50% chance that debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate. I ask my opponent to clarify when I have apparently said that the webmaster holds ALL truth. From what I know, I have said nothing of the sort. Instead, I said, "Voters beware; my opponent begins by using a fallacious statement, assuming that the webmaster must hold truth."

Still, my opponent, as worded in the resolution, is directly implying, with the use of the words, "more likely than not," that there is a greater than 50% (or rather, as stated directly during the Round 1 or my opponent, 51%) chance that debate.org version 3.0 would be up and running by the conclusion of this debate. Merely because of the words of a webmaster, it does not mean this percentage rate can be achieved given the terms.

"[The webmaster is] the highest authority and of the most knowledge concerning this website."

Credibility does not equal certainty. Again, my opponent must PROVE that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate (as stated initially) is at least 51%.

"The Webmaster is either Phil or Crystal. Though what relavance is there here?"

I posed a question, just as my opponent has done during cross-examination. The answers received may help to determine further lines of inquiry or terms of essential debate. The point is, I asked the question so I could choose whether or not I wanted to pursue a sub-argument here, dependent upon the response of my opponent.

"Quite the contrary. It is rather reasonable for us to assume that debate.org V3 would be up sooner rather than later…when developing something, the probability of it being completed increases the more it is being worked on."

Quite the contrary; it is rather unreasonable to assume that debate.org version 3.0 would necessarily be up sooner rather than later. Though when developing something, the likelihood of it being completed does often increase the more it is being worked on, this does not necessarily mean the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate is at least 51%.

As well, the webmaster could have gotten sick, or perhaps was even getting tired of debate.org. The point is, neither my opponent nor I can derive that for certain. Indeed, this debate is apparently revolving around probability theoreticals and the such. I have provided a case of my own, as to which I have already defended. However, it is up to my opponent to prove the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%.

"I wholeheartedly agree that evidence does not constitute as proof, hence, why I have "likelihood" built into the resolution."

I was inferring to the fact that my opponent has insinuated webmaster validity of claims into this debate. This potential "evidence" does not constitute proof. I ask my opponent ho this quantifies as making the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%. As well, the side with the strongest "evidence" does not necessarily hold truth. Can my opponent prove that it does?

"What is the meaning of "this" debate?"

This debate – noun – current debate in progress between L-M and Oboeman.
See the below link for further detail:
http://www.debate.org...

Deductive reasoning relies of syllogisms, and also uses logic to derive a conclusion. Deductive reasoning can (and will, assuming vigilant debate) be agreed upon between involved members, which would thus obtain mutual agreement.

Next, the position and argumentation of my opponent is illogical. As for as I have seen thus far, my opponent has yet to determine and prove the probability rate of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%. The main burden of proof falls upon my opponent here. I can explain why it might be more likely for it to not be up and running, or equally likely. Either one would suffice. Although, to an extent, likelihood may somewhat correlate with inductive reasoning, it still does not mean quantitative values can be yielded and produced. Can my opponent specifically and explicitly quantify this inductive reasoning to show a favorable probability value?

"All he does is label the word "reasonable" on it and request that you take his argument into consideration rather than mine."

Regardless, the main burden of proof still falls upon my opponent, to prove and derive that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being activated (up and running) by the conclusion of this debate to be, at the least, 51%. However, though, I said the above statement to make a point, to be discussed enthrallingly in further rounds. This goal has obviously been accomplished quite readily. Even though the main burden of proof has been determined to fall upon my opponent (instigator) in this debate, I still have a defense. Inductive reasoning, my point is, as my opponent has so readily agreed with, is subjective. I attempted it (although used it to make a point), and the argumentation of my opponent is essentially premised upon it. With a single strike, I can cause its downfall. Mainly, fate alone will determine whether or not debate.org version 3.0 is to be implemented by the conclusion of this debate. And fate is unknown, as the future has yet to occur. Yet, though, inductive reasoning can show the probability to be "more likely than not," but can also show it to be equally likely or even less likely. Thus, one could even claim that my entire defense relies on these facts of inductive reasoning. Therefore, I can even have inductive reasoning itself, generally in favor of and to aid in my defense. I show that, because inductive reasoning can point either way in this debate, it must be avoided in regards to explicitly determining absolute percentage values.

Deductive reasoning, indeed, dictates that the use of mere inductive reasoning evidence is flawed (and, as well, does not constitute as proof). See above for why this is so. I have already outlined, above, deductive reasoning supporting a clear CON win.

Fun debate, I await.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

"if I can show that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to more likely than not be less than or equal to 50% I win."

At no point is my opponent actually doing this. Keep in mind, he must DEMONSTRATE that the probability is 50% or lower, yet all he is doing is providing criticisms on my arguments, but even through attacking my arguments, it doesn't bring us to the conclusion that it is indeed 50% or lower, hence, why I dictated that he needed some defense. Otherwise, it'll be like a football game where one team with a strong offense and defense is up against a team which has absolutely no one on its defensive team. Unless the former's defensive team is goofing off, the former is going to win 99.9% of the time.

Furthermore, the purpose of "more likely than not" is that I acknowledge that I cannot provided conclusive evidence, but evidence that can demonstrate that my position (which is that V3 will be up) is likely true. CON's constant demand for conclusive evidence not only ignores the resolution, but my original request concerning the "intended debate" as well, hence why I did not provide a number crunching deductive argument in R1.

Regarding faith, faith would mean that I was intentionally making that claim without any intention of providing evidence, however, I have provided evidence for my claim, so this line of discussion is absolutely meaningless and thus should not be pursued.

RE: "I ask my opponent to clarify when I have apparently said that the webmaster holds ALL truth. From what I know, I have said nothing of the sort."

1) Based on the very comment my opponent is quoting you can see that I requested him to point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time (not that the webmaster omniscient as that is a different claim entirely).

2) My opponent made the statement which I accused him of making in his first round in the following quote: "As members have already seen, this in itself is not necessarily true. Thus, the webmaster is not to be considered holding truth all of the time."

RE: "Credibility does not equal certainty. Again, my opponent must PROVE that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate (as stated initially) is at least 51%"

No, but credibility does boost likelihood (the purpose of this debate) of being correct. Not only that, but credible sources are sources which are correct MOST of the time (keep this in mind as CON conceding to the webmaster being credible will be his downfall).

"The point is, I asked the question so I could choose whether or not I wanted to pursue a sub-argument here, dependent upon the response of my opponent."

I submit that the question is irrelevant, therefore sufficient reason to ignore it, but to pacify CON, I'll go with the answer provided in the comment section. The webmaster is this fellow called "Nate."

RE: Quite the contrary; it is rather unreasonable to assume that debate.org version 3.0 would necessarily be up sooner rather than later."

In this point, my opponent has contradicted himself. Although he agrees with my logic on how progression increases probability of completion (in other words, the more progress that is made, the lower the amount of time until the completion, which incidentally, concludes that sooner is more likely than later), he says I'm wrong.

To make sure this point is understood by both my opponent and my audience, allow me to make it simpler. There are two possible results: Sooner and later. Without observing any evidence, the likelihood of either result occurring is 50%.
When observing evidence before a project is started, the chances of sooner remain at 0% whereas the chances of later remain at 100%. However, we know the project began, know the percentage has been increasing (as conceded by CON) and know that the webmaster is correct (51% or more) most of the time. Ergo, this would show that the percentage of completion was 51% or more.

RE: "As well, the webmaster could have gotten sick, or perhaps was even getting tired of debate.org. The point is, neither my opponent nor I can derive that for certain."

I covered this in the previous round. This argument would only be effective if I were advocating that it was certain that debate.org would be up and running by the time of this debate's conclusion, however, this is not my position as my position ALLOWS an endless number of possibilities. If CON wishes to make use of these possibilities, then he must prove that they weigh 50% or more.

"This potential "evidence" does not constitute proof."

Of course not, however, the rules of potential/probability are far different than the rules of certainty. When I make a claim for "potential/probability", my opponent cannot simply say "Ha, well that doesn't conclusively show that the odds are 50/50." Potential/probability is based on observable evidence and changes depending on the evidence which is observed and taken into consideration. In other words, it is by no means conclusive. To elaborate on this, allow me to go into example.

Example: Lets say a kid is taking a multiple choice quiz which he/she is completely unprepared for. On this quiz, each question gives four choices. Thus, without any extra knowledges, the chances of this kid guessing correctly is 25% However, if this kid were to have studied somewhat, he/she would have more information to go on, thus, the chances of guessing correctly (at least for the questions the kid has knowledge of) would no longer be 25% and would vary depending on how much knowledge the kid had concerning the questions. What does this tell us? That percentages are not conclusive as if they were, then that would mean that they never change.

With that being pointed out, it's clear that CON"s "lack of conclusive evidence" argument holds no water. If that is to be taken as true, then all he has is the possibilities which he had thrown in earlier (possibility of the webmaster getting sick,etc). While these are all interesting possibilities, he hasn't shown how these possibilities weigh 50% or more in proving the topic false, thus, you are to see my position (the position with actual evidence, as even CON acknowledges that I have evidence) as being 99.99999 . . .% likely.

"Well, the side with the strongest "evidence" does not necessarily hold truth."

Perhaps not, but the side with the strongest evidence is the side with the strongest argument and the side with the strongest argument is the side which wins the debate. :D

RE" "This debate . . ."

That's not what I meant. I wanted to know what made this debate different from any other.

RE: "Therefore, I can even have inductive reasoning itself, generally in favor of and to aid in my defense. I show that, because inductive reasoning can point either way in this debate, it must be avoided in."

Alright, I think I have a better understanding of CON's position now. He is saying that he can reasonably show based on inductive reasoning that the resolution is false, thus, I challenge him to do this. At no point in this debate has he attempted to do this. Rather, he has simply insisted that he can, thus, there is no premise for his conclusion. IF he can prove his point, we'll move on to the next premise. Furthermore, this is to be taken as a confession that he has no defense as he has not shown why the alternative to my position is more likely true.

"Inductive reasoning, my point is, as my opponent has so readily agreed with, is subjective."

False. I agree that there was subjectivity to SOME extent (incidentally, I also insinuated that deductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning). If it were entirely subjective, there'd be no logical basis to it (in other words, no reliance on facts, evidence, etc).

I believe I've addressed everything necessary so that'll do it for now.
oboeman

Con

"Keep in mind, he must DEMONSTRATE that the probability is 50% or lower, yet all he is doing is providing criticisms on my arguments, but even through attacking my arguments, it doesn't bring us to the conclusion that it is indeed 50% or lower, hence, why I dictated that he needed some defense."

The burden of proof falls upon my opponent. Firstly, I argue that the arguments of my opponent are invalid. Assuming that they are, I already win, with rebuttals against each claim of my opponent. However, it only makes my case stronger for me to have a defense, which I extrapolated mainly in my previous round. See defense section at the bottom of this round.

"Furthermore, the purpose of "more likely than not" is that I acknowledge that I cannot provided conclusive evidence, but evidence that can demonstrate that my position (which is that V3 will be up) is likely true. CON's constant demand for conclusive evidence not only ignores the resolution, but my original request concerning the "intended debate" as well."

To the contrary, my opponent must prove that it is certainly true that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate is at least 51%. It does not suffice to say that it is most likely that my opponent is correct. Either my opponent proves to be correct (in that debate.org version 3.0 to be up and running by the conclusion of this debate), or does not prove to be correct. Even if it is most likely that my opponent is correct, that does not make it certain for my opponent to indeed be correct.
Again, the intended debate is subjective. I plan/have planned to argue against the resolution itself, according to what I have reasonably implied from it.
The resolution either is proven to be true (i.e. that there is a 51% chance of it to be up and running), which would go in favor of my opponent, or the resolution is not proven to be true (i.e. that there is not necessarily a 51% chance of it being up and running), which would go in favor of me.
In the Round 4 of my opponent, PRO claims to have to merely show that it is more likely that it will be more likely than not for it to be up and running. However, my opponent must instead prove that it is certainly more likely than not for it to be up and running. Essentially, my opponent either proves the resolution, or does not. Thus far, my opponent has failed to.

"Regarding faith, faith would mean that I was intentionally making that claim without any intention of providing evidence."

See previous round for my definition of faith for this debate. That which has no direct evidence, but is still believed, is considered to be faith. It has no proof. As shown in the resolution, my opponent has asserted that debate.org version 3.0 would more likely than not (51%) be up and running by the conclusion of this debate. I have validly rebutted against each bit of evidence presented to me, thus meaning the claim of my opponent is a matter of faith.

Regarding the webmaster, whoever it is does not necessarily hold truth all of the time. The webmaster has the potential for fallibility. Projecting the probability to be precisely at least 51% because merely the webmaster says so is fallacious.

"But credibility does boost likelihood (the purpose of this debate) of being correct. Not only that, but credible sources are sources which are correct MOST of the time."

Though credibility might boost likelihood, who is to say what type of boost this might be? For example, it might be from 36% likely to 37% likely. Such, therefore, does not mean the event is MOST likely (more than 50%) to occur, but rather MORE likely to occur.
Next, my opponent is seemingly claiming the webmaster to be this credible source. Can my opponent prove that, not only is this a credible source, but also that the webmaster is correct most of the time? If my opponent cannot, how is this to suffice as evidence?

"Progression increases probability of completion…concludes that sooner is more likely than later."

Again, the same applies. The likelihood may boost from 15% to 16%, for example, over the course of progression. This by no means concludes that event is more likely to occur merely because of potential progress made on it.

"However, we know the project began, know the percentage has been increasing (as conceded by CON) and know that the webmaster is correct (51% or more) most of the time. Ergo, this would show that the percentage of completion was 51% or more."

Again, the percentage may have been increasing, but not necessarily by what would be considered drastic. It could have been an extremely diminutive increase. As well, how is it known in this debate that the webmaster is correct most of the time? Ergo, my opponent has proven nothing favorable thus far.

As well, my opponent must prove that it is certain that it is more likely than not (51%) that it will be up and running by the conclusion of this debate.

"Potential/probability is based on observable evidence and changes depending on the evidence which is observed and taken into consideration."

Next, my opponent has yet to prove that the evidence, the credibility of the webmaster, is indeed supportive evidence to verify the resolution. As well, with the burden of proof falling upon my opponent, it is the responsibility of my opponent to prove the resolution to indeed be true.
Evidence that is not conclusive in proving the resolution for my opponent would not suffice to give my opponent the win.

"But the side with the strongest evidence is the side with the strongest argument and the side with the strongest argument is the side which wins the debate."

The side with the strongest argument, arguably, would not win the debate. This is dependent, however, of what my opponent means by "strongest."

"I wanted to know what made this debate different from any other."

When talking about this debate, I was not necessarily excluding other specific debates.

"He is saying that he can reasonably show based on inductive reasoning that the resolution is false, thus, I challenge him to do this. At no point in this debate has he attempted to do this."

See defense section at the bottom of this round.

"I agree that there was subjectivity to SOME extent (incidentally, I also insinuated that deductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning)."

Deductive reasoning does not necessarily have to rely of inductive reasoning. For example:
All apples are fruit.
Some apples are red.
Therefore some fruits are red.

Inductive reasoning is not entirely subjective, but still is to an extent.

DEFENSE:

Given that inductive reasoning, in this debate, can lead to three separate potential conclusions:
It might more likely than not be up sooner rather than later (perhaps because the webmaster said so).
It might more likely than not be even longer (perhaps because it has taken this far since it was supposed to be up).
Because both of the above could be true, but there is no current reason for one to quantitatively outweigh the other, there is a theoretical 50% chance for a given above option to be true (i.e. that it might be up sooner, or it might be up later). Thus, this option entails that it is unknown.

The point is, inductive reasoning, itself, is what my defense relies on. Because inductive reasoning has given so many options for what could be potential, it is far too subjective to definitely say one is more right than another. There is not enough conclusive evidence to suffice. In order for my opponent to win, the latter two of the potential options must be invalidated. The potential for the former is not at least 51%, theoretically.
Another point – 50.1%, for example, is also more likely than not. However, my opponent must prove the probability to be at least 51%.

And what is this version 3 being spoken of?

That ought to suffice for Round 4.
Debate Round No. 4
Logical-Master

Pro

RE: The burden of proof falls upon my opponent.

Let us explore the ideas which the contender seems content with presenting. First, it must be known that as CON, he is one who disagrees with the topic. Thus, to disagree with this topic, one would have to uphold the position that "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes" is wrong. With that being said, if we follow my opponents train of thought, it's conclusion is simply that "Because Logical-Master's premises are invalid, the statement that "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes." is wrong.

However, just because my opponent could hypothetically refute my premises, it does not mean he has refuted their conclusion. For instance, if a debater claims that "all cookies are salty, ergo, the earth revolves around the sun", a rival debater could very well refute the premise "all cookies are salty" and show that this premise has nothing to do with the conclusion, but this would not mean that the rival debater refuted the conclusion, ergo, never upheld his position. In debate.org's case, when someone signs up for a position that dictates that they disagree with the topic (as the contender did here), it means that they must show the topic is wrong, therefore showing that CON has a burden as well.

CON's problem is that he is treating the concept of "BOF" legalistically (as in court, it is one job's side to demonstrate something beyond the notion of a doubt). However, in a simple debate, both debaters possess the burden of demonstrating which position is more likely.

RE: "The Intended debate is subjective."

False. I created the resolution and defined it in R1, ergo, what I say it means is what it means.

RE: "Faith"

This is basically a point being used to say that I have no evidence. Thus, it should be thrown out as I have yet to agree that CON has refuted my evidence.

RE"The webmaster has the potential for fallibility."

No one denied this.

RE: "Projecting the probability to be precisely at least 51% because merely the webmaster says so is fallacious:

Not really. After all, we're speaking in terms of probability. As suggested previously, because probability is not conclusive, it changes depending on the amount of evidence there is to go on. Since the evidence tips in my favor, my position is more likely true than my opponent's, thus, using the webmaster's credibility in order to win this particular debate is by no means fallacious.

"Though credibility might boost likelihood, who is to say what type of boost this might be?"

I am . . . and with good reason. In R3, my opponent by no means attacks my claim that the webmaster is credible, therefore drops it, therefore concedes. His only objection is that "credibility does not equal certainty." Thus, taking this into account, my opponent's RECENT demand for proof ought to be seen as the "moving the goal post" fallacy. Also, to be a credible source, you have to be reliable. And to be reliable, your information must be considered correct most of the time.

But to pacify PRO, sure, I'll go ahead and show how the webmaster is credible. He runs the website, is well informed on its inner workings, thus pretty much is most likely knowledgeable of everything there is know about the machinations of debate.org. This would suggest that he'd be correct on information concerning this subject most of the time.

This would only be different if there were sources other than the webmaster which were PRESENTED (as this would then cause the weight of my source to decrease in order fit with the other sources).

RE: "This by no means concludes that event is more likely to occur merely because of potential progress made on it."

Con misunderstood the impact of these two arguments being stacked side by side. With the webmaster's word, we have at least a 51% chance that V3 will be up and running. In addition, with it being acknowledged that the percent is constantly INCREASING to the logic of the "progression argument" (which CON has conceded to), then we can say that odds of V3 being up most likely aren't DECREASING. Thus, at the beginning of our analysis, the chances V3 being up start at 51% and simply increase rather than decrease.

RE: "Evidence that is not conclusive in proving the resolution for my opponent would not suffice to give my opponent the win."

I've already explained (and PROVEN) how this debate isn't about providing conclusive evidence as probability is by no means static given that it changes (at least on criteria such as this) depending on the amount of evidence. PRO is simply repeating himself ad nauseum given that my argument is ignored entirely. BOTTOMLINE: Even if you happen to agree with PRO's rigid absurd idea of the BOF, it doesn't matter here since that kind of evidence is not possible to obtain that kind of evidence (probability and certainty are contradictory to one another) for this kind of debate. I've already provided the evidence which is needed.

"The side with the strongest argument, arguably, would not win the debate. This is dependent, however, of what my opponent means by "strongest."

Most evidence is what I mean by strongest.

RE:" Deductive reasoning does not necessarily have to rely of inductive reasoning. For example:
All apples are fruit.
Some apples are red.
Therefore some fruits are red."

This depends upon interpretation of reality. For instance, all apples are fruit why? Because we CLASSIFY them as fruit based on our own interpretation of what is and what isn't to be considered fruits. We could just as easily interpret what is to be considered a fruit differently through a means that roots out apples and then apples would not be considered a fruit. If something is absolute, we shouldn't be able to change it so easily.

RE: "Because both of the above could be true, but there is no current reason for one to quantitatively outweigh the other, there is a theoretical 50% chance for a given above option to be true (i.e. that it might be up sooner, or it might be up later). Thus, this option entails that it is unknown.
"

This argument is riddled with one main problem and that is that he states that there is no current reason for one to "quantitatively" outweigh the other. However, CON has agreed with a reason that would quantitatively cause one side to outweigh the other and that is the fact that he has agreed with my argument on how the percentage is in a state of PROGRESSION. If one side is indeed increasing whereas there's no reason to believe any change is being made upon the other (CON admits this himself), then that would mean that both of these possibilities were not equal and that the first possibility (the possibility which I am arguing in favor of) is the possibility which is more likely to occur, ergo, even by CON's own argument, my position is superior. Finally, in addition to the webmaster being used as evidence, even if my opponent is to think that the webmaster's word is incredibly minor when it concerns increasing the percentage, this does not matter, as even a mere one percent can break a 50/50 tie.

WHY TO VOTE CON:

1) I was the only one to present evidence, thus, for you formal judges who are not influenced by any possible evidence outside of the round, you are to see my position as being 99.999% likely.
2) With the webmaster being a RELIABLE source (which would dictate 51% or more) in addition to the fact that the percentage is constantly increasing, this would be seen as proving my side of the resolution.
3) By CON's own argument at the end in addition to the "progression" point which he conceded to earlier, that would dictate that there was at least a 51% chance of V3 being up.

Merely a single one of these reasons would win me the CON ballot. Specifically though, I think #3 is the strongest, so vote off of that. :D

Thanks for
oboeman

Con

"As CON, he is one who disagrees with the topic."

As the contender, and CON, I am considering the resolution to be false. I gave reasoning in my defense section as to why this is so. However, the reason the burden of proof falls upon my opponent is because the instigator has a resolution deviating from the logically valid default position. This is the instigator in this debate.

It is also illogical to vote for the instigator in this debate, having no valid evidence for why the argumentation of PRO is dominant over CON, as well as having failed to counter my argument. As well, my point is not that the resolution for PRO is wrong, but merely that it is not right. There is a difference here. Because I argue that it is not definitely right, as evident in my defense section, it is up to the instigator to show the contrary.

"It means that they must show the topic is wrong, therefore showing that CON has a burden as well."

Again, I have shown the case of PRO to not be definitely right. This is the essential duty (haha) of the contender. I have supplied for this "burden" in my defense section.

"CON's problem is that he is treating the concept of "BOF" legalistically (as in court, it is one job's side to demonstrate something beyond the notion of a doubt). However, in a simple debate, both debaters possess the burden of demonstrating which position is more likely."

The scale between "simple debate" and a legalistic one is subjective. Where one might end and the other begin is arbitrary. Yet, the rhetoric still applies. And even though the instigator is diminutively analyzing my own defense, I did indeed provide a negating argument. Rhetorically, however, it would be illogical to vote for the instigator, having no logically valid arguments to definitely affirm the argument for PRO. I have definitely affirmed my own arguments to be logically valid.

"False. I created the resolution and defined it in R1, ergo, what I say it means is what it means."

False. What it says is subjectively interpreted, as my opponent has failed to define what was meant by it. I attempted to be reasonable by my own standards, at to which is hoped to have also sufficed for my opponent.

"This is basically a point being used to say that I have no evidence."

I asserted the term faith into this debate, seeing as evidence does not constitute as proof.
For example, evidence for intelligent design does not mean it happened that way.
Admittedly, this point makes it rather difficult for PRO to win, but the point is valid.

"Since the evidence tips in my favor, my position is more likely true than my opponent's, thus, using the webmaster's credibility in order to win this particular debate is by no means fallacious."

It was agreed by my opponent that the webmaster is not infallible. The evidence does not tip in favor of my opponent, however. Seemingly, my opponent is using the logical fallacy of the circular argument (circulus in demonstrando), claiming "evidence" to be the credibility of the webmaster, while also saying that it is a given that the webmaster is credible, which serves as evidence. But because the evidence is not in favor of my opponent, as the webmaster has not been shown by my opponent to indeed be credible, this contention is in fact in favor of my argument.

"Taking this into account, my opponent's RECENT demand for proof ought to be seen as the "moving the goal post" fallacy. Also, to be a credible source, you have to be reliable. And to be reliable, your information must be considered correct most of the time."

I was indeed negating the argument with "credibility does not equal certainty." I was saving my characters. This has been a source of contention throughout this debate. Assuming the criterion for reliability, my opponent still fails to show the information of the webmaster to be correct even most of the time. Without this, the webmaster can be considered just as reliable (or unreliable, dependent on the perspective) as any ordinary other.

"Runs the website, is well informed on its inner workings, thus pretty much is most likely knowledgeable of everything there is know about the machinations of debate.org."

Then why was debate.org version 3.0 not up when it was supposed to be? It is also a non sequitur (it does not follow) to assume, because the webmaster is most likely knowledgeable of the machinations of debate.org that version 3.0 would more likely than not (at least 51%) be up and running specifically by the conclusion of this debate.

"Thus, at the beginning of our analysis, the chances V3 being up start at 51% and simply increase rather than decrease."

It increases starting at the initial point it had the potential to be up. However, that was long ago in debate.org history. This increase, again, is unknown in scale, and is indeterminate in this debate. And even if it were above 50% (which it is not necessarily), it could still be below 51%. Probability is not always in exact integer form.

"This debate isn't about providing conclusive evidence."

Evidence that is not conclusive is subjective in value. Subjectivity has no place in determining the winner to this debate (except in this claim, showing it to be erroneous, thus assisting my win.)
=P

"Most evidence is what I mean by strongest."

Perhaps most conclusive evidence, but not necessarily most subjective evidence, would win an argument.

"This depends upon interpretation of reality. For instance, all apples are fruit why? Because we CLASSIFY them as fruit based on our own interpretation of what is and what isn't to be considered fruits."

When a term is used in syllogism or debate, it should be universally defined (involved members agree on definition to be used). Assuming likewise definitions, and the conventional definition of fruit, it can be derived that the syllogism is true, and, importantly, that deductive reasoning need not rely on inductive reasoning.

"CON has agreed with a reason that would quantitatively cause one side to outweigh the other and that is the fact that he has agreed with my argument on how the percentage is in a state of PROGRESSION."

To the contrary, I have already shown this progression to potentially be increasing at a low rate. If this progression were low enough, the likelihood of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running could be a mere 37%, less than 51%.
Thus, my three inductive reasoning conclusions are valid insofar as proving this debate to be in my favor.

"Even a mere one percent can break a 50/50 tie."

How does the webmaster equal one percent? Even if it did increase probability (which is not necessarily true), it could be a mere 0.1%, resulting in 50.1% likelihood, thus, in turn, resulting in me winning this debate.

Reasons to vote CON for Oboeman:

I have supplied an adequate defense section that is logically valid.
I have countered the evidence of my opponent, mainly that the webmaster was not proven to be a reliable source, and that the percentage increase of probability does not work in favor of my opponent.
The burden of proof was not supplied by my opponent during the debate.
Even if the likelihood WAS more likely than not, it could still be, for example, 50.1%, and seeing as my opponent claimed the probability to be at least 51%, my opponent has shown no definite proof for why it is to be at least 51% (as compared to 50.1%), and therefore, this argument works in my favor.
The latter two inductive reasoning conclusions in my defense section are valid.
Inductive reasoning itself proves to palpably be an asset to my dominant victory.

For the above, and the negations presented within the debate, logic dictates a CON vote.

Thanks for the fascinating debate, and I look forward to seeing this version 3.0 when the probability is right (even though it does not always dictate absoluteness).
Oboeman
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Logical-Master
I voted against myself for the lulz (on a lot of my debates even). At that point, I stopped caring about the votes. That said, I believe I won this debate.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Grievous needs to stop his spamming, it is ticking me off
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
r we spamming, grievous?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Any reason you posted that here? Just curious.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Read a debate before voting?

Gosh, you must be new here.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Read a debate before voting? Pfft you must think this is some kind of formal debating site. It's all about popularity.

/s
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Indeed, unless you are extremely fast readers, it is advisable that all voters read through the debate in its entirety.

And by the way L-M, thanks for urging the CON vote. haha
=P
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hey guys, I see people voting for me quickly. Although I think I won this debate, just in case people are voting because they happen to agree with the topic, I'd disadvise this and request that you take Oboeman's arguments into consideration before doing so.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
LM
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Holy crap? Did I say "vote CON." I don't know what I was thinking. I meant "Vote PRO."

And thanks for the debate, oboeman (I meant to say that in the round, but this site cut off the last bit of my message for some reason).
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
http://img371.imageshack.us...

I probably (as in 51%+) did not forge that image.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: the master really couldn't show that DDO 3.0'd be up & running by July. Plus, even he voted his opponent.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Logical-MasteroboemanTied
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