The Instigator
asdf1231
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cathaystewie
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points

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 1 vote the winner is...
cathaystewie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 77295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

asdf1231

Pro

You have to be original

Imagine you debating. You are thinking hard for points to support your view. Well guess what? The one accepting the challenge can just read it and pick out the points you thought and debate on them. Then you debate their debate. Then it goes down that way. As we all know, people usually don't use original points beyond the opening statement, at least in the Internet.
cathaystewie

Con

Thank you, PRO, for instigating this debate. I ask that no new arguments be brought up in the final round, and that a good way of words is maintained. May the best debater win!

In addition to the content posted in Round 1, PRO also wishes to deliver this argument that he forgot to post in Round 1:

All your points are concentrated into one post

In real life, you have limited time on what you can say. However, here you have 10000 characters. I'd say that's enough to squeeze in 10 points... Imagine saying 10 points in 3 minutes. That'd be impossible.

DEFINITIONS

Hard: Difficult to do or accomplish; fatiguing; troublesome [1].

BURDEN OF PROOF

PRO must prove that debates are harder for those who are the first to deliver their arguments.
CON must prove either that debates are easier for those who are the first to deliver their arguments or that debates are equally difficult/easy for both sides of the house.

Note: For the sake of efficiency, I will be referring to the person who delivers their arguments first as 'Person A' and his opposition as 'Person B'.

REBUTTALS

R1) "The one accepting the challenge can just read it and pick out the points you thought and debate on them..."

There is no evidence that this makes the debate difficult for Person A. How easy it is for the opposition to pick out flaws in your argument is proportionate to how well you fabricate your arguments. So to speak, if you are Person A and you wish to slack off and make things easy for yourself and you don't put effort into constructing your case, then you are simultaneously making things equally easy for Person B in terms of fulfilling their role of rebutting your points.

Furthermore, what PRO has not talked about is that picking on the opposition's points and "thinking hard for points to support your view" is a shared burden for both sides of the house. Person B who "can just read it and pick out the points" is also obliged to come up with substantives to uphold his stance, and Person A in turn has the responsibility to rebut those points and establish new arguments, and this continues until the last round. As one can see, both sides of the house have the same onus and hence no side is harder than another in this respect.

R2) "...people usually don't use original points beyond the opening statement, at least in the Internet."

Firstly, this is a bare assertion fallacy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim, nor has the argument been extended in the form of any analysis. Thus, we can only go as far as saying that this is an opinionated statement by PRO. Even if we assume this to be true, we don't see how this creates a disparity between Person A and Person B. Both sides of the house can access the Internet and have the equal facilities and conditions to reference or plagiarise points off of various sites, thus this argument bears no relevance to the motion.

R3) *please refer to PRO's additional argument at the top*

I don't really know what to make of this argument. PRO compares debating on DDO with debating in real life through talking about word limits and time constraints, but does not proceed to make the connection between such a comparison and the difficulty discrepancy between Person A and Person B. As far as DDO is concerned (assuming that this debate is oriented around online debates seeing that PRO talks about the Internet and 'accepting challenges'), both sides of the house are subjected to the same time constraints and word limits, thus this argument is hollow in the scope of this debate.

SUBSTANTIVES

P1) Same burdens, same conditions

Both sides of the house are delegated the same burdens, and are granted the same conditions to fulfill said burden within. In the most generic sense, each side of the house must successfully uphold their stance and rebut their opponent's points/rebuttals against their points to win the debate. The specifications for victory are the same, and hence it is not intrinsically more difficult for one side of the house to take the debate.

There are, however, some slight differences in terms of what Person A and Person B are required to do in order to meet these specifications. Person A, for instance, has to characterise the problem and justify that it is indeed an issue in the status quo. Some may argue that this gives Person A an advantage because they may shape the debate to be in their favour. To counteract this, Person B is granted the privilege of having the 'last say', or in other words, gets the opportunity to definitively conclude the debate in the final round. This ensures that whatever analysis or rebuttals they make in the final round will go unanswered and its legitimacy will be entirely in the hands of the voters and/or judges with no influence from Person A.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, I have rebutted all of PRO's points thus far and have demonstrated to you that a debate is structured in such a way that it allots the same context for each side of the house to debate within, and assigns the same goals for both sides to accomplish. A debate, by nature, is therefore fair to both Person A and Person B. Thank you and I await PRO's response.
Debate Round No. 1
asdf1231

Pro

asdf1231 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

It is a shame that my opponent has forfeited, I hope that all is well for him of late. As such, I will not be posting new arguments in this round and will extend my previous arguments. Please may I remind PRO that no new arguments will be presented in the next round by either side of the house as it is the final round of the debate.

On a different note, I forgot to post the link of the webpage I referenced the definition of 'hard' from. Here it is:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
asdf1231

Pro

Words to Begin the Debate with

First off, I apologize for forfeiting the round. I have had some issues with logging in that is now fortunately resolved[1]. I will have to point out that I am only at Grade 8, and have never encountered debates this formal. However, I will try my best to defend my point. Also, my points were targeted to the general internet, not specifically debate.org despite what I said. Sorry for the confusion.

Rebuttals

Rebuttal 1

“…no evidence that this makes the debate difficult for Person A.”

While this might be true, I personally find it very difficult. This might be a personal thing though, and everyone has their opinions, especially over the internet, where lots of people, and naturally, lots of kinds of people are in.

Rebuttal 2

“If you are Person A and you wish to slack off and make things easy for yourself and you don't put effort into constructing your case, then you are simultaneously making things equally easy for Person B in terms of fulfilling their role of rebutting your points.”

Again, while this might be true, isn’t debates all about convincing people to support either side? More points makes your arguments more convincing, and more valid rebuttals are also more convincing. According to debate.org’s 7 Point System (Source: http://www.debate.org...) “Who made more convincing arguments?” Is Worth the most marks (3). Therefore, even debate.org agrees that making arguments is important. While this might do nothing to support my point, I’d like to point that out.

Rebuttal 3a

“Firstly, this is a bare assertion fallacy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim, nor has the argument been extended in the form of any analysis.”

I have participated in LOTS of flame wars on YouTube, and other sites. Almost None of them provide original points, or maybe just points that are overused, even insults. As a matter of fact, insults make up the most. (Example: http://bit.ly... (While this might be a bad one, It’s just an example.)) There ARE differences between flame wars and proper debates, however, not everyone is as professional as you. Like me. Some debate like normal flame wars. Again, some. Not many, not all.

Rebuttal 3b

“Both sides of the house can access the Internet and have the equal facilities and conditions to reference or plagiarize points off of various sites, thus this argument bears no relevance to the motion.”

While that is true, I don’t think that they have completely equal facilities. However, this doesn’t matter. I have also pointed out that most people rebut original points only and doesn’t come up with any on the internet. Plus, they never cite any.

Rebuttal 4

“Both sides of the house are delegated the same burdens, and are granted the same conditions to fulfill said burden within.”

Please Refer to Rebuttal 3b. Plus, Person A gets one less chance to rebut to prove their point, especially since internet debates go on for infinite lengths, like 200 comments. (Example: http://bit.ly... (While this might be a bad one, It’s just an example.)) Again, I apologize for the confusion, but my points were targeted to the general internet, which makes your points less effective.

Rebuttal 5

“To counteract this, Person B is granted the privilege of having the 'last say', or in other words, gets the opportunity to definitively conclude the debate in the final round.”

While this is very true in Debate.org, it’s not in the internet. Please do not let this point affect your rating towards Con though, It was my fault.

Rebuttal 5b

(1) “This ensures that whatever analysis or rebuttals they make in the final round will go unanswered and its legitimacy will be entirely in the hands of the voters and/or judges with no influence from Person A.”

(2) “A debate, by nature, is therefore fair to both Person A and Person B.”

I personally think Point (1) and Point (2) Conflict. I think that the fact that you can’t rebut someone is very unfair, which adds to the unfairness of Person A. Person A loses 2 chances to rebut their Opponent, while Person B loses none. While I do understand that this is a counterargument, I have made more convincing ones in Middle School, that shows that the Counterarguments actually is a benefit, or is worth losing for. This is a debate on debates so I’d like to point that out.

Arguments

Point 0: Read me first

If CON wants to, he can ignore the arguments, and pretend that I haven’t made any new arguments. As I had some account issues, I forfeited against my will, therefore I think it’s unfair to not let me make additional arguments. If CON disagrees however, he can ignore all my points.

Point 0b: All my points I made in my Rebuttals

Point 1: Everyone can see your arguments, and if they don’t know how to rebut them, they’ll skip

While this might be untrue for those who uses Round 1 as an acceptance round, I personally don’t do so. I think it’s a waste rounds which is already not enough, especially since there is no time limit, or a time limit short enough to bother. If one is not confident on what they see on what Person A says, they’ll skip, and think their points thoroughly before coming back and accepting the challenge. If they fail todo so, they’ll simply ignore. If Person B’s arguments is so good they didn’t know what to say, they can’t withdraw, and will have to forfeit their rounds, which makes Person A seem bad, which ADDS to the unfairness. While the same might apply to Person B too, it does less. Plus, Person A doesn’t have an opportunity to pass, while Person B does.

Conclusion

While I might have not rebutted all points made by Con, I have rebutted most of them. A debate has many unfair places, especially for Person A. Points are shown to everybody before they accept them, Person B gets the final say. I’d like to apologize again for my misleading points. This time, My point targets specifically debate.org. However, that might have a chance to get ignored.

-- NOTES --

[1] I do not have proof, so you'll have to trust what I say. No matter on what device, even after entering my correct password, it forwards me to tell me to sign up with google, which I don't need to because I already have an account. Clearing the cookies resolved my issue, but I didn't know how to do so in firefox, until recently. Plus, I didn't even know doing so will resolve my issue, because I seldomly touch them.

cathaystewie

Con

Thanks to PRO for his/her response and for returning to the debate. I will be taking PRO's arguments in the final round into consideration seeing that he has been subject to unfair circumstances. I will start off by addressing PRO's rebuttals against my case and then proceed to argue against his substantives.

Defences against PRO's rebuttals

D1) Rebuttal 1

PRO concedes to the fact that this "might be true", then makes an attempt to rebuke this by saying that he personally finds this very difficult. This is by no means adequate justification that Person A is on the back foot from the very start of a debate. What is difficult for PRO might be easy for another debater due to disparities in knowledge of the topic, debating proficiency and other factors. PRO needs to bring to the table factual and concrete analysis of the nature and roles of Person A and B that is consistent for all debaters, which he has not done so, to prove that Person A does indeed have a more difficult job to fulfill.

D2) Rebuttal 2

PRO's response to this point does not yield any strength for his stance. He relates the purpose of debate which to convince the opponent with the emphasis that DDO's voting mechanism places on arguments. My point about Person A slacking off was to prove the proportionate nature of difficulty between the two sides of the house, not to disprove the inherent attributes of a debate. Besides, both Person A and B are judged based off of the same voting criteria, thus this does not clash with my case which argues for the conditional equilibrium between the two sides of the house.

D3) Rebuttal 3A

PRO seeks to rebut this by citing his personal experience in flame wars, which manufactures two mistakes. Firstly, this is an anecdotal fallacy [1], in no way is PRO's experience an accurate representation of the reality of flame wars on YouTube. Even if we disregard this, PRO has not proved how flame wars can be classified as a form of debate, as he/she personally admits, hence this argument is not relevant to the motion.

D4) Rebuttal 3B

PRO states that both sides of the house don't have equal facilities, but leaves this point hanging and does not further this with any reasoning, thus this point is negligible. He/she has also stated that "people rebut original points only" and don't take the initiative to conjure up points of their own. In reference to my previous argument, the specifications for winning a debate do not concern the originality of the arguments. Furthermore, doesn't selectively rebutting points grant a free win for whoever is coming up with said 'original arguments'? How does this correlate with PRO's stance that it is actually harder for the person who has to come up with original arguments (assuming that originality even matters anyway)?

D5) Rebuttal 4

PRO responds to this by saying that Person A gets less opportunities to rebut and present arguments, and clarifies that this debate actually encompasses Internet debates and that my arguments are less effective under this premise. Under the framework of DDO debate, Person A and B both get the same amount of chances to rebut and present arguments, it is simply a matter of who gets the last say. This is also the case with other styles of debate such as World Schools Style and British Parliamentary. I personally would like to decline PRO's modification of the term 'debate' from formal and structured discussions like DDO to ones found on YouTube. Those are aptly named flame wars and not debates for a reason. As such, I do not wish to see my arguments invalidated just because PRO failed to fulfill his/her burden of clarifying what 'debate' means in the acceptance round.

D6) Rebuttal 5B

These points do not contradict each other if you have factored in another portion of my argument, which states that Person A has the advantage of sculpting the debate (i.e. the definitions, scope of debate, additional rules) which compensates for the fact Person A does not have the last say in a debate. Even if we discount this, PRO still has to prove that in ALL cases of a debate, the person who is the first to deliver an argument is NEVER the last one to speak in order to uphold this point, which is not true. In World Schools Style for example, the Proposition/Government (equivalent to PRO on DDO) starts off the debate with their first speaker, but is also the side that concludes the debate with their reply speaker [2].

Rebuttals against PRO's substantives

R1) Point 1

This argument does not stand for two reasons:

1. PRO's argument is entirely based off of the functionings of DDO debate, but forgets that this motion does not only concern DDO debates but 'debates' as a whole. Debates can occur in real life, and one is not given the option of cherrypicking which debates to participate in in real life debates. Once again, I am aware that PRO wishes to amend the purview of the term 'debate' to mean online debates, but I do not approve of this amendment as aforementioned as defining terms should only be conducted in the first round.

2. PRO acknowledges that there are cases where Person B cannot preselect which debates to take part in based on the content that Person A has posted in the first round by raising the example of Person A using the first round as an acceptance round. Bear in mind that the motion states that "Debates are harder when you are the first one to come up with points", which, unless per specific explication by PRO, means that PRO will have to justify that debates are ALWAYS more difficult for Person A. By providing the example of the acceptance round scenario, PRO has essentially disproved this him/herself.

Even if both of these counterarguments do not stand, PRO's argument is still insufficient in justifying his stance for the reason that Person A is given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate his/her decision to instigate a debate in much the same way that Person B is given the opportunity to consider accepting a debate or not. More importantly, Person A is entitled to choosing what topic to debate on based on his/her strengths and weaknesses as well as preferences in the same way that Person B can choose which debates to engage in according to their proficiency of the matters discussed in the motion. Furthermore, both sides of the house are unaware of the ability of their opponents to-be as they most likely do not know their opponent in person given that the opponent's profile information is true in the first place. Thus, all factors accounted for, it is not more difficult for Person A simply because Person B is able to decide which debates to participate in.

Conclusion

To conclude, I have rebutted all of PRO's points and defended against all of PRO's offenses against my case. I have argued that the conditions are the same as well as the burdens for both sides of the house and justified any inconsistencies between Person A and Person B, thus I have effectively proved that both sides are inherently equal to one another in terms of difficulty, and any further dissimilarities in difficulty can be traced back to the varying competencies between the two debaters.

Thank you to PRO for such an interesting debate and all audience members and potential voters for your attention. Vote CON!

Sources used

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WAM 1 year ago
WAM
You can't withdraw. As far as I know at least. Also, I don't think you can alter or add anything if the debate is accepted.
Posted by asdf1231 1 year ago
asdf1231
OK cathaystewie you can begin.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Ok gotcha
Posted by asdf1231 1 year ago
asdf1231
Here's the additional argument:

All your points are concentrated into one post

In real life, you have limited time on what you can say. However, here you have 10000 characters. I'd say that's enough to squeeze in 10 points... Imagine saying 10 points in 3 minutes. That'd be impossible.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
So I use this round as an acceptance round?
Posted by asdf1231 1 year ago
asdf1231
No worries. Just wait until I finish adding my point
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Oh crap I'm so sorry, I just accepted it. Is there any way to withdraw?
Posted by asdf1231 1 year ago
asdf1231
Note: Please do not accept yet. I will have to add more to the argument.

WAM: Whoever begins to argue.
Posted by WAM 1 year ago
WAM
And you basically just start.
Posted by WAM 1 year ago
WAM
In what setting is this? You accept the debate, or you created the debate, or is it a random topic?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
asdf1231cathaystewieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con as he is the only one that used sources. Both sides were good, but Pro forfeited one round, so that is why I have to give argument to the Con. Additionally, I find the arguments to be highly subjective. You cannot possibly just prove that it is difficult. Some may find it to be quite easy, as you get more control of the debate and how it begins, which can show the direction that the debate will eventually take. Due to subjectivity and the impossibility of proving the assertions of Pro's argument, I have to award these points to Con. Also due to forfeiture.