The Instigator
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Every debate can be won or lost

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/1/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,122 times Debate No: 5595
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

Lightkeeper

Con

I will define debate as a debate.org debate.

For the purposes of this debate, the method of "winning or losing" can be the vote method as per debate.org.

To avoid losing on a purely semantic basis, I will qualify this by adding the following ASSUMPTIONS:

1. "A debate can only be won or lost if the very process of deciding it does not in itself defy logic."

2. A debate can be about absolutely anything.

3. Assume that the voting period in the debate in question is set to "indefinitely". However, I am not entitled to argue that such a debate will never be won and never be lost simply because there will never be a "final score".

To clarify the meaning of "won or lost" I will mention the following:
A debate that can only be won (if such a debate exists) is a debate that can be "won or lost".
A debate that can be only lost (if such a debate exists) is a debate that can be "won or lost".

Given that I am con, I let my opponent start. Please think very very carefully before accepting this debate. Remember that I only need to find one debate (even hypothetical one) where the proposition stated in the above resolution would necessarily fail.
Tatarize

Pro

My opponent is going to suggest that the a tie debate is neither won nor lost and therefore provides a third option and thus X debate was not won or lost.

Two points to make. Even if a debate is not won or lost by a given party, it could have been. It "can be won or lost" and that suffices to make the topic true. If the debate occurs and voting happens then it is feasible to have a winner or a loser.

Further, it is also true that every debate has both a winner and a loser and thus every non-tied debate is both won and lost by different parties. In order to avoid a semantic argument, please remember that if a debate is "won and lost" it was "won or lost" as the word "or" generally is inclusive and thus includes the possibility of both by varying parties.

----

This debate can be won or lost depending on how the voting goes. Whether it ties or not is simply inconsequential to the prospects as to whether it could have been be won or lost. So long as winning and losing "CAN" happen, the topic succeeds and pro wins.
Debate Round No. 1
Lightkeeper

Con

I thank my opponent for taking this somewhat unusual debate.

I will now briefly address my opponent's points.

1. "My opponent is going to suggest that the a tie debate is neither won nor lost and therefore provides a third option and thus X debate was not won or lost."
With respect, I am not going to suggest anything to that effect. Clearly a debate that is neither won or lost but COULD have been won or lost is not a debate that could support the Con case.

2. "Even if a debate is not won or lost by a given party, it could have been. "
Yes, I agree with my opponent but only to the extent that such a win or loss was not logically impossible.

3. "If the debate occurs and voting happens then it is feasible to have a winner or a loser."
Once again, I agree with my opponent and again only to the extent that a decision on the winner of the debate does not in itself defy logic.

4. I also agree that a debate that is won by one party and lost by the other is a debate that can be said to be "won and lost" ("both by varying parties") and it is therefore a debate that "can be won or lost".

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Although I agree with point 4 above, I contend that a debate cannot be simultenaously both won and lost by the same party. A party either wins the debate (their resolution is made out) or loses the debate (their resolution fails). If both occur at the same time, the debate is neither won nor lost. One might wish to call it a tie. I would not, at least in the case I'm about to present.

I further contend that a debate that is logically impossible to decide (in that the only possible logical outcome is such that it would necessarily defy itself) is a debate that can neither be won nor lost.

Let us now consider the following hypothetical resolution:

"My opponent will win this debate"

If I "win" that debate, this means that my resolution is thereby disproved and therefore I "lose" the debate. If I "lose" the debate, my resolution thereby becomes made out and I "win" the debate. If the debate is a "tie" then I "lose" the debate and thereby "win" the debate.

I will go further. If I win the debate, my resolution is thereby disproved and I lose the debate. This means that my resolution is made out and I win the debate, which in turn means that my resolution fails and I lose the debate which means that.... ad infinitium....

No doubt my opponent will now contend that winning or losing is based on votes and therefore by definition the person who gest more votes wins the debate. With respect I will disagree with this for two reasons:

1. The very resolution is premised on the question of who wins the debate. Therefore in order for the resolution to succeed, I must lose the debate. Unless there is a win there can't be a loss and vice-versa. Except a loss is a win is a loss is a win etc etc etc. In this particular case a vote that declares the winner makes him a loser.
2. As stipulated by the ASSUMPTION (see my R1), a debate can only be won or lost if the process of deciding the winner or loser in itself does not defy logic. The process of deciding this particular debate defies logic as in order to find a winner he must be declared a loser. This makes him a winner and therefore a loser and hence a winner and therefore a loser and so forth. In other words, the one and only way to prove that I'm winning the debate is for me to be losing it. However if I'm winning, it proves that I'm losing it. The process is instant and perpetual. It is not dependent on votes, except for the first vote. Why? Because once the first vote is cast (let's say against me) I become the loser which in itself proves my resolution and makes me a winner. The decision becomes entangled in a loop of logic. The debate cannot be won and it cannot be lost. Let us also keep in mind that the voting method for this debate is to be "indefinite" as per the stipulation in my first post.

I have above demonstrated an example of a debate in which the very act of declaring a winner makes him a loser and then the process enters a perpetual loop of logic. This might be the only example of such a debate or there may be others. However, in order to prove my resolution in the current debate, all I was required to do was demonstrate that a debate (even hypothetical) exists which can neither be lost nor won. I contend that I have done that.
Tatarize

Pro

If the debate were on whether a debate could be simultaneously won and lost by the same person my opponent wouldn't look like a joke here. However, even in that bizarre and non-existent version of the topic my opponent loses.

Let us be clear, that is actually possible. I've seen it. Several months ago somebody started a debate on Abortion, accepted the debate from a sockpuppet, and half way through the debate conceded the debate to himself. He ended up both losing and winning that debate even though the charade was beyond pathetic. It certainly can be both won and lost by the same person.

http://www.debate.org... Hickmangirl2 has two debates against sockpuppets where she changes her opinion half way through the debate and advertises her crappy anti-abortion website.

-----

Let's look at all the possibilities and compare them to the topic.

Party A debates Party B.
There are three possible outcomes.
Result 1:-- Party A wins. Party B loses.
Result 2:-- Party B wins. Party A loses.
Result 3:-- Both debaters tie.

Party A can win the debate such as in result 1. Party A can lose the debate such as in result 2. Party B can win the debate such as in result 2. Party B can lose the debate such as in result 2. From this everybody in the debate has the chance of winning or losing the debate. This suffices to render the topic true.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
Nah buddy. Each debate has 2 parties. 1 Pro and 1 Con. That's the Party to the debate. Now wether the person behind the party is one and the same, or a group of people or a bot is a different story.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Lightkeeper, no party doesn't equate to account of the same person. If I have two accounts and have sockpuppet debates with myself I both win and lose. I am the same party though I may occupy two different roles. And again, the debate is both won and lost and meets the proper definition for the topic. All debates can either be won or lost by either party, or in some case by the same party.

Your conclusion is stupid. And your topic is bizarrely converted.
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
Same person but different PARTIES. I said that a party can't win and lose at the same time. How this leads to a conclusion that my topic is "stupid" and that my "converted topic is just wrong" is beyond me.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Your note is not only moot, but party A and party B are the same person. He both won and lost.

So your topic is firstly stupid, and secondly your converted topic is just wrong.
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
Oh I get that. Same person played Party A and Party B. But the parties were still different! Party A won, Party B lost. Or Party B won and Party A lost. Or it was a tie. It was not the situation that Party A won and lost or Party B won and lost. I said in R2 that a debate can't be won AND lost by the same PARTY :)
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
No. My point was that the cited debate was a shill.

The person in question was both party A and party B. He debated himself for show just to spam a website.
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
I normally wouldn't post here after a debate has concluded but it seems I don't understand something fundamental about debating (at least on debate.org).
I always understood that to win a debate a party has to prove his resolution. What Pro has said in Round 2 is that if a party changes his mind half way through and goes against his own resolution then the party BOTH WINS AND LOSES. I always understood that in that situation the party would LOSE because they contradicted their own resolution.

Can someone please enlighten me about this just so I know what I'm doing from now on? :)

I will not address the rest of the debate as it has concluded. I can only urge people to read it very carefully if they are going to cast a vote :)
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
SO hard to articulate it and I'm probably still missing something :D
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
Just please be sure to read the post again as I have modified it by adding an assumption.
Posted by Lightkeeper 9 years ago
Lightkeeper
Go Pro then and we'll see if I can find my way out of this :)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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 resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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 Alex 8 years ago
Alex
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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 Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ref2thecore 9 years ago
Ref2thecore
LightkeeperTatarizeTied
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