The Instigator
000ike
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points

Flaws are mostly objective

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 15 votes the winner is...
000ike
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,364 times Debate No: 21344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (144)
Votes (15)

 

000ike

Con

To avoid any semantics, I offer these 2 definitions as conditions of acceptance.

Flaw: a feature that is regarded as unfavorable

Objective: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions

Round 1 is for acceptance.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I have found no definition of flaw which uses the word "unfavorable". Someone for example could possibly favor getting alcohol poisining (for some strange reason) so if we use my opponent's false definition of flaw, then of course flaws would be subjective. The point is alchohol poisoning is objectively unhealthy regardless if some insane person "favors" it or not, so it is an objective flaw of the human body/ behavior. Lets use real definitions of "flaw" as guidlines:

"flaw1 [flaw] Show IPA
noun
1.
a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect;fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
2.
a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.
3.
a crack, break, breach, or rent."

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


" flaw 1
n.
1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness: a flaw in the crystal that caused it to shatter. See Synonyms at blemish.
2. A defect or shortcoming in something intangible: They share the character flaw of arrogance.
3. A defect in a legal document that can render it invalid."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


There are no definitions which use a bias word such as "unfavorable" (it's bias because what somebody favors is subjective), so if he uses the real definitions of flaw as a guidline then I accept.


Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Con

I derived that definition of "flaw" from Bing dictionary. ( http://www.bing.com... )

Both those definitions were conditions of acceptance, and if Pro found fault with them, he should have mentioned it before accepting so that I would gladly change it..but it doesn't matter I suppose. I'll go by his definition since he insists. The definition he gave as "a feature that mars the perfection of something" is an unusable definition since perfection is the absense of flaw, and the subjectivity of flaw is the issue in question. Therefore, I'll go with his second definition.

Keep in mind my opponent's definition: A flaw is a defect impairing validity...

P1) Flaws are defects impairing validity
P2) validity is subjective
C) Flaws are subjective

P1, This is our commonly accepted definition, as introduced by Con.

P2: Validity is subjective
How does one determine that something is valid? Well, something is valid if it acts according to our intentions, or fills our intended purposes. You may say a tv is invalid, hence flawed, because it will not turn on...but that presupposes that we INTENDED for the tv to turn on in the first place. Intentions vary from person to person, and while it is the manufacturer’s intention for the tv to turn on and display channels, it may simply be my intention for it to be used as a piece of furniture. Therefore, the tv is not flawed if it meets that purpose.

A flaw suggests that an object/person/thing did not meet a standard it was expected to meet. However, I don’t see how one can deny that standards vary. In order for Con to affirm that flaws are mostly objective, or mostly factual, he must affirm that STANDARDS are mostly objective or mostly factual. But there is no such thing as a factual standard – that is an oxymoron! By its very definition of being a standard, it implies that someone somewhere created it, and it does not exist beyond that person’s opinion.



P1 is accepted by both Pro and Con, and I have proved P2 correct as well. It logically follows that Flaws are entirely subjective. No matter how you look at it, a flaw depends on individual perceptions, whereas perceptions change.

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting my opponent

My opponent suggests that validity is subjective, therefore flaws must be subjective as well. The problem with this argument is that once purpose is applied, opinions (what subjectivity is based on) become irrelevant.



My case for flaws being mostly objective


P1: Purpose creates objective flaws.

P2: Our lives are mostly based around purpose/ finding purpose

P3: Flaws are mostly objective

Defense of P1

My defense of P1 is rather simple, if you apply a specific purpose to something (or if there is a set purpose of
something) then certain flaws cannot be regarded as opinion and must be based on an objective truth.

Applied Purposes indicate objective flaws

Applying purpose opens the gateway to objective flaws existing

Example

Lets say someone creates a simple music player to have these purposes:


a) To catch radio signals and play all available radio stations through the speaker

b) To have a fully functional volume, bass, and treble control
c) To be able to play tapes, CDs, and mp3 Cds

Now imagine the music player can do all the above except play CDs due to the machine malfunctioning in

some way, this would be an objective flaw, not opinion. If someone came along and said "In my opinion,
this machine has absolutely no flaws" they would be wrong because the purpose filled the variables in the equation
and the answer wasn't what it was supposed to be.

Saying that "flaws" are mostly subjective would be like saying "the answers to problems" are mostly subjective.

Answers to problems would be subjective if the equation being presented was X+X=, but once you filled the variables
with specifics like 2+2=,then the answer is objective. So if you apply that concept to the topic of this debate, once
you
have a specfic purpose for something then you have estabolished a flaw based on truth not based on opinion
(like if a mathematical equation had an answer that wasn't compatable with the problem).

Set purposes (which have nothing to do with human thought or opinion) like functions, indicate objective flaws

In nature there are purposes that we humans don't apply purpose to, like functionality. If you study the functionality
of things in nature you will notice flaws that are not based on opinion but scientific fact.

Example 1

The liver functions regardless if humans give purpose to it or not, so the liver functioning would be a set purpose.

If the functionality of the liver suffers in some way then there would be an objective flaw (not based on opinion).
Someone could come around and say "In my opinion, your liver failing doesn't indicate that there is a flaw with your
liver", but would you take this person seriously? That would be like stating "In my opinion, taking away 2 from 5,
won't give you 3" but in reality, they are wrong.

Example 2

The ecosystem would exist regardless of whether or not humans applied purpose to it or not, so the ecosystem

functioning to it's fullest extent would be a set purpose. Certain species dying off would indicate an objective flaw
with the ecosystem. Someone could say "In my opinion, all these species going extict doesn't really indicate that
there is a flaw with the ecosystem" but according to science, they would be sadly mistaken.

(Source showing biological flaws are based on scientific fact, not opinion)
http://spittoon.23andme.com...

Defense of P2


To defend P2, all I have to do is argue that our lives are almost soley based on purpose/ set purpose.

.Every organ in our body has a set purpose to function

.Every key Con presses on his key board has a certain purpose to function
.Every throught in my opponent's mind regarding this debate has a purpose (to be used successfuly in a
rebuttal for example)
.If I get up off my seat it is most likley for a purpose (to get a glass of milk lets say)
...It's safe to say that most of our lives are based on purpose, even if we applied no purpose there would still be set
purposes (functionality) which surrounds us in nature.

Defense of P3

To defend P3, all I have to do is argue that my first 2 contentions were logically sound...I believe I have done this
but I'll leave that up to the voters to decide.


Re-Hashing of my logical argument:

P1: Purpose creates objective flaws.

P2: Our lives are mostly based around set purpose/ applying purpose

P3: Flaws are mostly objective

Conclusion:

1) Just because someone can have an opinion regarding something being a flaw or not doesn't mean they are
correct,
if they are wrong, then that flaw is objectively true and not based on opinion.

2) Once you apply meaning to a variable the stage is set, and any props not being on the stage when they should
be
would be an objective flaw once the purpose has been laid down.

3) Things in nature can malfunction, once this happens it is an objective flaw and not based on opinion.


4) There may be instances where flaws could be considered subjective, but due to the amount of

applied purpose combined with the set purpose in nature, it's more logical to say that most flaws are in fact
objective.
Debate Round No. 2
000ike

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

To start, my opponent’s argument is founded on a faulty syllogism. He writes:

P1: Purpose creates objective flaws.
P2: Our lives are mostly based around purpose/ finding purpose
P3: Flaws are mostly objective

Premise one is immediately false. Purpose does not create objective flaws. The sheer status as a “purpose” implies that someone established it. So it is not THE purpose, it is WHO’S purpose. There is no such thing as “THE purpose”….my opponent seems to mistake the manufacturer’s purpose for the objective purpose, when that equation is unwarranted. The manufacturer’s purpose is no one else’s but the manufacturer individually. So, yes it is true, that pencil was created to write,…yet it cannot write. However, if I give it new purpose, not to write, but to be a desk decoration, why should I still call it flawed, when it meets MY criteria of what it should be doing?

Purpose CLEARLY varies, and the manufacturer’s purpose is not superior to the individual’s purpose. If a thing does not fulfill its reason for existence, then it is flawed to no one else other than he who wanted it to fulfill that purpose.

Example: Take the 1903 Wright Brother’s original airplane. Obviously it was created simply to fly, but it flew successfully only once. Today it rests in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C on display (1). The plane is not fulfilling the manufacturer’s purpose,…but it clearly fulfills a new one, to be a historical relic for the evolution of aviation. How does one justify calling the plane “flawed” if it is not intended to fly, but to stay and be used as an exhibit?

Purpose changes,…and to reiterate, there is no such thing as THE purpose but rather WHO’S purpose. I could easily call my iphone flawed because it does not make me breakfast. I could easily call this pen flawed because it doesn’t write my essay for me. YES, these are irrational expectations, but none of them are logically invalid. So, purpose is a wholly subjective factor, and thus gives variance to what is and is not perceived as a flaw.

Refuting my opponent’s examples:

Now imagine the music player can do all the above except play CDs due to the machine malfunctioning in some way, this would be an objective flaw, not opinion.”
 
Here again my opponent makes the argumentative error of assuming THE purpose exists, when it is really WHO’S,.. in this case my opponent makes an appeal for the inventor’s/manufacturer’s purpose. Again, I will prove to you with a common example why the manufacturer’s/inventor’s purpose is not sperior. 
 
Example: Silly putty was invented during WWII while attempting to create a synthetic rubber substitute, 2 chemicals were mixed together FOR THIS PURPOSE, …but wound up creating what children now play with: silly putty (2). Is silly putty somehow inherently flawed because it does not qualify as a usable rubber substitute,…or would you agree that silly putty has a new popular purpose, and that is a toy/slime to keep kids preoccupied? Just because something was created to do X, does not mean I cannot give it a new purpose, Y. 
 
Saying that "flaws" are mostly subjective would be like saying "the answers to problems" are mostly subjective. Answers to problems would be subjective if the equation being presented was X+X=, but once you filled the variableswith specifics like 2+2=,then the answer is objective.”
 
Yes, adding two things will get you an objective answer. 2 will always equal 2 no matter what because 2 is an objective figure…purpose is a 100% subjective figure, so it will change as perceptions and individuals vary. I honestly don’t see the relevance of this point beyond an attempt to compare something subjective to something objective. 
 
Liver Example
 This still does not prove that objective purposes exist. Biological purpose = purpose necessary for the human body to function (if we even accept that biology can have a purpose)….but if one does not need the human body to function and would not mind dying then what is flawed about a dysfunctional liver? You are right in that it is an objective fact that the liver is not functioning according to what it is biologically supposed to do. You are wrong in calling this a flaw, when there may be some that WANT their liver’s to kill them and consider that a good a thing. 
 
Ecosystem Example
 My opponent again neglects to establish WHO’S purpose and resorts to some mystical decree as to what an ecosystem is SUPPOSED to do. What if I said that I don’t mind if species die, a flawed ecosystem is one that does not have turtles
 I have proved that purpose is certainly not objective, and neither are defects. A defect is only a defect if it violate an individual’s standards,….but standards vary. So therefore what is considered a flaw is indubitably subjective. Vote CON. 
 
 Sources
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Counter Arguments:


"Premise one is immediately false"

It seems my opponent has backed himself into a corner here, and I will explain how.


There are 2 options:

1) Premise 1 is flawless

If my first premise is flawless, then this means it is 100% logically sound and therefore I have shown that flaws are mostly objective.

2) Premise 1 has flaws

If my first premise has flaws with it, then according to my opponent's own logic it is not factual that my premise is flawed, it's just his opinion and his arguments hold as much weight as saying "Stairway to Heaven is the greatest song ever recorded". If my opponent's indication regarding my first premise being flawed is based on factual truth, then that in itself proves that objective flaws exist and this completely contradicts Con's claim that flaws are completely subjective.

I'm amused by the irony of my Con implying that there is truth behind one of my premises being flawed, in a debate where he also argues that claiming something is flawed isn't based on anything factual or true.


"...the manufacturer’s purpose is not superior to the individual’s purpose"

Not that it matters, but the manufacturer's purpose technically would be far more superior

If I created a pencil with the purpose of using lead to write, then that would be the main purpose of it's existence because if someone didn't need to write, the pencil wouldn't exist. However if someone didn't want to use the pencil to make a pencil model house (for example), pencils would still exist even if the additional purpose didn't. Since the existence of the pencil is only based one one purpose, then it's safe to say it could be considered more superior if it came down to it.


"Silly putty was invented during WWII while attempting to create a synthetic rubber substitute, 2 chemicals were mixed together FOR THIS PURPOSE, …but wound up creating what children now play with"

Objective flaws can vary with purpose because at the and of the day, we are dealing with "X" until purpose is applied


Varying Objective Flaws


If you give a purpose to X (lets say, to be a 2) then the objective answer to 2+2 is 4. Now lets say someone comes along and says he wants to apply a different purpose to X (lets say, to be a 3) then there is still an objective answer, 3+3 is always 6. Now imagine that X is an object, if you apply purpose to the object (giving it a number in the anology) and something doesn't add up (3+3=5) then you know there is an objective flaw present. Therefore, even if the purpose changes in something all that would be doing is changing the objective way it should add up, and if it doesn't add up exactly the way it should, then there is an objective flaw not based on opinion due to the purpose applied.

If the purpose for said something changes all that would be doing is changing the objective flaws regarding said thing due to filling the variables with specifics. Correct math is objective.

"Liver Example
...but if one does not need the human body to function and would not mind dying then what is flawed about a 
dysfunctional liver?"

Why would it matter if they need it to function or not? I explained that human thought doesn't manipulate
set purposes, so I'm curious as to whether my opponent skipped through that part or not. The point is liver problems
are a scientifically objective defect:
http://www.massgeneral.org...
...And according to one of the definitions I provided a defect is a flaw. Therefore, scientifically objective defects
must be objective flaws

"Ecosystem Example
..What if I said that I don’t mind if species die, a flawed ecosystem is one that does not have turtles"

You would be wrong. Just like a liver, an ecosytem functions whether we want it to or not. If the liver/ ecosystem
loses it's ability to function to the best of it's abilities then there is an objective scientific flaw present
regardless of human thought or opinion. http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Conclusions:

1) Premise 1 [P1] of my logical argument is either flawless, or has flaws
2) If Premise 1 is flawless, then it is 100% logically sound
3) If my opponent believes Premise 1 is flawed, then according to his own logic, his belief is not based on anything
factual or true and therefore Premise 1 remains unrefuted because he would just be stating opinions.

4) If Con believes that the flaws in Premise 1 are flaws based on facts and truth, then he conceds that flaws
can be objective and this would contradict his claim that flaws are soley subjective

5) When purposes change, so do the objective flaws (like re-filling the value of x)

6) Flaws with set purpose/ functionality are objective flaws not manipulated by humans

7) Con didn't refute Premise 2 of my argument so it stands in this debate  

8) Subjective flaws do exist, but flaws are mostly [P2] objective due to purpose/ functionality

Sources (Re-hashed):


[1]http://www.massgeneral.org...
[2]http://www.guardian.co.uk...




Debate Round No. 3
144 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Regardless of all the insults and arguing back of forth, I congratulate my opponent for the win. I'm just happy it was close lol
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
@thefool

I'm sorry, but about half of what you wrote has some of the most bizarre grammatical errors and I just can't understand what you're trying to say. If you can't take the time to proofread your post I won't take the time deciphering it.

I'll skip your useless point about the "paradox of ignorance" as I have a legitimate reason for not being able to understand what you're trying to say.

I'll sort of condense your point here instead of quoting each bit of it so that I might save some space. You're saying: 'Language is a system by which we symbolize reality. That is to say, we create physical symbols in order to communicate, in a systematic way, what we perceive to be happening objectively.' This is, more or less, the gist of your language argument?

You go on to say that numbers don't have a corresponding physical counterpart in reality; they don't have an objective existence. Numbers are a priori and pre-linguistic.

If I have more or less understood what you're saying just say "yes, that is correct", or "no, you're wrong I meant..." and go on to clarify my misunderstandings.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
That is it will always be the language of math or logic at fault when it doesn't cohere with the reality it refers to.

For example I don't need to know a the language of logical contradiction to know that I cant run in both direction at the same time and travel across distance(not including the moon walk!! ;) )
Little Gremlin: 10^(0)=1 and 2^(0)=1.

The Fool: This is perfect example of what I am getting at? That is there is no zero in reality outside the symbol. Because it refers to nothing, and nothing is not there, and so not real. If there no existence it can't have an exponential relation. This is the illusion caused by the language of math which can turn out to falsely represent reality. But reality can't be false.

The 1 group is the bigger drop as the individuals are to the original drops. Hhhmm kay ;)

Little Gremlin: This divorces language from reality formation.

The Fool: Do you really want say language forms reality. Aka reality beyond symbols is dependent on language symbols. Just let that sit for a bit. If you still want to bring it up again. I give you that much charity. As you would not give to others.

The Fool: the complex number system is irrelevant to the discussion. Secondly nothing follows from nothing. Just give up while you are down. If you want to lose more dignity open up a discussion and I will respond to you. Mind you, I am not feeding you after midnight.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Little Gremlin: I'll do my best to respond to what portions are intelligible. You also mean the part you understand.

The Fool: That's funny because the paradox of ignorance is that you can't tell if what I wrote is unntelligible or if you unintelligent to understand it. It will appear to you same both ways how did account for the difference on your own?

All languages are sets of physical symbols which we use to communication our ideas. Right? Physical is objective.

That is the all such symbols presuppose an idea in our mind. Even if we are referring to something external worldly it is post-processing. Right? To communicate with language depends on people having matching between ideas which such physical symbols relate too. If not communicated is breaks down.

There is no external thing called 1 ness. But we all grasp what it means when we say it or use it. Therefor it is a priori, within our system of mind before experiencing it. Or we couldn't begin to differentiate one object from two or three. This is pre-linguistically, so all linguistic interpretation as you are referring to is secondary and superfluous to that matter.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Both commenters in this section that weren't you are me, agreed that objective flaws exist. You're whole thing was that flaws are 100% subjective, so maybe you should stop taking a "democratic" approach in your arguments against me because you will fail at that too.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
* Your refutations didn't hold up, and were silly at best.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"I didn't disprove your first premise very well,...are you kidding me? " Purpose creates objective flaws" was your first premise. I spent the bulk of my response explaining why that was nonsense. If you're going to stick by the word "purpose" then you've lost any KIND of argument for objectivity. And most voters agree."

First off your biggest defender tarkovsky admitted that purpose can open the door to objective flaws existing, why don't you be honest with yourself and concede that point too?. Also you had a 7 point vote JUST to counteract a votebomb, yes the person who voted for me didn't do it properly but at least there is evidence he agreed with me. There is no evidence that the person who countered it voted for you because he agreed. he only to countered a vote for me that did involve someone agreeing with me.

You are funny lol

Just be honest with yourself, there is nothing subjective about claiming there is a flaw with 3+3=5. Your refutations
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
I didn't disprove your first premise very well,...are you kidding me? " Purpose creates objective flaws" was your first premise. I spent the bulk of my response explaining why that was nonsense. If you're going to stick by the word "purpose" then you've lost any KIND of argument for objectivity. And most voters agree.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"...you DO realize that ALL premises must be valid for a syllogism to be true..right?"

Your greatest defender on here tarkovsky just conceded that objective flaws can exist due to humans applying purpose (just not ontologically). Since you didn't refute my first premise very well, and my second was untouched, then my second premise still stands.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You must remember Con was never arguing that flaws weren't mostly objective, he was trying to argue that objective flaws didn't even exist. Since I showed that in at least some aspect flaws can be objective, and my second premise defending the mostly aspect went unrefuted, I believe I do have the slight edge.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 5 years ago
HeartOfGod
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: pro adequately gave reasoning demonstrating that mathematical equations can be flawed in an objective context, that plus the examples regarding the performance of things in nature provided at least some evidence that flaws do in fact occur that are not purely subjective. Since the opposing debater failed to provide a solid case for the "mostly" part then this goes to pro (spelling to con)
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: CON had a stronger syllogism. The arguments were very strong for both sides, and CON wins because he proves that flaws are ultimately based on personal viewpoints - therefore being subjective.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment 88
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 5 years ago
Guitar_Guru
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Buddamoose's Vote Bomb
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Mathematical argument, definitely a deal-breaker.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Votebomb to the fool argument, as it was given on his own opinion of the topic, rather than how the debate was actually debated, which is what is actually important, and 000ike did a superior job in this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The mathematical argument is absolutely fatal!! 3+3=5 . Even if he gave this one argument and forfeited the rest of the rounds, there is no way to get around that. Its 100% objective, For error is synonymous with flaw. If it was purely subjective it make “Flaw” would only mean disapproval. Thus logically equivalent too “I don’t like that”, “that is bad,” Booooo!”, “that sucks”!. Words can have analytic/descriptive objective meaning and evaluative/connotative subjective meaning. It
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, but I gave Pro the conduct point since I think it was kinda a cop out to be con instead of being pro and changing the resolution to something like "flaws are mostly subjective".
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I was undecided coming into this debate but Con proved through his pencil analogy and Wright Brother's plane analogy that the maufacturer's purpose may not be the same as the user's purpose. Pro simply re-iterated that the manufacturer's purpose was superior. Con's syllogism also flowed a lot more easily than Pro's. Clear Con win.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
000ikeRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: You both agreed to the definition of flaw that relies on the impairment of validity. Only Ike even made arguments about validity while PRO argued about purpose. Pretty simple decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask and post on my wall to respond.