The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
kenicks
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 5/15/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,426 times Debate No: 4056
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (12)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Here is the debate: http://www.debate.org...

LM is none other than me, Logical-Master.

I challenge someone here to show me why my opponent should win this debate. Offer me reasons and I will rebut them either by showing that mynameisjonas didn't say the points you put forward or by showing why your analysis is contrary to ethical debate principles. (Or any other option I can think of.)

I stand in firm affirmation that I should win that debate.
kenicks

Con

Logical-Master,

It gives me great pleasure to accept this difficult debate. It clearly will be hard for me to support an argument of such odd stature, but I am up for the challenge. I also enjoyed debating you in our "High School Musical" debate, showing that you are a worthy opponent.

I will now begin my opening argument.

The topic of this argument is that the concept of "Cousins" and "Beer nuts" are "Better" than "colon cancer". mynameisjonas illustrated that his concept was true in the sense that partying with your cousins and eating beer nuts was "better" than colon cancer, and viewed the disease of colon cancer as a negative concept. In your opening argument, you exploited the positives of colon cancer to the reader, showing that fatalities caused by colon cancer keeps the population in check.

However, after the chart you displayed, you made the claim that "Since Colon Cancer is beneficial to keeping the population in check, it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) outweighs the good which my opponent brought up in his opening argument." In layman's terms, you claim that keeping the overall population in a figurative homeostasis is better than creating memories and experiencing elation with one's relatives.

But is it?

One can argue this claim, in the views of long-term vs. short-term. While in the long run, keeping the population at a reasonable amount benefits others, in the short run, having fun outweights any situation around one. Let's say you're in an ice cream parlor with a group of friends, sharing stories and slurping frappes. I'd bet my soul you're not thinking about global warming right then and there. No, you're much too preoccupied hanging out, relaxing, and getting to know each other better. Now, eventually dies. Everyone takes their part in keeping the population in check. It's inevitable. Making happy memories is something one must go out and do on their own, and once they've made them, they have them for the rest of their life. Lamenting over death wont prevent you from dying, and lamenting over a lack of friends wont raise your social status. The only difference is that you can change the latter, and your efforts to change that will provide you with a special skid mark in the road of life after you die.

Everyone dies, but not everyone has happy memories. In a battle of importance, the commonness of death vs. the less common, effort-necessary concept of having friends gives edge to the latter in its uniqueness, therefore it is better.

Since you simply stated that your side was superior, I believe that you do not have enough evidence to prove that point, and that your debate is incomplete. Therefore, LM should not win.

I await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Good day to you, kenicks. Let us begin.

Neglecting the fact that mynameisjonas never took the postion CON is making, his reasoning is still flawed. My opponent argues that we should value the short term before the long term. However, taking this alone into consideration, his case falls apart. Simply because if we value the long term over the short term, most of our species can have the benefits he brought up for potentially an astronomical amount of years (before our species is wiped out by something we cannot control) rather than merely having those benefits for another century or two (CON doesn't point out any error in the reasoning concerning the realism of overpopulation, thus it ought to be considered conceded to). I believe this addresses CON's case.

Furthermore, my opponent makes a mistake similar to mynameisjonas in that he is directly associating cousins and bear nuts as being what causes happiness, however, this is a fallacious conclusion as not only are cousins and bear nuts not often the cause of happiness, but often serve to bring about the opposite of happiness. Heck, mynameisjonas even went so far as to assocaite cousins and bear nuts with death (which leads me to my next point).

Second, I must regretfully inform you that my opponent's case contradicts that of mynameisjonas. As you can see in his R2 response, he advocates the cousins and bear nuts are better than death since they cause it. This has nothing to do with having a good time as my opponent is suggesting.

Third, I never state my case is superior without backing up such a notion.My reasons for winning are shown here:

"At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)."

. . . and here:

"My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, you can extend all of my arguments made in the previous round. Since the pro has raised no objections to my arguments, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thus, I urge the audience to vote on my case for these very reasons (and for no reasons that concern personal opinion towards the topic)."

Fourth, we must consider that my opponent forfeited his final round, thus essentially raised no objection to my arguments.

For these reasons, it is quite clear that LM (Logical-Master) won the "Cousins and Bear nuts" debate from a judging standpoint.

Back to you, kenicks.
kenicks

Con

Logical-Master,

Based on the fact that I am tight on time and on the verge of exhaustion, I will attempt to make my case in this argument clear, and expand on it in the following.

"At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)."

Not necessarily. mynameisjonas opened this debate with the thesis that "cousins" and "beer nuts" were better than "colon cancer". You brought up the theory that death actually proved to be superior in that situation, and that his thesis was wrong. mynameisjonas responds to your argument with the thesis that while cousins and beer nuts can be an untimely cause of death, their methods of extermination are ones quicker and more painless than the methods of colon cancer. This statement, although it relates to the dark subject of death, illustrates that the methods of death caused by colon cancer are worse than the methods of death caused by cousins and beer nuts. Therefore, he still rebuts the fact that "cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer". You state that he "conceded tohis own argument being faulty" where he was simply rebutting a point rather than falling victim to your previous argument.

""My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, you can extend all of my arguments made in the previous round. Since the pro has raised no objections to my arguments, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thus, I urge the audience to vote on my case for these very reasons (and for no reasons that concern personal opinion towards the topic)."

This was your closing argument of the debate, responding to mynameisjonas' forfeit. Although mynameisjonas' closing argument was an empty one, yours was empty as well, for you only urged the voters to vote for CON over PRO. You did nothing to tie up the debate by restating your objectives, therefore, your closing argument was just as faulty as the instigator's. Therefore, you should not win the debate.

Onto you, LM.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

First, I'd like to point out that my opponent has ignored my refutation of his "short term happiness" argument.

Second, I'd like to point out that the argument my opponent is attempting to defend simply cannot be defended. Jonas urged that methods of death for bear nuts and cousins were swifter than the methods of death for colon cancer, but as I've pointed, that isn't really the case. In fact, due vagueness, bear nuts and cousins can lead to far more torturous and pain inducing deaths. Especially cousins, given that we're taking into account an actual person who can control any method of death. Thus, the methods of torturous deaths are endless. A cousin could simply kill someone over the period of weeks or months while excruciatingly torturing this someone.

Of course, all of this is besides the point due to the fact that (as I pointed out), Jonas was directly associating cousins and bear nuts with death. When you think of cousins and bear nuts, do you think of either as being a tool of death? No, because they are rarely associating as be a means to induce death, whereas colon cancer is always associated as being a means of death. Thus, my reasoning as to why Jonas's argument suffered from the post hoc fallacy.

Furthermore, I suggested Jonas had conceded to my argument for two reasons:

1) I stated he conceded to it and he raised no objections to this as he should have in his final round . Thus, logically, it is to be taken as a concession in the realm of debate.
2) More importantly, observe his words in round one: "Colon cancer infects the anus and kills people." This was his only reason for suggesting Colon cancer was bad in R1. Because quite simply, it killed people. Turning around and saying that cousins and bear nuts provide the same benefits that I pointed out merely negates his own argument. Based on his round one logic, this would be taken as him suggesting that Cousins and bear nuts are equal to colon cancer. Thus, even if you don't believe I did my job in the debate, you cannot ignore the fact that Jonas negated the resolution on his own.

At the very most, my opponent could attempt to argue that my opponent changed his argument, but not only is this very abusive, but without clarification, it must be noted that Jonas has simply contradicted himself, thus even further reason to dismiss his case and vote in favor of mine.

Next, my opponent attempts to argue that I should not win the debate since I did not restate my objectives, but do I really need to do this? I understand that restating the main points is helpful for the judges for the sake of clarification, but in no way should me not doing this be considered a reason to vote against me. What my opponent is suggesting is none other than the style over substance fallacy at work. My arguments are in the debate and that's all that matters. Plus, given that we're online rather than in person, a judge can literally glance back over what was said rather than rely on a flow pad, thus even less reason to be obligated to provide a brief overview.

Furthermore, even if you buy into my opponent's argument that I should lose the debate because I did not provide a brief overview, I must regretfully (for my opponent's sake) point out that I DID indeed provide a brief overview of the debate. Let us refer back to my R2:

"At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)."

As we can see here, I tied up the debate in round 2 (which was done primarily because I anticipated my opponent's forfeit in round 3). My reason for not restating this in round 3 was simply that I suggested you EXTEND what was aid in the previous round. Thus, even though flawed, I fulfilled my opponent's condition.

Finally, even taking my opponent's logic into consideration (about both of our responses being empty), the burden of proof belongs to the one who makes the claim, and it was no doubt Jonas who made the claim through starting that debate. Because he didn't fulfill his burden, that would make me the winner by default. Nonetheless though, I feel I've provided enough of a case to make me the winner for more reasons than that.

Thus, taking all of the above considerations into account, I have shown that I should win the cousins and beer nuts when it comes down to a debate judging standpoint.

Thanks for the debate. :D
kenicks

Con

Logical-Master,

Your statement that I and trying to defend what cannot be defended is a bold statement. While it is true that the argument I support in this debate, given by mynameisjonas, is a difficult one to defend indeed.

However, in a last-ditch effort, I seem to have found a loophole in your arguments.

I have looked over the previous 2.5 rounds to find that you use the term "bear nuts" in your supporting arguments. Thirteen times, as a matter of fact. Now, as we can all see, "bear nuts" are quite different from their companion "beer nuts", a term you only use in your supporting arguments once.

You even state in the closing sentence of your second round argument that "For these reasons, it is quite clear that LM (Logical-Master) won the "Cousins and Bear nuts" debate from a judging standpoint."

However, the topic of the debate was one of "Cousins and BEER nuts", rather than "Cousins and BEAR nuts".

While some of you may scoff, stating that it is a mere typo, let me point out the difference the spelling of a word can make. Let's say a debate is held with the topic "Baking a Cake", with the instigator taking the Pro view. He illustrates the benefits of baking a cake, the joys of eating it when the final product is taken out of the oven, etc. The contender takes the Con view, but replaces the "B" in his argument with a "T", and he debates the negatives standpoint of "Taking a Cake", and how it is bad to steal one from a neighbor's window. As the contender has strayed from the topic, he should theoretically lose the argument.

Even in the actual "Cousins and Beer nuts" debate, LM said "bear nuts" four times in his essentially closing second round argument, to the one time he said BEER nuts. As you have strayed from the topic of "Beer nuts" and detailed the negative views of "Bear nuts" he should lose the debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll be sure to link to them when given the opportunity.
Posted by Mogget 6 years ago
Mogget
What are the two debates you feel you legitimately lost Logical-Master? What are the 6 where you can see why someone might vote against you? I would be interested in reading these.
Posted by leethal 6 years ago
leethal
Eh, touche.

And haha, yeah, you did say butthole. Bet it's been a few years since that one slipped out hey?
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Not bad at all. Despite that you didn't post that until the final round, I'm glad to see you actually thinking out of the box rather than calling it quits as many others on this site would.

Just don't try that at competitions. Then again, I hear you can get away with that in Policy debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I am probably a bit arrogant from that standpoint. After all, in the 64 debates I've had on this website, I only believe I legitimately lost two of them. I only see ways in which someone could justifiably vote against me in merely 6 of the debates I've had. So that would mean that I believe I've won at least 90% of my debates. So yeah, I guess I am pretty arrogant. :D Luckily though, I'm never really an butthole (did I just say butthole? No profanities suck) about it (at least that's what I think. If not, I apologize).

Oh, but where are my manners? I've gone off topic. I think the two debates which I chose are exceptional. I could almost agree with your point of view if I chose debates with legitimate debaters, but it was rather apparent that I was debating with forum spammers/trolls who weren't really interested in debating. In fact, those accounts were probably sock puppet accounts created for votes and debated on to make the webmaster lose suspicion. Either than, or a user who is normally "sincere" and 'acceptable" decided to retaliate against the burdens pressed upon him/her by our society and release his/her trollish/spammish nature (kept hidden within for years) without anyone realizing who was doing it. No doubt, a chance for this user to be himself/herself for once. Imagine it as Batman or Spider-Man. Both individuals who wear mask and act like their true selves only when wearing the masks.
Posted by kenicks 6 years ago
kenicks
Not bad for a 14 year old punk, eh?
Posted by Mogget 6 years ago
Mogget
An attempt to demonstrate to the debate.org community that a debate was wrongly voted perhaps?
Posted by leethal 6 years ago
leethal
I meant that the debate resolution (and the other one you started with similar resolution) is arrogant. If you can't see why, then I think that's half your problem.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
A lot actually, but here, not at all.

Why? Do you suspect some arrogance regarding my previous comments? If so, please explain as I don't follow.
Posted by leethal 6 years ago
leethal
Arrogent, much?? 25 characters
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 massvideogamer 5 years ago
massvideogamer
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 Robert_Santurri 5 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 kenicks 5 years ago
kenicks
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 DrAlexander 6 years ago
DrAlexander
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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 mynameisjonas 6 years ago
mynameisjonas
Logical-MasterkenicksTied
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