The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
kingkd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Google Search is a Reputable Source

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 73232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Resolved: Google search is a reputable source.

Rules:

1: All arguments must be supported by reputable sources.

2: Circles don't exist.

3: First round acceptance.
kingkd

Con

https://www.google.com...

Google said it is unreliable. Hmmmmm... logical contradiction

If google is reliable: Then it says it is unreliable and if we trust it then we know it is not reliable

If google is not reliable: I win the debate
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

1 "Google is a reliable source" [1] and "Google is true [2] so "pro must win" [3].

2 Con: google said unreliable [1]. Con search prove "google not reilable" [2]. But "reilable" not "reliable" [3]; "Con is wrong" [4].

3 Con: logical contradiction If google not reliable I win [1]. But "this is an argument" [5], "Con has no evidence" [6], and "All arguments must be supported by reputable sources" [1]. You must "disregard their argument" [7].

4 "Con is illuminati" [10] so "you can't trust con" [11].

[1]google.com/search?q="google+is+a+reliable+source"
[2]google.com/search?q="google+is+true"
[3]google.com/search?q="pro+must+win"
[3]debate.org/debate/73232/
[4]google.com/search?q=google+is+not+a+reilable+source
[5]google.com/search?q="reilable"
[6]google.com/search?q="con+is+wrong"
[7]google.com/search?q="this+is+an+argument"
[8]google.com/search?q="con+has+no+evidence"
[9]google.com/search?q="disregard+their+argument"
[10]google.com/search?q="con+is+illuminati"
[11]google.com/search?q="you+can't+trust+con"
kingkd

Con

https://www.google.com...

GOogle clearly stat es itself to be unreliable, so even if it may or may not be reliable, google tells you that it isn't reliable, leading the conclusion to be GOogle not being reliable to avoid the logical contradiction.

https://www.google.com...

Pro arguments are fake accoring to GOOGLE ITSELF, so if Pro is trying to say Google is reliable, Pro loses as the "reliable" source says that Pro's arguments are lies
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

1 "Con didn't respond" [12] so "pro wins the point" [13] because "silence is consent" [14]

2 Con: GOogle states itself unreliable [3]. "Look to my first point" [15], "Con didn't respond" [12] so "Con is wrong" [6].

3 Rules: All arguments must be supported by reputable sources [3]. "Each of their sentences" [16] are "an argument" [7] but "has no evidence" [8]. "Disregard their argument" [9].

4 Con: Pro arguments fake [3]. But "Con is illuminati" [10] so "you can't trust con" [11].

CONDUCT:Neither [3]
GRAMMAR:Pro. Look at Con's spelling [3]
ARGUMENT:Pro [3]. Pro won 1 since Con didn't respond [3], Con lost 3 and broke rules by making statements without citing a source for each statement [3], Con lost 4 and is lying illuminati [3].
SOURCES:Pro has 17 sources [3], Con has 3 [3]

[12]google.com/search?q="con+didn't+respond"
[13]google.com/search?q="pro+wins+the+point"
[14]google.com/search?q="silence+is+consent"
[15]google.com/search?q="look+to+my+first+point"
[16]google.com/search?q="each+of+their+sentences"
kingkd

Con

kingkd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Shite. All of the refs in the section:

2 Con: google said unreliable [1]. Con search prove "google not reilable" [2]. But "reilable" not "reliable" [3]; "Con is wrong" [4].

3 Con: logical contradiction If google not reliable I win [1]. But "this is an argument" [5], "Con has no evidence" [6], and "All arguments must be supported by reputable sources" [1]. You must "disregard their argument" [7].

Need to be 2 larger. (1 should be 3, 2 should be 4.)
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
Daniel_Nemes
Well played.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
it's a spike

don't worry about it
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Circles don't exist? What does that mean?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
FuzzyCatPotatokingkdTied
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: Pro shows that google search is a reputable source, con tries to counter it with a invalid example which is in turn shot down by pro and then to top it off con ffs just handing the debate to pro. Easy win