The Instigator
iamadragon
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
TombLikeBomb
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

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 4 votes the winner is...
iamadragon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,189 times Debate No: 9064
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

iamadragon

Pro

Had he [Hunton711] accepted this debate, I would have beaten Hunton711 (in this debate.)

http://www.debate.org...

Hunton711 is 0-9 at the time of this posting. Chances are, it seems, that he would also lose this one.

Also, in a lot of his debates, he just hasn't really made any sense.

http://www.Debate.org...
http://www.Debate.org...
http://www.Debate.org...

His arguments consist of incoherent rambling and broken English. He also has an odd way of posting (a trait that usually gives people who aren't good at debating away)–he uses a separate line for each sentence.

I challenge Hunton711 to this debate, but he declined. I am opening it up to the floor.
TombLikeBomb

Con

It's very easy to prove that Hunton711, or any other name Pro might have chosen, would have won this debate had he accepted.
In fact, I am so confident I can prove it that I will use Hunton's own way of posting (a separate line for each sentence), in honor of the would-be winner.
"Had he accepted this debate, I would have beaten Hunton711 (in this debate)" semantically consists of one categorical, "Hunton711 didn't accept this debate", and one hypothetical: "If Hunton711 accepted this debate, I beat Hunton711 (in this debate)," or generously, "...I will have beaten..."
The first version of the implied hypothetical must be false, as it is impossible to have won an ongoing debate.
Had Hunton accepted the debate, the categorical would be false.
Therefore, the debate's titular statement would be false.
Therefore, Pro would lose the debate.
Therefore, trivially, the second version of the implied hypothetical would be false.
Debate Round No. 1
iamadragon

Pro

"The first version of the implied hypothetical must be false, as it is impossible to have won an ongoing debate."

What are you even saying? The resolution:

"Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten him."

Really, your statement doesn't even make sense. The argument is that if he accepted the challenge, I would have won. The word "eventually" is quite clearly implied there. Saying "I would have won" implies that if he accepted, ultimately, I would have won.

"Had Hunton accepted the debate, the categorical would be false.
Therefore, the debate's titular statement would be false."

Not really. You haven't shown why the categorical part of the statement's being false affects the actual resolution. I don't even get why it would. If Hunton711 actually accepted this, then the question is still whether or not I would have won if he accepted the original challenge. Therefore, he would be arguing the same thing you're (supposed to be) arguing.

Second, I don't see why the truth of the statements is relevant. Really, your only job is to negate the statement "Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won."

You're trying to create semantics where there isn't really any room for semantics. Plus, what you're saying barely even makes sense.

My opponent did not address any of my arguments. Extend them all.
TombLikeBomb

Con

"You haven't shown why the categorical part of the statement's being false affects the actual resolution."

The categorical is part of a conjunction: the resolution. If one part of a conjunction is false, the conjunction is false.

"If Hunton711 actually accepted this, then the question is still whether or not I would have won if he accepted the original challenge."

The question never was whether or not you would have won if he accepted the alleged "original challenge". The question always was whether or not you would have won "this debate", as you four times clarified it. The word "original" or equivalent appears nowhere in your post. The word "challenge" appears once, as a verb, present tense, followed by "...to this debate." You then inform us that you're "opening it up to the floor", suggesting that the resolution itself has not changed. Perhaps the most damning evidence against the "original challenge" theory comes from your keyboard in Round 2: "...he would be arguing the same thing you're (supposed to be) arguing." Unless I'm "supposed to be" arguing against anything but what you now identify as "the resolution", it appears he would be arguing that he did in fact accept "this debate", as that's the simplest way to refute the resolution.

"Second, I don't see why the truth of the statements is relevant. Really, your only job is to negate the statement 'Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won.'"

It's unclear whether you're implying that falsification is something other than negation or that I negated the wrong statements. False statements have truth value 0, thus falsification is precisely negation. The reiteration, "Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won" is semantically equivalent to the resolution. Thus, it can similarly be deconstructed into negatable components and thereby negated.

"You're trying to create semantics where there isn't really any room for semantics."

See Comments
Debate Round No. 2
iamadragon

Pro

There is a character limit for a reason. No arguments in the comments section are legitimate at all. Thus, I will extend those to which you didn't respond in your post.

"It's unclear whether you're implying that falsification is something other than negation or that I negated the wrong statements."

Two things:

1. It can be negated. I don't see where you have done so. You have said (without directly showing, which is what you need to do) that one part of the statement is false, and you have said (without directly showing, etc.) that one part being false makes the entire statement false.
2. Your argument hinges on Hunton711's accepting the debate IN REALITY. As you have accepted the debate, you have rendered all your own arguments useless, because for them to work, Hunton711 needs to have actually accepted the debate. If you were Hunton711, your arguments might work, but since you aren't, they don't.

Anyway, like I said, the resolution doesn't revolve around the fact that Hunton711 didn't accept the challenge. It revolves around the fact that Hunton711 wouldn't win. So not only do your arguments really not address the heart of the resolution (or at all, really), but they are also painfully semantical.

Maybe I should have made the character limit 1,000, as I really don't have much else to say, except that arguments in the comment section don't count.

Vote PRO.
TombLikeBomb

Con

1.Against Hunton, Pro clearly would not have won THIS debate, as THIS debate's resolution (the one Hunton would have been charged with negating had he accepted THIS debate) is: "Had Hunton711 accepted THIS debate, iamadragon would have won." (Emphasis mine) You see, THE MERE FACT OF HUNTON HAVING ACCEPTED THE DEBATE, had he, would have negated such a resolution! [If there is any question about whether, for any x, "had x…" implies "not x", I invite the reader to try and construct a statement "had x…" that could be used in a situation in which x is true.] It being impossible to prove a resolution that is necessarily false, "had Hunton711 accepted this debate, iamadragon would" NOT "have won," a fact that is clearly irreconcilable with the resolution.
2.Pro says: "Your argument hinges on Hunton711's accepting the debate IN REALITY." Of course it doesn't. But the fact of the matter is that the resolution (of Pro's choosing) is such that its truth under circumstances of Hunton's having accepted is NECESSARILY EQUAL TO it's truth IN REALITY (i.e. under circumstances of my having accepted). But I do agree that, were I Hunton, my job would be slightly easier, as the resolution would be negated in a single step: "Had Hunton accepted…" (i.e. "Hunton didn't accept") would be plainly false. Under present circumstances (i.e. my being me), I must reach the logical conclusion that the resolution's plain falsity would have lost Pro the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Darn, I would have enjoyed debating this topic. Unfortunately, I'm about a week too late and a closed account too short.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD(CON)

(1) I agreed with Pro before the debate started. Hunton711 has not yet succeeded in winning, and it would seem doubtful that a debate novice would beat a veteran such as the instigator.
(2) I agreed with Con at the end. Pro never said eventually. Con was free to clarify that Pro meant as soon as Hunton711 accepted the debate. In fact, immediacy is assumed in most if/then statements barring a statement such as eventually, ultimately, etc. Moreover, if Pro wanted to ensure that the debate he cited as 'this debate' was included by the cite, he should have used a colon or a dash, not a period (which ends the sentence and certainly makes it seem like Pro was talking about this very debate here).
(3) Con had better conduct because the nature of the debate, public lampooning of the difficulties of another for amusement is rather poor conduct (unless, of course, the person being lampooned instigates the debate).
(4) Tied on Spelling and Grammar.
(5) Con had more convincing arguments, as per part (2).
(6) Pro had sources to support his inductive reasoning claim, and there are otherwise no sources, so I give this to Pro.
Posted by iDebate711 7 years ago
iDebate711
below me>>
very true
Posted by TombLikeBomb 7 years ago
TombLikeBomb
Have any of you read Bertrand Russell? Had you (pun intended), you would know that my semantic argument was on target. As for the appropriateness of arguing semanics, be realistic. The purpose of the debate was ridicule and I graduated it to semantics. I just wanted to point out that the irony of what Pro was doing: criticizing another's debating skills when he himself cannot even construct a consistent resolution.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
This isn't ridicule. It's an actual debate.
Posted by iDebate711 7 years ago
iDebate711
Barbara... thanks. <3
I know that I copy & pasted on two of my debates but I already apologized for that and just because I'm not totally wicked used to this like iamdragon, don't mean he can just make a debate in ridicule against me. I made a new one for numerous reasons and I have a new strategy and all that so please, let's just drop it, I'm only human and I can only do so much.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
nerds? I prefer the term geek. My wife loves it.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Ma'am,
Hutton711 is more than welcome to be here, but his debates were not good. He did not source material and he did copy/paste jobs from websites. We were not mean to him; we only wanted him to provide his arguments for an issue. You are friends with him so encourage him to return with good material. I do not like when anyone presents poor arguments, but we have quite a few members from the Knoxville, TN area (including me) and I really do not like to see them fail, but he did not do a very good job of providing his own thoughts. Talk to him and bring him back so he can review debates before making them. I was here for quite some time before presenting my first debate. He is welcome here, but must bring better material if he wishes to avoid some of the ridicule he has received.
Posted by BarbaraBaller 7 years ago
BarbaraBaller
Wow, im not even going to bother with this anymore.
You all are just a bunch of really mean nerds.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
If by "being mean" you mean "caught him plagiarizing", then yes.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
iamadragonTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
iamadragonTombLikeBombTied
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 Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
iamadragonTombLikeBombTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
iamadragonTombLikeBombTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50