The Instigator
InternetDuelist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rami
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

He/she who thrusts the first strike is at an inherent advantage in the end.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 76078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

InternetDuelist

Con

Con Outlook: He/she that strikes first is not at an inherent advantage in a matter of conflict be it physical, mental or social.

Core Arguments:

1. If they are the victor, it is attributed to the fact that they sprung on the other as opposed to being superior in skill.

2. If they are the defeated, it is even more of an embarrassment as they struck first.

3. To strike first reveals both the fighting style they use as well as how fast and powerful they are to the opponent giving the opponent the sole ability to prepare tactical counter strikes.

4. In the majority of one-sided wars, the victor is evermore viewed upon with disdain in retrospect.

5. There is little statistical evidence to prove that going first makes one stand more chance of winning, rather they prove that more experienced duelists in any martial art or walk of life (such as chess) choose to go first as they are more confident that the defense of the opponent will not outdo their offense.

Side Arguments:

1. Striking first in a legal sense is suicide if the fight is not authorized. If you win to any degree you look legally worse the better you did in that fight. If you lose, you still get a criminal record and also bear the shame of having lost despite being the aggressor.

2. Striking first may display confidence but letting one strike you first and then thrashing them despite it is a common technique many rap battlers use. Rap battling is one of the most humiliation-oriented forms of combat whereby the entire concept of victory is how efficiently one decimated their opponent's ego and it is the most common form of combat where one would opt the other to go first.

3. Any efficient dictator with a well-utilized propagandist made out that they were the defender in the scenarios where they have conflict. There has never been a gain in seeming to be the aggressor when persuading people because that lacks any need for motivation and drive to win the fight.
Rami

Pro

I accept this debate.

Core Arguments:

1, 2, 3, & 4: You wrote that the person doesn't have an advantage if they strike first. As Pro, all I need to do is prove that they do. I don't need to argue against possible disadvantages. I shall prove that they do have an advantage now. Since they strike first, they do harm and possibly decrease the harm the enemy might do to you.

5: Your chess argument is flawed as it impossible to attack the other person on your first move. You wrote strike, and on the first move, all you can do is move, not attack.

Side Arguments:

1 & 2: I already wrote how I don't need to argue this.
3: There absolutely is a gain to attacking first, as I already proved, but in that case, the defender receives more sympathy than the attacker. Also, if there was no benefit to attacking first, the dictator wouldn't have attacked first.
Debate Round No. 1
InternetDuelist

Con

The resolution reads 'is at an inherent advantage in the end' but Pro reads it as 'has an advantage (at all)'. This is misusing the resolution and twisting it to fit his/her needs.

Pro explains that they strike the enemy, Pro has to first prove that harming an enemy is an advantage at all and must then prove that in the end this is inherently advantageous to have done before the other struck them.

All moves in chess are related to the strike, the closer any pawn or knight moves towards the king, the threat to the king's safety is immediately 'struck' on the enemy. Regardless, the point stands as most experienced players will attack first and with confidence whereas less experienced ones will be more nervous but have no plan to counter it in place. Similarly if the other strikes first, the experienced player is already prepared and has a strong counter attack planned ahead.

The sympathy to the defender is the very reason why in the end being the one to strike first is never inherently advantageous and doesn't put one in a position of advantage whatsoever.

Please read the resolution you are upholding before accepting a debate challenge where you will be upholding it.

All other arguments that I raised have thus gone unrefuted by Pro's misrepresentation of the resolution as this is regarding the endgame and aftermath, not the beginning or duration of the fight itself.
Rami

Pro

I thank Con for the clarification.

1 & 2: Just because one has an advantage, doesn't mean they win.
3: Striking first prevents the enemy from defending with a thought out defense, since the enemy would have to use quick responses.
4: I don't think I can refute this.
5: Your chess argument is still flawed, since it only threatens, not damages, the other person's forces.

Side arguments:

1: This is a good argument and I can't refute that.
2. You imply in this argument that in rap battles, people strike each other. The definition of strike is: to aim and usually deliver a blow, stroke, or thrust (as with the hand, a weapon, or a tool).
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Unless this is a new thing that I am unaware of, people do not hit each other in rap battles. They don't even come into physical contact.
3. If there wasn't any advantage to striking first, a dictator wouldn't have done so in the first place. You responded that the reason that sympathy goes to the defender. A distinction must be made here. There is a advantage to striking first. There is also an advantage to appearing to be the defender. The case you give implies that the dictator is lying. This debate is only about if the first striker has an inherent advantage, not about an attacker who pretends to be the defender.
Debate Round No. 2
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Rami

Pro

Is this an automatic win for me? I'll let Con decide.
Debate Round No. 3
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Rami

Pro

Con's account has been closed down, and voters please take this into consideration when voting.
Debate Round No. 4
InternetDuelist

Con

InternetDuelist forfeited this round.
Rami

Pro

Again, Con's account had been closed down, so voters please take this into consideration.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Define 'at the end'.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Never mind I'll debate you anyway.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
I'll debate you if we change it to that the first striker has an inherent advantage in battle.
No votes have been placed for this debate.