The Instigator
farmerjump1
Pro (for)
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)

Hillary Clinton secretly has gills

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
farmerjump1 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 98715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

farmerjump1

Pro

Good luck, I shall let my opponent go first. I recommend a highly experienced debater because they will be arguing against blatant facts.
philochristos

Con

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Before I launch into my argument, I want to first talk about the meaning of the resolution and what it would take to negate the resolution.

In the case of most simple declarative sentences, the negation is another simple declarative sentence. For example, the negation of "My dog barks" is "My dog does not bark." That isn't the case with our resolution, though. It turns out that there are two ways to negate the resolution.

The resolution is "Hillary Clinton secretly has gills." The simplest way to negate that statement is to say, "It is not the case that Hillary Clinton secretly has gills." But there are two propositions hidden in the one statement, namely:

1. HIllary Clinton has gills.

and

2. It is a secret.

So one could negate the resolution in one of two ways. They could either deny that Hillary Clinton has gills, or they could deny that it is a secret. Either way, the resolution is negated. So one could concede that Hillary Clinton has gills and still negate the resolution by denying that it's a secret.

That's the route I'm going to take because I suspect Pro has evidence that Hillary Clinton has gills. I am not myself privy to that evidence, so I can't say one way or the other. If my suspicion is correct, that means Pro knows Hillary Clinton has gills, and if Pro knows that Hillary Clinton has gills, then it's not a secret. If it's not a secret, then the resolution for this debate is false.

Even if it were a secret, it won't be by the end of this debate because Pro will have made it public knowledge. So one way or the other, that resolution will prove false by the end of this debate. So I should win as soon as Pro makes his case.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TropaBino 1 year ago
TropaBino
No no no you got it all wrong.

It was at the time of writing that the statement "Hillary Clinton secretly has gills" was affirmed.
So now you need to prove that at the moment of upload, it wasn't a Secret and that she didn't have gills.

For example, imagine if Bob the fisher said in 1980: "Mother Teresa is a good person."
By your logic, you could say that "that is not true because she is dead and dead people can't be good."
That is a false argument. You need to go back to the moment that Bob said that and see if he was right then.

You may procede.
Posted by zookdook1 1 year ago
zookdook1
Well Con, I would argue that since the majority of people do not know Hillary has gills (under the assumption she does), it IS a secret. Therefore the resolution you'd have to defeat is whether or not she has gills.

That's just if I was debating though.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.