The Instigator
funwiththoughts
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
toolpot462
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I can win this debate in one round.

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: 8/30/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 37166
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

funwiththoughts

Pro

Rules:
1. Any violation of the rules will result in an automatic forfeit and all 7 points will be awarded to the other side.
2. No arguments defending your side-all arguments, if they are presented, must be defending the side that the person making the argument is arguing against.
3. No more than 3 rules.

I have no monkey in a dishwasher, and neither does my opponent, and since this does not support either of our sides I ask that noone votes.
toolpot462

Con

My opponent has argued that no one should vote. Although this clearly violates his second rule, I must posit that, because I have pointed this out, I too have broken the rule, and so you must vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by papadoi1 3 years ago
papadoi1
Still don't get it. According to rule number 2: all arguments, if they are presented, must be defending the side that the person making the argument is arguing against.

How does your argument " I have no monkey in a dishwasher, and neither does my opponent, and since this does not support either of our sides I ask that noone votes." fit rule number 2?

If there are sides to the argument to be taken then, the opponent can defend yours. You attempt the imposible to have either a. true premises and a false conclusion, or b. false premises and a true conclusion, because in the same argument you try to defend a side that you are arguing against. How is it possible to have an argument like that?

I really don't get it!
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@papadoi: It's not that the first person to start a non-argument wins, it's that the first person to argue for their side loses.
Posted by papadoi1 3 years ago
papadoi1
Basically what it comes to is that the first person to start non-argument wins...the second never has a chance according to the rules.

Doesn't this run contrary to the logic of the challenge that there has to be an argument?

If you take the conclusion that "I have lost the arguement" doesn't this imply that the first round of the argument was "I can win the argument" and therefore no response is required to win? ?
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Correct. My side is that I can win. My argument showed that I did not win-thereby defending the side I am arguing against. The argument isn't "my opponent can win".

And you still made an argument for your side, you can't just erase that by arguing for mine as well. I win.
Posted by toolpot462 3 years ago
toolpot462
"All arguments, if they are presented, must be defending the side that the person making the argument is arguing against."

And yes, I did make an argument for my side, and that's why I pointed out that you should win.

Which means I should win.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Also, you made an argument for your side by pointing out my rule-breaking. As such, I win.

Furthermore, the argument was irrelevant to the debate and therefore was not an argument for anything. I never said you had to have an argument in the first place.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
True, true, but isn't a tie opposed to my victory.
Posted by toolpot462 3 years ago
toolpot462
I found it pretty clear that the monkey in the dishwasher premise was your argument for a tie. Your rule was that you 'must' argue for the opposing side.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Wouldn't that also mean that noone should vote?

Also, "noone should vote" is not an argument, but a request, and since the debate is over this is also not an argument. Vote Pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.