The Instigator
nickoboy1992
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

I challenge L-M, choose your poison.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,982 times Debate No: 7352
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)

 

nickoboy1992

Con

I will let L-M define the debate. Good luck. If my opponent is familiar with LD then i would prefer that style but if my opponent wishes otherwise, i give him free reign to define the entire debate with one rule, no apriori affirmation topics (The debate automatically leads to an affirmation).
Logical-Master

Pro

LOL! I've been a bit indecisive on what to debate about, so I'm gonna go out on a whim here. Since my opponent has given me free reign, I shall debate the following:

"Resolved: After (or assuming) this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga(which can be found here: http://www.onemanga.com... )"

Onto my case . . .

Congratulations! You are one of the 1 in 100,000 people who have been entered in the amazing LIAR GAME TOURNAMENT! Along with the postcard there are 100 million yen in notes. That's the beginning of the Liar Game. When the game ends, in 30 days, you will have to return your 100 million. If your opponent steals them, he can keep them as a prize, and you will have a debt of 100 million...

Nao Kanzaki, an honest college student, receives 100 million yen (about $1,000,000) one day, along with a card saying that she has been chosen to participate in the "Liar Game Tournament". In order to win the game, she is to steal the 100 million yen issued to her sole opponent, and to keep hers safe. Upon finding out to her opponent is her former teacher Kazuo Fujisawa, she misplaces her trust in him and is easily deceived. Knowing that losing the game will put her in debt, a lawyer tells her of Shinichi Akiyama, a genius swindler.

Akiyama had just finished a prison term for driving a multi-level marketing corporation into bankruptcy, and at first refuses to help Nao. After seeing her trusting nature, he decides to help on the condition that he receives half her profits. Though she is left in the dark about his plans, in the end he steals not only Nao's 100 million yen back but Fujisawa's as well. After returning the 100 million yen she was first issued by the LGT, Nao has an extra 100 million, while her teacher is in debt. Though she gives 50 million to Akiyama as promised, she gives her own share to Fujisawa so that he can reduce his debt. Seeing this, Akiyama also returns his share. He claims that as he promised to get only half of what Nao earns; if she receives nothing, he receives nothing too.

Above, I have briefly outlined the events of the first round of the Liar Game tournament, but (for obvious reasons) have left out a vast amount of its depth and shall try not to spoil anything concerning the later rounds. The series revolves around Akiyama helping Nao get through this tournament. Throughout each chapter, you'll find yourself gasping in awe at how ingenious the "games" in the tournament have been set up or how clever Akiyama is in realistically overcoming situations which you really see no way out of. Even in the first round, I myself was honestly of the belief that there was no way for the main character to win the first round even up to the very end (in spite of previously having been told that the protagonists are successful), only to be absolutely flabbergasted at how Akiyama managed to believable swindle the money required.

As the story continues, the games get more complex, you learn more about both Nao and Akiyama motivations and the series even goes in depth through both a psychological and philosophical perspective. Whether it be why humans lie or what it is to truly "trust" someone, it is certainly rather enlightening and certainly breath of fresh air when in comparison to a lot of the garbage that sadly pollutes this medium of entertainment.

What I'm basically getting at is that this series caters to intellectuals (if it doesn't, CON is free to prove me wrong . . . which he can do through digging up information in my source or objecting to any claim which I've made about the series . . . which he'd probably need to source to do anyway. :D ). Seeing as how CON is an intellectual (on the basis that he likes to debate and is intrigued by moral philosophy---which one can reasonably conclude through reading his prior debates and taking note of his interest in LD debate), this series would more likely than not prove to be intriguing reading material for him.

And that'll do it for now (though I reserve the right to present new arguments should I feel inclined to do so). :D
Debate Round No. 1
nickoboy1992

Con

"But mom, i have a stack of books a mile high!!!!"

Because there is no kind of obligation to read "Liar's Game" I stand in negation of the resolution.

To start things off, ought implies some kind of an obligation to read this manga. This means my opponent has to prove why this option is THE option i should take upon conclusion of this round. Therefore my case will function as a list of reasons why i have no obligation to read this manga.

An obligation does not imply something is good but rather there is some reason the action is a must. For example even if i like ice cream and ice cream is extremly delicious, there is no reason i ought to eat ice cream.

Therefore my opponent has the burden not just to prove that reading the manga is good but there is some reason that i must read the manga in a desired world.

I am going to functionaly have two positions, the first of which will be a normal case structured as a syllogism and the second will function as a disadvantage to having such an obligation. Remember my opponent must win his case and both of my cases to prove that i ought to do something.

On to my case

A. Ought implies that i must take an action. For example if I ought to walk the dog, then not walking the dog would be morally reprehensable (or at least criticizable). Thus if it is not ciriticizable for me to refuse to read all copies of "Liar's Game," then i would win the round (as there is no reason i ought to take that action).

B. My free time is my own business.
No one criticizes me for not doing an activity they like because I am my own person. As long as my free time is not directly harmful to anyone (I like stabbing people) then i can not be criticized for my actions. This round is as simple as that. Regardless of what happens after the round (I may actually choose to read "Liar Game" and then again I may not) no one will say i violated an obligation, my actions can not be criticized.

Moreover to be criticizable there must be some impact. In order to ever evaluate an action as good or bad there must be some determination as to what consequence is preferable. Obligations don't stem from self desire because there is no reason to be obligated to oneself because of free will and the propensity of individuals to make choices as they see fit. Moreover, obligations to oneself would be bad as they would not allow for change in certain action one takes based on changing situations becuase the obligation would require an individual to do a certain action. If the situation changes, the obligation may actually lead to a negative impact. Thus, since individuals dont have to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions, obligations are only applicable to multiple individuals. This means there has to be an impact on someone else for it to be considered an obligation.

There is no impact on anyone else when i read (or abstain from reading) "Liar Game" because no one will know if i do or do not read it. Therefore there can not possibly be an impact and thus there can not possibly be an obligation.

OK now that the more philosophical, nature of obligation stuff is out of the way, here is the disadvantage of reading the manga;

The resolution asks me to read the manga at the conclusion of this round meaning that the resolution precludes doing anything else. Now, if there is a better thing for me to do with my time at the conclusion of the debate, then by my opponents framework of "you ought to do something that is benificial/fun for you to do" then i ought to take the action that is MORE benificial or MORE fun since these actions will be mutually exclusive.

Here are some things i can do with a short explanation as to why it is more benificial/fun

Play basketball while listening to philosophy talks on my ipod - not only is this action more fun for me but also is a two in one, a philosophical discussion and basketball. What more could one ask?
Lounge/Chess while listening to sphere - Crichton is known for amazing books, and chess is fun and educational at the same time. Not to mention Sphere is philosophical and tailored to intelectuals in that it questions the nature of scientific research and the meaning of power while at the same providing an amazing ploto (Crighton is perhaps my favorite author).
Pool with friends - Friends trump knoleledge as friends are how i derive a meaning for life. I would much prefer this than reading anything, anyday. Especialy since i know i am moving soon and now only have a limited time with them while i have an unlimited time to read Liar Game which means i can read that later but i can not do this later.

OPPONENTS CASE
lets start by looking at the resolution
"After (or assuming) this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga..."

Looking at the first part (After... concludes) sets a specific timeframe for when i must read this manga. There are two alternatives that i could take that would mean you vote con

1. I read the manga during the debate - assuming my opponent wins his arguments, the logical conclusion should be i read the manga as soon as possible. I think i will go read it now. Reading it now does two things for me. First there is no longer a reason to read the manga at the debates conclusion and second i achieve all my opponent benifits (I become intrigued) then there is no reason to read this manga after the round.

2. I could read the manga a long time in the future. This would allow me the same benifits and also the ability to hang out with my friends who i will move away from in the next few months and allows me to do other, time important, events.

Therefore my opponent must provide a reason why his impacts specifically happen at the conclusion of this debate in order to have an obligation.

Now onto his argument
"this series caters to intellectuals... Seeing as how CON is an intellectual... this series would more than likely prove to be intriguing reading material for him,"
1. My opponent never establishes a connection between ought and intrigue, i ought to take my dog out when she needs to go to the bathroom. I am not intrigued one bit by this.
2. Im flattered to be considered an intellectual - this is not an argument
3. If something is more intrigueing to me i ought to read THAT at the time, not this since they are both mutually exclusive, im not good enough to read two books at the same time (like sitting side by side because in the same day does not exactly fit the resolution talking about at the time the debate ends).
4. My alternatives allow me to read this manga but not at the prescribed time.
5. Going off past experiences, i have not been intrigued by a single manga. Since there is no way to know if i would enjoy such a novel in advanced, then i should choose an activity off probability i would like it. This has two implications, first, there have been other activities that i have loved 100% of the time (hanging out with friends, Crichton books, basketball) which means i should take those actions, and second, historically i have not been intrigued by mangas no matter their content.

Therefore i hold no such obligation. Feel free to make up as many new arguments as you want but you must take out both my case positions and my alternatives to win.
Logical-Master

Pro

IN RESPONSE TO CON's OBSERVATIONS:

RE: "ought implies some kind of an obligation to read this manga. This means my opponent has to prove why this option is THE option i should take upon conclusion of this round."

Not so fast. Ladies and gentleman, my opponent is attempting to pull a fast one through making use of the term "upon." However, I would ask that you not be deceived by his cheap parlor tricks. I had foreseen "time" being an issue in advance hence why the resolution only concerns the time AFTER the debate concludes (my opponent's wording would only be reasonable if I were to have said "WHEN THIS DEBATE CONCLUDES or something similar). In other words, my opponent could very well read the Liar Game manga when (or if) he retires or any other time at which he has free time at his disposal.

RE:"PRO has the burden not just to prove that reading the manga is good but there is some reason that i must read the manga in a desired world."

Going strictly by the resolution, it simply states "my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga." I'm not necessarily obligated to prove it is good. My only burden is to prove that you (my opponent) ought to read it (which I've done so on the basis that you are an intellectual and that it appeals to your intellectual interests).

IN RESPONSE TO CON's CASE

RE: "if I ought to walk the dog, then not walking the dog would be morally reprehensable (or at least criticizable). Thus if it is not ciriticizable for me to refuse to read all copies of "Liar's Game," then i would win the round."

#1. Just because it implies that you must take an action, it does not mean that not taking action would be criticizable. Let us refer to the definition of "ought" provided by the highly credible oxford dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com...

"3. used to indicate a desirable or expected state."

An example of this would be the following: "You ought to have been there; it was great fun."

Now by this definition, do we really see any hint of criticism or implication that the individual who wasn't was
being morally reprehensible? Of course not as choosing not to have a good time alone is not something which our society would display critical behavior towards. The case is the same here with me claiming that my opponent OUGHT to read the Liar Game manga. I am saying that he will benefit from it, but I am not saying that not reading is criticizable.

#2. To pacify my opponent and hypothetically agree with him . . .

We must keep in mind that things which are criticizable are merely things which one can find fault with. The key factor here is fault. Fault varies on quantity; there can be a large amount of fault just as there can be an insignificant amount of fault. In this case, I could find fault with my opponent for not taking the opportunity to investigate something which caters to his interest after having been precisely told about it. I could easily measure this fault and compare it to the amount of fault there is in a paper boy barely missing one's door mat when tossing papers or the amount of fault which there may be in spilling a small insignificant drop of grape juice on the floor by accident.. In other words . . . fault which is very much dismissible.

"RE: B. My free time is my own business.
No one criticizes me for not doing an activity they like because I am my own person. As long as my free time is not directly harmful to anyone (I like stabbing people) then i can not be criticized for my actions."

1) See above.

2) Actually, you can be criticized for doing something which is not directly harmful to anyone. To criticize is merely to find fault with. As long as we can conclude you are worthy of fault, you are indeed criticizable. Of course, I expect more from my opponent (should he truly continue this portion of the debate) than for him to simply insist that he is immune to criticism when committing to actions that do not affect others simply. This is merely a claim; it is not an argument.

RE:"Thus, since individuals dont have to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions, obligations are only applicable to multiple individuals. This means there has to be an impact on someone else for it to be considered an obligation."

CON's whole rationalization for this conclusion is absolutely fallacious, but given that I only have a little over 2,500 characters left, I'm only going to dismantle his argument by rendering it useless to his position.

If all I have to do is demonstrate that him acting would indeed affect other people, then I'd like to point out that him reading the Liar Game manga (found on the website I pointed out) would not only benefit the website's owners (the more hits they get, the more ad revenue they receive, hence enabling them to get even more manga series . . . perhaps even more similar to "Liar Game), but would also benefit in that his interest would increase the manga's popularity. With a higher level of popularity, the author would be more inclined to create chapters more frequently and the manga would also have the opportunity to become an anime. Furthermore, there may even be a sequel (and perhaps films). I would further like to point out that if the series is more popular, more people will have the opportunity to know about it, hence it can cater to even a greater crowd.

"RE:no one will know if i do or do not read it. Therefore there can not possibly be an impact and thus there can not possibly be an obligation."

It matters little if people know whether or not YOU particularly read it; WHO you are is not important. It's WHAT you're doing. You're contributing by giving the manga website hits, which helps increase it's popularity which helps do the things which I've said above and effect many many people. :D

"RE:" if there is a better thing for me to do with my time at the conclusion of the debate, then by my opponents framework of "you ought to do something that is benificial/fun for you to do" then i ought to take the action that is MORE benificial or MORE fun since these actions will be mutually exclusive."

Fortunately, a specific time frame is not built into the resolution. Ergo, dismiss these additional activities, ladies and gentleman. :D

RE: THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO VOTE CON:

CON presents two alternatives, but both of them damage his position. The first one fails in that PRO previously speaks of having better things to do right now at the moment, hence suggesting that he couldn't afford to read the manga quickly. Thus, he shouldn't be expected to read the manga during this debate's time frame. The second one (WHICH IS A VOTING ISSUE) fails in that it concedes to my position (as I've pointed out, the resolution includes no specific time frame).

GOING BACK TO MY CASE:

1. 2 word: Playing semantics. Just see my oxford definition of ought.
2. Nah, it's a premise. You're an intellectual. The series caters to intellectuals. Therefore, you ought to read Liar Game. Short and simple. :D
3. My opponent has already claimed to have better things to do at the time, thus . . .
4. Cross apply my rebuttal on this matter.
5. Manga series don't fall under the same genre (this is the same for text based books, films,etc) and are as diverse as any other form of entertainment. This makes basing current actions off of past experience illogical. As for advance knowledge, this is the importance of reviews. Reading a review can accurately help one determine if they would enjoy something in advance. In R1, I provided a review of Liar Game (to which CON has done nothing to counter). If PRO cannot counter the actual review (which concludes the manga would intrigue him), he cannot logically refuse to read the series based on its merits and win the debate.

And that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 2
nickoboy1992

Con

nickoboy1992 forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Pro

Since I have the time, I'm gonna do what I wanted to do in R2 and further negate that which I had no time to negate.

RE: "Moreover to be criticizable there must be some impact."

Correct.

RE: "In order to ever evaluate an action as good or bad there must be some determination as to what consequence is preferable."

Correct.

RE: "Obligations don't stem from self desire because there is no reason to be obligated to oneself because of free will and the propensity of individuals to make choices as they see fit."

WHoa whoa, slow down there. Lets chew on this one piece at a time.

1)Obligations don't stem from self desire? So then by that logic, couldn't it be said that one isn't obligated to breathe, eat, or do other things which merely concern oneself as well as self desire?

2) What evidence is there that free will even exist? It's been determined that our actions are decided based on our mental behavior and that our mental behavior is determined based on internal (genetics) and external influences (upbringing is a major one). What room is there for free will? Of course, before handling these objections, I would like to see some decisive evidence for free will in this first place.

RE:"Moreover, obligations to oneself would be bad as they would not allow for change in certain action one takes based on changing situations becuase the obligation would require an individual to do a certain action."

Nah, individuals don't need others in order to change the actions which they take. Take for instance an individual eating chocolate quite regularly. If the individual begins to notice his/her teeth decaying, he/she may be inclined to stop eating chocolate. This is self obligation that involves change without the involvement of other individuals.

RE: Thus, since individuals dont have to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions, obligations are only applicable to multiple individuals. This means there has to be an impact on someone else for it to be considered an obligation."

Non sequitur. If not, feel free to explain how individuals not having to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions leads us to the conclusion that obligations are ONLY applicable to multiple individuals. Of course, given the fact that this is clearly false (as I've already shown), I doubt any explanation which PRO attempts to provide shall be sufficient. Nevertheless, I'll more than gladly respond.

Oh yeah, and extend all arguments droppped via forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
nickoboy1992

Con

This shall not be that long.

There is only one argument I will go for and that is my alternative that says to read them during the debate.

Here is the resolution "After (or assuming) this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga"

My plan is that I read the manga during the debate. Remember the resolution says I must read all of them after the debate finishes. If I read 40 instead of all after the debate then I have not read all. Similarly if I ought to read 40 then that's not the same as all.

I have already read four in the limited time that i have had. There is no reason to reread those after the debate has finished (I do like them...). I ought to read the REMAINING Liar Game mangas not ALL Liar Game mangas. Its that simple. I should not be required to reread those that I am reading now.

He places two attacks on my alternative
1. That I can't read it quickly
(I dont need to read it quickly because I only have to read one or two in this timeframe. Second, I dont have better things to do at individual moments, i did all the fun stuff, so now i can afford to do so. Finally, I actually really enjoy them so now I would read them instead of doing those other things. I can still push those off for a tiny bit longer. After all, all my friends went away for spring break.)
2. I have better things to do
(This does not matter insofar as I have already read four. Also cross apply my last two arguments about having time to do this now)

My alternative stands and I should win the round.

I would also like to thank my opponent because he was right in assuming i would like the series. Thank you.
Logical-Master

Pro

Due to the lack of emoticons, I'm going to be providing my own during this round (via hyperlink) for the heck of it.

My opponent has opted to drop all of his arguments in favor of reading the manga chapters in this series during the debate. He believes that because the resolution includes the term "all", that by reading some of the chapters during the debate, he won't have to read them all afterwards. However . . .

ME:http://i153.photobucket.com...

There are two problems with this line of thought:

1) In the previous round (R2 to be precise), PRO made it explicitly clear that he would not have time to read the manga during the debate due to the fact that he had far better things to be doing and that one shuold do things which are more beneficial to them at the moment (remember, he explicitly insinuated that all of those other activies provided more benefits. As long as he can do them, his reasoning concluded that he ought to do them). He initially agreed that it would be most reasonable for him to read the manga some point in time after the debate had concluded. By only stating the direct opposite in this round, one has to question instigator's reliability on presenting testimony. If his previous claims were not in fact reliable, why should his current claims be considered any more reliable? In addition, due to the fact that he is indeed the instigator off this debate, my opponent has a very good motive to lie. Thus, it would be injudicious to take his claims at face value.

2) Even assuming he isn't lying and that his testimony can be considered reliable, there is something else of even greater importance that we must consider.

ME: http://i153.photobucket.com... -

Distinguished members of the audience, consider the following question: If you enjoy something, should you only be inclined to only enjoy it once? For instance, I believe that the Dark Knight was an impeccable film and perhaps one of the best movies of our time. Would it not be reasonable for me to wish to watch the film once more? So that I may possible enjoy it again as well as perhaps get an even deeper insight on what the film has to offer.

As you can see in this round, my opponent has made the assertion that he likes this manga and that I was correct about it being a good read for someone with his characteristics. Thus, I making the following proposition: Seeing as how he enjoys what the series is offering, I propose that he take the time to read it once more at some point in the future so that: 1)He may have the opportunity relive his past enjoyment. 2) If he decides to read it again when the manga series is complete (because as of right now, it is still ongoing; it has not ended yet), he will have the benefit of enjoying it all at once without having to wait for a new chapter every month or week. 3) If he reads it at an older age, he will be experienced enough in the many mysteries of the world to be able to better grasp the manga's message as well as see through the many layers which this complex series has. Of course, this is not just the case for "Liar Game" but many other intellectual related works of fiction as well (Slaughter House Five and Mother Night are very good examples) 4) Provided he has children at some point, he can take the time to read this enjoyable manga series along with them. This would serve not only to stimulate their intellect (as pointed out, this series caters to intellectuals), but would be an excellent way to have some parental "bonding time" with them as well.

You'll find that this answers my opponent's recent round sufficiently. Ergo, the instigator's atempt to circumvent my position is revealed to be futile.

ME: http://i153.photobucket.com...
Debate Round No. 4
nickoboy1992

Con

I loved the emoticons and i have finished the available Liar Game. Thus if i prove i dont have any kind of reason to reread it then I win.

As to his first point. I have read the series so it does not matter if i had something better to do with my time. Whats done is done. Also if you think i am lying, I am open to c-x about any of the events in Liar Game (From round 1, through minority rules, the revival round, and then the contraband game). You will have to excuse my misnaming of the characters however because i am not very good with Japanese names although I'm sure a description of the character would be just fine. So go ahead, ask away.

Now to number two. He makes separate points and I will address each one of them.

The first sites the claim that if you like something, you should do it more than once. I would argue that this is not an ought. I may have had the ought to go see Batman in the first place but just because i liked it, the burden is not on me to go back and see it again. Many times, movies get more boring the more you watch them (the same is true for books) so to preserve how I first envisioned it I think I won't read it again. Also books/mangas like this one are only good for their surprise factor and now that I read it i already know what is going to happen. There is no point.

His second is read the whole thing again when the series is complete. This is not something i necessarily ought to do either. There is no reason to go back and read the past ones if i already know what happens in them. I may read the chapter directly before the new one when a new one comes out. Moreover there is no reason to believe that it would increase my enjoyment level. When I went back and read Harry Potter after all the books were out, they were not so great. Also Ill just wait to read the rest until it all comes out if I want to read it all at once. I wont go back and reread it.

His third is that I will be experienced in my older age. This is contingent on me gaining more knowledge, living till my older age, and still having the manga to read. In other words there's no definite ought. So the resolution can not be affirmed. Moreover I would argue it still dulls my enjoyment. Finally he never gives a reason why seeing through all the complex layers would warrant me going back and reading it. I would argue that there is nothing connected between enjoyment and getting a meaning. I get the meaning in many of my English stories in class that are quite complex but hate them. Same with the Sound and the Fury. There is no reason to go back and read those.

To number 4 - This is a contingent affirmation if i ever saw one. There is no guarantee whatsoever I will have kids. And the way my relationships have been going, it looks like i never will (I have never gone out on a single date and I am a junior all because I am shy). Moreover, with the language i would argue it is not appropriate to read to children and based on my morals i would not read it.

Even if the last two are true, since it still dulls my enjoyment i got out of it i ought not do it and instead reread Slaughterhouse 5. I urge a vote for me. Good debate.
Logical-Master

Pro

RE: "As to his first point. I have read the series so it does not matter if i had something better to do with my time.

On the contrary; it matters a great deal as my opponent expressly insinuated that he would not have the opportunity to read the manga and that because upheld the logic of doing better things with his time, he would not for further reason. One cannot say one thing, then say another thing and still be considered reliable. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has given separate stories that both served to be convenient to two separate arguments (one used in his second round and the other used in his 4th round, when he had dropped a majority of the arguments in this debate. We have no reason to believe that his second story is any more reliable than his first. Therefore, his personal testimony is to be dismissed without any hesitation.

RE: "Also if you think i am lying, I am open to c-x about any of the events in Liar Game (From round 1, through minority rules, the revival round, and then the contraband game)"

I would agree to this. In fact, I am dying for the opportunity. However, looking at this from a logical perspective, relying on cross examination not only after there is reason to doubt my opponent's credibility on self-testimony, but for the purpose of seeing whether or not he can provide certain information on an Internet discussion would be absolutely injudicious on my part as well as yours (merely for considering it). We must keep in mind that online debates pretty much nullify the necessity for prior research. This is simply because anyone can get a hold of mostly any kind of information via search engine (i.e. google) almost instantly. Heck, I could make someone in an online discussion believe I was a doctor simply because of medical information which I gathered during the discussion through google. Assuming my opponent did not read the Liar Game manga, he could easily look up information on any question I asked with merely the push of a few buttons. Heck, he could even take his time on answering questions if he wanted to.

Thus, I propose an alternative. I shall provide my opponent with 12 hours to travel to my location (one could easily go from montgomery alabama to knoxville TN within this time period). We shall meet at Neyland Stadium and I shall have with me a large red poster with the words CROSS EXAMINATION written on them (I will also be wearing a Darth Vader costume). At this point, I shall allow a third party to record a personal cross examination session between my opponent and I and shall upload the results of our cross examination on youtube and post the link to the vid in the comment section. This will insure that my opponent isn't able to simply look up information thanks to fact that we are online, shall insure that it is my opponent answering the questions and shall allow my opponent to reasonably redeem his actions which removed the credibility from his self-testimony. If my opponent does not arrive at Neyland Stadium within 7 hours, he shall forfeit the deal.

RE: "Now to number two. He makes separate points and I will address each one of them."

I shall respond numerically below:

1) My opponent claims that books and movies get boring the more you watch them and that he wishes to preserve how he first envisioned the Liar Game manga.

A) First, misunderstands the reason to this point. I'm not saying that PRo just turn around and decide to read the manga again directly after he is finished. I'm merely saying that he reread it at some point in the future. Indeed, if I were to watch the Dark Knight 3 consecutive times in one day, that would get rather annoying. However, if I were to watch it once and then watch again several months or years later, there wouldn't be annoyance and I would more effectively be able to stimulate my mind with this form of entertainment. In fact, teh same is applicable for all kinds of mediums of entertainment. There is reason DVDs of highly popular films (particularly, ones which nearly every other individual has seen . . . like Star Wars, Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, The Godfather, etc) and it is because there is plenty of sensation to be attained in taking part in the same type of entertainment once more.

B) As for mangas/books like this only being good for their surprise factor, PRO has provided no objections (hence, concedes) to the other strengths which I have claimed this series has during R1, so even if the aspect of there being a shock factor would no longer remain, there is still this series strengths in terms of complexity, philosophy and psychology .

2) Cross apply self testimony.

3) PRO states that because my point ins contingent on him gaining more knowledge (which I don't even need to address given that knowledge increases constantly as one lives), living till his older age and that there is still this manga to read, this is a rather weak objection. I say this on the basis that my claims are supported by statistics.

Evidence of there being likelihood of the instigator living to old age:Life expectancy: http://www.cdc.gov...

As far as still having the manga to read, there is no reason to believe that the website in question, other websites or physical copies of the Liar Game will be unvailable/

As for still dulling his enjoyment, let us first refer back to the fact that my opponent has stated that this series is only good for its surprises. I've offered my opponent a mean to learn of even surprises as well as come to find out about that which he has no awareness of.

4)

Evidence of there being likelihood of the instigator contributing to having a child: http://books.google.com...

Also, refer back to PRO's lack of credibility on self testimony (actually, apply this to any point where he has provided self testimony).

You only have to buy one of these 4 alternatives
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Evidently, I was pretty much out of time when I reached the 2nd of the 4 points at the end. :P
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
That last part should say "If you don't buy my argument concerning PRO's lack of credibility", you only have to buy one of the four reasons which I list concerning PRO rereading the manga given that he himself states that "Thus if i prove i dont have any kind of reason to reread it then I win."

That's what I get for posting at the last minute though. :D
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
sorry about that... just busy watching the first round of the NCAA tournament. And also house shopping. I wont be able to post tomorrow but i will on sunday so i should be fine no matter when you post an argument.
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
Lol i was interpreting ought according to my usual definition. Im well familiar with the term used as desireability (i lost one of my important rounds this year on someone arguing a T that ought is desireablility) Ill accept this definition. As per the cross-x, I will gladly allow this next round for C-X. One caviat, there will be some structural disadvantage as i will be answering your c-x questions in a future round. I think the ten questions in the comment section is a good idea.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
er, ought = obligation.

Ought = morality is an entirely different proof.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Hah, I wasn't attempting to convince you to defer to his argument, I was just pointing out where he gets ought=morality from. If he had evidence I'm sure the argument would be stronger.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"Good mix for this website, as your record shows."

Records on this site tend not to reflect much more than popularity. Then again (and this is me thinking to myself out loud), how one gains this popularity in the first place is rather interesting. ;)

In any case, with a few changes to the voting system, I believe the win records can come closer to representing skill.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Huh? Weird. It cut my comment off.

At any rate:

1) This isn't an LD debate (it can reasonbly be argued that ought should mean obligation/duty for all resolutions granted that LD debate deals with morals, values and such).

2) Even if it was, you're attempting to persuade me with an appeal to tradition (e.g. it's done this way in LD debate, therefore you're wrong). You'll have to forgive me if I'm not persuaded. I do call myself LOGICAL-Master for a reason. :D

3) I created the resolution and am hence the leading authority on how it is to be interpreted. Of course, there is a way to object to me claiming this, but if my opponent does that, he'll end up sacrificing half of his case (*wink*), whereas my case shall be undamaged due to the previous reasoning which I've already supplied.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
You debate similar to an LDer (logical progression, rationality etc) but your style is more conducive to Public Forum debate.

Good mix for this website, as your record shows.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"Ought" implies several things besides obligation (or else---I---the creator of the resolution---would not have used the term ;) ). In this debate, I've used it in the context of "desirability" and have cited such usage (though now that I've checked on it, it would appear I provided the dictionary.com link. I'll pull up the oxford dictionary link when their severs are back up).

As for frequently being used in LD debate, you need not inform me of this. Not so long ago, I myself was an LD debater. I'm rather familiar with the practices that most debaters seem to take as law for some odd reason
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
nickoboy1992Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07