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

I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 8631
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

My suspicion is great. My suspicion is very strong. I would like to point out that should no one challenge my suspicion then it will be seen as true.
Yraelz

Con

So this is what it has come to Logical? I've forfeited so many debates that now you have a suspicion?

Nay, I'll make the case that you are quite a liar.

Contention 1: The word, 'suspicion'
=======================
Defined: imagination of anything to be the case or to be likely.
Further clarification, the phrase, 'the case' should be best interpreted as 'true'.
In other words suspicion is defined as imagination of anything to be true or to be likely.

Seems like a fair definition, no?

My argument here is simple. I may have missed debate rounds in the past. Furthermore I've often apologized for missing debate rounds in the past, often with excuses like, "I just had too much school work." Luckily for myself it is summer and I have no school. Thus not only would taking a debate like this be an easy win for me but the knowledge very likely erases Logical's suspicion.

Contention 2: The word 'have'
====================
I'd like to point everyone to a similar word to start this argument. The word 'had' is very similar to the word 'have'; in fact they can be swapped in a sentence structure to keep the same basic meaning.

I have a spoon.

I had a spoon.

You will all notice that the second sentence is past tense while the first sentence is present tense. This is pretty damning to Logical's case because it means that Logical must have a suspicion at the very point in which a voter votes. If logical at some point 'had a suspicion' but now no longer does then he loses this debate round. Meaning, if you, as a voter were to vote on this debate, you must assess whether Logical has the suspicion at the very moment in which you vote. As the resolution indicates, this debate will stay in the present tense.

The great thing about suspicions is that they can vanish in the face of appealing evidence. For instance, if I were to not forfeit all five rounds and Logical-Master saw this then he would doubtlessly no longer have a suspicion. He may have 'had' a suspicion but he would no longer 'have' one. In effect, he would lose this debate.

This of course only offers to bolster my first argument. Since it is so very easy for me to win this debate simply by replying in all five of my posts, it is very likely that I will do so. Thus Logical's suspicion may be gone at this very moment.

Contention 3: Having suspicion
====================
Having suspicion: The act of imagining that something is likely or fact.

I can imagine many things. I may be able to imagine that I can fly. If I jumped off a table I would no longer imagine that I could fly. Thus I would not have a suspicion that I could fly.

In much the same way if I jumped off the table and did fly then I would no longer have a suspicion. I would know that it was a fact that I could fly. Furthermore I'd be living the very experience so I wouldn't be doing any imagining at all. I would be using my five senses to deduce that I was quite effectively flying. (P.s. I can fly)

How does this relate? Logical may have a suspicion right now that I will forfeit a round or more. However, if Logical sees me forfeit a round in this debate he will no longer have a suspicion. He will know that it is a fact. No suspicion = loss.

Your turn. =)
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

=============================
Contention 1: The word, 'suspicion' |
=============================

In regards to the definition: It is fair

In regard's to CON's argument: I'd beg to differ. Distinguished ladies and gentleman of the audience, if you'd be so kind as to take a gander at one of my opponent's most recent debates (which was started exclusively during the summer---June 17th to be precise) ( http://www.debate.org... ), you can see for yourselves that my opponent had forfeited at least one of his rounds. Thus, the idea that it being summer would be ample reason for me to lose my suspicion of the idea that my opponent will in fact forfeit at least one round of this debate is preposterous to say the least. Rather, it is more likely that my opponent has simply grown beyond debate.org and associates himself with other matters far more often than he may have a year ago.

=====================
Contention 2: The word 'have' |
=====================

PRO claims that because the resolution makes use of the word have, it must mean that I must still have a suspicion. However, like his previous argument, this is also pretty erroneous. We observing statements, we must take context into consideration. For instance, as someone who was in the first grade, I had written on a sheet of paper that I want to be in the airforce when I grow up. However, at the moment, I do not want to be in the airforce and it would be illogical for one to automatically conclude that I wanted to be in the airforce just because I had written that on a sheet of paper so many years ago. The same applies here. I created this topic several days ago, thus we're debating on whether or not I had the suspicion at the time I made the topic. What I think "outside of the topic" is irrelevant, although I do happen to still have the suspicion (which is irrelevant, but still . . .)

Though if you don't buy that, I would also like to make it known that there is more than one way to forfeit. Yrealz could forfeit literally or figuratively (in some way) during this debate. As long as I can successfully argue that it is more likely than not that I possess this suspicion, I win.

As for it being very easy to win this debate simply by replying, not really. There is a reason instigators often lose the "I will forfeit this debate" debates . . . and this is simply because debate is about arguing, not about making predictions. If my opponent were simply to show up in all five rounds, he'd lose because he hasn't addressed my arguments. It's this fact alone which may make it to where my opponent loses interest in participating in this debate seeing as how he more likely than not has better things to be doing. Besides, my debates are known to get lengthy and technical, so that too may possible end up boring my opponent to the point where he simply says "f--- it", only to do something more entertaining or pressinng.

=====================
Contention 3: Having suspicion |
=====================

This is essentially a repeat of his previous argument. Like the previous argument, it ignores the context of the resolution and is thus to be dismissed without hesitation. However, I would like to point out that the mere fact that my opponent even made this argument would suggest that he himself considers it likely that he will forfeit one of the rounds in this debate. After all, if he were sure he wouldn't, he wouldn't make an argument that supports him in case he does forfeit. In other words, this should be considered as evidence of my position.

=======================
My argument |
=======================

1) My opponent has been forfeiting debates for quite some time now and is not nearly as active as he was in the past. Given my opponent's most recent forfeit, we can't just chalk all of this up to my opponent having classes to attend to. As already insisted, it's clear that he is moved beyond debate.org in a way many have not.

2) It is also because of #1 that one can reasonable believe that my opponent will "figuratively" forfeit. In fact, this WILL be demonstrated based on what my opponent does in the next round. For now, I won't spoil the surprise. ;)

Now I'll place two cards face down and end my turn.
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

LULZ @ previous round. Extend all arguments.
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

Funny and disappointing at the same time. Oh well though. Extend.
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Logical-Master

Pro

My suspicion was great. My suspicion was strong. And as of now, my suspicion is proven true. :D

Extend all arguments and vote PRO.
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by nikiri 7 years ago
nikiri
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he could probably win if he kept writing, anything even until the end.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I read round four and laughed. Yes, he HAS a suspicion.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
HAHAHA, classic. I read the first three arguments intently and then saw the fourth.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I got this debate in the bag. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
LULZ x 9000.

:D
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70