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

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 7/12/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,277 times Debate No: 8953
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (14)

 

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.

That being said, I reserve the right to challenge any rendering my opponent has of the terms in the topic.
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. In fact, if you'd be so kind as to read the previous debate on this EXACT SAME TOPIC, you'll note that he not only forfeited 1 round, but 2 additional rounds as well. 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. In any case, we must keep in mind that my opponent said the exact same thing in the previous debate, only for that debate to turn out with him forfeiting 3 whole rounds. If he was wrong last time, why should I believe him this time?

=====================
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 pressing.

=====================
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 as well as the fact that he forfeited the prior debate on this exact same topic, probability dictates that there is a good chance he'll forfeit one round of this debate too. 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

A seemingly predictable set of answers, for sure. ^.^

For the time being I'm going to ignore contention one, I'll re-examine it next round or the round after (whichever round still gives my opponent time to respond.

====================
Contention 2: The world 'have'
====================

First things first, notice that my opponent has argued that the context must be taken into consideration:
"We observing statements, we must take context into consideration."
I'd agree with him here, extend this idea, it's going to be devastating for his case.

The problem here is that my opponent doesn't truly consider the context. One example is given, it has to do with something he wrote down in the first grade. This example, while entertaining, has nothing to do with a debate round. To truly examine the context, the fact that we are in a debate round must be taken into consideration.

And in a debate round.... ideas are examined in the status quo unless someone specifically mandated the past in the topic. For example if logical and I were walking down a street and saw a cat I may start an argument. I'd tell him that the cat was quite obviously a blue cat. He'd probably argue that the cat was yellow. In fact we may even say, "I have a suspicion that the cat is {insert color}." Now, if we looked up again, and the cat had suddenly changed colors we would change our arguments. In essence, we would cease to argue about the past ideas because they would no longer be applicable. I'd look at logical and say, "I think perhaps that cat can change to be whatever color it wants to be...." Logical would look at me and say, "You have to take in the context of when I made my statement, it was yellow then thus I have a suspicion that it is yellow."

This line of argumentation, of course, wouldn't make a great deal of sense and our debate would be rather unprofitable. On the contrary in this situation, logical would see that his original opinion was wrong and he would modify it, "I think the cat is part of our imaginations!".

My point is simple. In debates, arguments are evaluated in real time, not in the past. There have been numerous scientific debates in which people constantly change their opinions away from faulty ones. You'd never hear a great scientist tell you that her prediction was right because she felt that way at the time. She would evaluate her prediction as of the very moment you started talking with her.

Thus, if my opponents prediction, "I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate" is proven to be wrong by the end of the debate then he looses. The idea that he had the prediction makes little sense in the context of a debate round and should never be a compelling reason to vote for him.

Next, Logical makes and argument that there are many ways for me to forfeit. I'd agree. He also says that if he can successfully argue that he still has a suspicion then he wins. Also agree, but he wont. =P

Finally on this contention, my opponent argues that if I only showed up and never addressed his arguments I'd still lose. This is true, but I have addressed his arguments, so the point is not applicable to this debate.

====================
Contention 3: Having suspicion
====================
My opponent does very little on this argument. All he has to say is that I ignore the context. My argument is thus, that he ignores the context not I. Say him and I were talking and he told me that I'd probably forget to respond to something he was saying. If I then did just that he would be able to tell me that he was right. However, in a debate round, where the resolution is what we are debating about, that resolution stays the same for the entire debate round until it is done. If logical suddenly loses his suspicion halfway through the round the resolution doesn't just simply disappear. We would still be debating whether the resolution is true or false in real time.

Thus, should this happen, it is a rather compelling reason for vote for me.

===============
Logical's arguments # 1
===============
1. Logical's argument is that I have moved beyond debate.org in away many have not. In this argument he is considering two ideas, "Yraelz forfeits rounds sometimes" and "Yraelz has moved on to different things". He then decides that "Yraelz forfeiting rounds" must be a symptom of "Yraelz has moved on" and uses it as proof. This is a really great example of a non-sequitur fallacy. Simply because two things have occurred around the same time does not mean that they are related. For instance, when the rooster can be heard crowing, the sun is typically rising. However this does not mean because the rooster crowed that the sun did rise.

On the contrary, exactly the opposite is happening. My opponent, knowing me well, knows that I enjoy a challenging debate. In fact he even knows that I left this account for a period of time to make a new account because I was interested in challenging myself to get back to the top spot. Sadly, I didn't find much joy in my new account due to the fact that I had to disguise my debating technique as to not allow others to realize who I was. Thus I came back to this account with my thirst for a challenge in tact.

Having used this site for nearly two years I have come to realize that people will vote for, in my instances, whoever they think is the better debater. For about two months, that debater was I, being at the #1 position on the chart. I noticed, in that position, that I often didn't even have to make really great arguments in order to win debate rounds, in fact I really just had to show up and say something. Even more comical people added me as a friend simply because I was on the #1 spot.

I decided a new challenge was in order. Perhaps, if I stayed away from this website for a bit, and forfeited many debate rounds, people would forget about me enough or recognize me as a loser. Perhaps people would forget about me enough so that I would once again have to make good arguments in order to win a debate round. The bonus side of this would be that my rankings would slowly fall until I would be able to do what I always wanted to do with my other account. I'd be able to try to work my way back up from a lower spot.

Thus, my fascination with forfeiting debate rounds has little to do with having moved on. The opposite is true. I'm forfeiting debate rounds because I want to have more fun on this site.

================
Logical's Argument #2
================
It's possible that I have put enough of a twist on my opponents first argument that he will not be able to deploy this argument anymore. If that's true sweet, otherwise I'll just have to wait for this new argument.

In the meantime, I wish my opponent a great response.

Now I'll use my Heavy Storm spell card completely destroying my opponents strategy and play one card face down. This ends my turn.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Since I lack time to seriously respond in this round and since we have 5 rounds to do this debate, I'm gonna take the time to resort to some quick C/X

CROSS EXAMINATION:

QUESTION #1: Lets say two guys were talking about tennis and one guy tells the other guy that he likes the size of his raquet. The other guy says thanks while glancing at the raquet in question. The guy who makes the initial compliment corrects him by pointing out that he was referring to the other guy's testicles. If the same two guys were to meet again on the following day, only for the first guy to yet again make the remark about the size of the other guy's raquet to the second guy, would it be logical to conclude for the second guy to conclude that that the first guy was referring to his crotch?

QUESTION #2: How can arguing over whether or not is is reasonable to conclude that Logical-Master has a suspicion (in the context of him typing said statement into the topic section before this debate even started) not be evaluated in real time?

QUESTION #3: Since you agree that there are many ways for one to forfeit , will you be so kind as to list 10 ways? :D

QUESTION #4: Should personal testimony (from the debater) in favor of a debater's position be accepted by the audience? If so, why? If not, why not?

And that's all for now. :)
Yraelz

Con

The funny thing is, before I got to the testicles part of that question I was thinking it was a sexual innuendo.

Answer 1: It would be logical for him to have a suspicion that that is what the other guy meant. But if the other guy just flat out said it 10 seconds later then he wouldn't have a suspicion, he'd just flat out know.

Answer 2: How could it not be evaluated in real time? We could evaluate the round past on feelings in the past and ignore the current situation. I'm arguing that debates should develop in real time based on whats happening in the world. I'm saying the topic is a dynamic entity which is evaluated as the debate progresses and relation to the world progressing.

Answer 3: As much as doing your job for you sounds awesome.... I'm okay. ^.^ But if you'd like could you answer this question, "What are all the best reasons for you losing this debate?"

Answer 4: Depends on the character of the debater and the circumstances. Personal testimony from myself, considering my activities here, should probably be accepted in certain circumstances.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

====================
Contention 2: The world 'have'
====================

1A) First, I would like for you (the audience) to pay special attention to the answer my opponent provided to my question during C/X

"It would be logical for him to have a suspicion that that is what the other guy meant."

In essence, he agrees with the notion that if someone were to have clarified on something in the past, it would be logical to adhere to the past clarification on the following occurrence. Ladies and gentleman, the fact of the matter is that I provided this exact same clarification on what I meant IN MY PREVIOUS DEBATE WITH MY OPPONENT. Hence, it is only logical for him to adhere to how I interpret the word have in the very resolution I created. You heard it out of my opponent's own mouth, ladies and gentleman.

1B) I would also like to note that my opponent's answer to my fourth question does him no good. If we are to adhere to each other's testimony, then what is to stop me from testifying the fact what I (the creator of the resolution) mean by the resolution? Either my opponent gets rid of his testimony in agreeing that testimony from the debaters themselves is unreasonable or he gets rid of his argument against how the topic is to be interpreted. In either case, his position is weakened considerably.

2) But in spite of the fact that this contention is pretty much demolished due to the answers my opponent provided during C/X, I shall tear down his arguments the old fashioned way just to pacify him.

A) He says that ideas are examined in the status quo unless someone specifically mandated the past in the topic. He even furthers this notion by providing an amusing example of a debate which is started due to our conflicting views on the color of a hypothetical cat. However, the problem with his example is that it completely ignored my prior contention as well as this idea called context.

What he proposed was a scenario where both he and I were walking down a street, only to argue as we observe the street. This isn't quite the same as a debate round. My opponent of all people should know how a debate round is conducted. Two debaters research the topic and/or prepare the manner of their argumentation, only to THEN debate over the topic. In essence, the debate concerns entirely what two debaters have obtained from past experiences/research; every ounce of the debate is based around ideas observed in the past (not the present or future).

Furthermore, for a debate round, there is no "we looked up again, and the cat had suddenly changed colors, thus we change our arguments." Both debaters have a goal and that goal is to win. My opponent himself acknowledges this as far back as this debate: http://www.debate.org...

. . . in which he confessed to using fallacious practices in order to "win" debate rounds. He boasts about not being interested in the truth, but rather merely interested in getting a verdict from the audience that is in his favor. In fact, you shall be able to see this quite clearly in the following round from my opponent himself and shall all the more be able to understand that the ideal exchange which he is referring to is most contrary to what he himself expects out of a debate round. What I'm insinuating is that my opponent shall most likely deny the testimony I've given regarding how this topic is to be interpreted. On the other hand, in the kind of exchange which he is referring to in his example as well as in his response to my answer during C/X, he would most likely accept my clarification on this matter without hesitation (for the sake of all that is reasonable).

The fact that my opponent acknowledges this as a debate round rather than a simple exchange between friends is quite damaging as far as this point is concerned.

3) Yes, there are quite a few ways for my opponent to forfeit the debate round that don't revolve around the traditional idea of the term forfeit (IF YOU DON'T BUY ANYTHING ABOVE, YOU'LL BUY THIS FOR SURE)

We must ask ourselves two questions? What is a debate and what is a round? If I am to use one of the dictionary.com renderings of the term, we view debate as "A discussion involving opposing points; an argument." and view round (another dictionary.com definition) as "any complete course, series, or succession: The strike was settled after a long round of talks; a round of parties", the one can easily conclude that 1) "This debate can never actually end" and 2) That my opponent merely failing to participate in one sequence of our discussion could be considered a forfeit.

With these two conclusions established, as long as I don't lose my suspicion during these five sequences of the debate, it will be most logical to vote PRO. Keep in mind that there is almost nothing to stop this debate from going on into the comment section and that my opponent failing to respond for the rest of his life (which I suspect he will fail to do) in the comment section could be constituted as a forfeit. Nevertheless, your job (as the voters) is to vote based on what occurs during these five rounds in this part of the debate rather than the part of the debate that I shall continue in the comment section.

Basically, unwinnable debate for CON; conclusive victory for PRO.

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

1) In essence, this argument boils down to what you think about the first parts of the previous contention. In other words, all I did here was extend my argument.

2) I'm dropping the additional point I made here since I don't remember where I was going with it (more like I'm kind of sleepy, but w/e) as well as the fact that I don't need it to win. :D

===============
Logical's arguments # 1
===============

1) My opponent does not actually attack my argument, but rather a strawman which he concocted on his own. I say this out of the fact that I did not "prove" that my opponent has moved on. What I stated that is 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 and that 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. Stating that something is likely is different than stating something is conclusive. However, my claim of likelihood is certainly based on conclusive information and that is that my opponent's participation in debates has been consistently decreasing. The less participation, the higher the probability of not participating becomes. Ergo, looking at this matter objectively (without looking at something like a testimony provided by none other than my opponent, someone who has admitted to still using faulty practices in order to get judges to vote for him), it's not only reasonable to clam that I have a suspicion, but the suspicion itself is quite reasonable.

2) Ladies and gentleman, if you buy the remark I made about the usage of testimony in the first part of the above contention, dismiss my opponent's testimony. If my opponent agrees with the use of testimony, dismiss a large chunk of my opponent's second contention.

3) My opponent has contradicted himself. Whereas before he has claimed himself to simply be too busy, he is now claiming that he intentionally forfeited debates to recognized as loser. Such contradiction warrants dismissal of his testimony.

================
Logical's Argument #2
================

I was initially going to count on something else which my opponent brought up in his case to support my argument, but I completely fell in love with the argument I made in section 3 of contention 2 since it effectively nullifies his position on every front.

And that'll do it for now. :D
Yraelz

Con

My opponent makes some fuel crucial mistakes in his analysis. Let's start with those.

Contention 2: The Word Have
===================
1A. Logical argues that my cross-ex answers is damning to my case. This couldn't be farther from the truth! Logical argues that I should have realized, because of our last debate, that he meant for the debate to be about his suspicion when he was creating it. Unfortunately for him, his actions are completely opposed to this notion. First, he never clarified that he meant for the topic to be about his past suspicion. On the contrary he debated it like any other issue in the round. And second, he could have changed this topic to read, "As I'm typing this I have as suspicion that..... blah blah". The fact that he never did this only proves that his intention was not for this debate to be about the past, rather he wanted an open ended debate that we could both argue.

1B. He additionally argues that my fourth cross-ex answer somehow hurts me. I'd argue that it doesn't, I said in certain circumstances. The circumstance in which a debater has a pivotal interest, on winning the round, for the point is one such circumstance. If Logical could just say that he meant this to be in the past then he could also say that his suspicion is true. Thus there would be no way for me to win this round.

Next my opponent decides to tear down my case the 'old fashion way'. @.@

A. First he argues that I ignore the context. However my opponent apparently forgets the argument he makes a little while later when he argues that a debate round is "a discussion involving opposing points, an argument." Which means all of his analysis about formal debate is moot. Additionally my opponent is correct when he states, "In essence, the debate concerns entirely what two debaters have obtained from past experiences/research." Sadly this only supports my case. Every new moment that passes becomes the past. When I make my last speech everything will be in the past and he will have lost.

Next my opponent attempts to deconstruct my example by saying that there is no looking up to see the cat in a debate round. This point would be valid in a high school policy debate round because they don't have access to news in round. Furthermore their round only lasts all of 90 minutes. However this is not policy debate from high school instead it is just debate. Consider my opponents definition. And considering that this debate round can take 30 days we have ample ability to examine the world around us. Which means this debate round will be evaluated as par the present based on the knowledge we have of the past (a normal highschool or college debate round is evaluated this way also, they used their opponents past remarks as evidence for positions).

Finally my opponent makes a random ad hominem attack on me. He points out that I participate in debate rounds for the win only. This kind of attack makes no sense in the context of this debate and shouldn't we weighed for anything. Of course you should also notice that my opponent is winning the debate round he references which means that the points I tried to prove were unlikely the best. Lol

And now we get to the big argument:

Point Number 3!!:
============
Debating when you're tired can often be a rather unfortunate event. Sometimes you make a mistake which will completely lose you the debate round. Such is the case of my opponent. This point has some fundamental errors which simply destroy my opponent's case.

Let's look at them.

My opponent makes three key points:
1. Debate is "A discussion involving opposing points; an argument."
2. A round is "any complete course, series, or succession: The strike was settled after a long round of talks; a round of parties"
3. "This debate can never actually end".

So what does this actually mean? The example of a round says that the strike was settled after a long round of talks. However, we are not talking about talks, we are speaking debate rounds. Thus to be contextually correct, for this debate, the example would read: "The strike was settled after a long round of debates." In other words a round of debate, under my opponents definition would be the COMPLETE argument going back and fourth until it was over. You will all notice that his definition of round is "any complete course, series, or succession." Thus the complete series of arguments in this entire debate will be considered a round.

My opponent also makes the point that he will keep the debate round going into the comment section. These are all solid points. But he couples this with a statement which is simply ruinous, "this debate can never actually end." If this debate can never truly end then this round can never truly end. Meaning.....

1. First it means that I can never truly forfeit the round because it will never end. Keep in mind that a round is a complete set, or in this case the complete set of arguments. If, as my opponent states, this debate round will never end then I can never forfeit it.

2. Secondly it means that forfeiting is now an impossibility. Even if my opponent had not said that this debate round would last forever I would still have participated into it. Since there is only one round, a round being the complete thing, then I cannot fully forfeit that which I have already participated in. I have already made arguments and debated thoroughly with my opponent. I could forfeit my next speech, but I could not forfeit the debate round.

Finally on this point my opponent states this, "That my opponent merely failing to participate in one sequence of our discussion could be considered a forfeit." This is quite simply, not true. The topic of this debate round is, "I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate." Thus I could forfeit one of my speeches but that would have no impact on the resolution. In order for Logical to win he must prove he has a suspicion that I will forfeit a ROUND not a SPEECH . As a round is the entire set of debates on a subject, there is only one round on this subject. And since I have already responded many times I can never fully forfeit this debate round. Thus my opponent, upon reading this has realized the impossibility of me forfeiting and no longer supposes it possible. He probably never did.

Contention 3:
=========
1. All my opponent does is extend his contentions from above. Fine, I'll extend my counter contentions from above. Also extend my argument here about how Logical-Master misses the context of the debate round.

Logical's New Argument #1
==================
1. Apparently my opponent was not advocating that I must have moved on from this site but rather that I likely moved on from this site. I'm not sure how this argument functions in the debate round. I'm arguing that I haven't moved on and that there is a more likely likelihood. Thus my argument still stands. Furthermore I'd argue that what I have to say is not only known by my opponent but is also known by a great deal of the debate community on debate.org. People vote for whoever is 'popular'. The fact that I'm now participating in Logical's tournament and this debate round disprove that I have 'moved on'. It is far more probable that I was attempting to loose popularity. Thereby, Logical-Master has little reason to ever suspect that I would forfeit any part of this debate.

2. Even if you were to ignore my testimony I would still win this point. I have two logical reasons as to why this is true where as my opponent has done nothing to refute either.

3. First, a judge/reader should only consider points in this round so the fact that I have ever said I was too busy is pointless. Secondly it makes intuitive sense that I would say i was too busy. Otherwise people who would otherwise dislike me for forfeiting would have a legitimate excuse for why I was forfeiting.

For all these reasons vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
Logical-Master

Pro

I'd like to say that the song on the right would be playing as I began this round:

===================
Contention 2: The Word Have
===================

1)

A: My opponents attempts to overturn the impact of the answer he provided during C/X are admirable, but so very futile.

He says I never clarified what I meant for the topic to be about past suspicion, but this clarification existed in our previous debate as well as the one through me pointing out my beliefs on the matter of context (me insinuating that things which had been written in the past should be observed from the context of the past). The fact of the matter is that I made it clear as to how I interpreted the topic on a the previous occasion.

He then says that I could have changed the topic to read "As I'm typing this I have as suspicion that..... blah blah." However, my opponent has already defeated his own rebuttal during cross examination. Again, lets look at what he said in response to me citing a scenario where one clarifies to another on something on a previous day, only for one to say the same thing once more on the following day:

Yraelz: "It would be logical for him to have a suspicion that that is what the other guy meant."

My opponent was well aware of my clarfication in my previous debate and has agreed to adhere to the notion that one should interpret a statement in the way it was clarified in the past if the statement is made once more. In other words, I didn't need to rephrase the topic according to my opponent's answer which he provided during C/X; there's no need for me to change my wording (the person in the hypothetical scenario didn't need to change his wording, according to my opponent . . . thus neither should I). The contender understood what I meant based on what I said in the past and should thus logically interpret the topic in the way which I've clarified on it in the past.

B: Summed up in link

2)

A" First, my opponent points out that my analysis about formal debate is moot on the basis that I provide an explanation that goes about looking at the topic in a different context. However, as I've already stated, that later argument is made on the off chance that you do not buy my argument against my opponent having ignored the context of the topic at hand. In addition, he claims that I've only supported his case, but if you'll look back to my previous, I make it quite clear that past experiences/ research come before the debate actually starts. Thus, him claiming that any new moment that passes becomes the past is not something which can be supported based on what I argued last round.

As for the rest, I'm out of time, so drop. :D

3)

In response to: "However, we are not talking about talks, we are speaking debate rounds. "

Everything after the colon is simply an example of the word is used, thus it is illogical to conclude that the word can only be used to refer to talks or parties (not to mention one could very well consider this current activity to be a sequence of "talks" :D ).

In response to: "Thus to be contextually correct, for this debate, the example would read: "The strike was settled after a long round of debates."

This is yet another example of my opponent relying on deceit in attempt to secure your vote, ladies and gentleman. Do not fall for it. The problem with my opponent's example is that he concludes that talks has to be equated to debate. However, even in policy debate, individuals have alot of "talks" between one another. For instance, looking at talks from the standpoint of a single talk being a single speech, this would most certainly make it logical for us to claim that multiple talks makes up a debate.

Nevertheless, this is all besides the point. The main thing to keep in mind was that my definition was providing an example of how the word could be used. For instance, based on my definition, there is no reason as to why I couldn't use the word round to say "My opponent will present a round of opposing points five times in the non-comment section part of this debate. "

In response to: "In other words a round of debate, under my opponents definition would be the COMPLETE argument going back and fourth until it was over."

Not at all. Based on my definition, the whole debate is an argument (in the sense of the word describing the event). All we are doing presenting a round of opposing points five times in the non-comment section part of this debate and then an unknown amount of times when we reach comment section part.

In response to: "You will all notice that his definition of round is "any complete course, series, or succession." Thus the complete series of arguments in this entire debate will be considered a round."

Nope. There is absolutely nothing in my definition which indicates this. It uses the term argument to describe the whole event. What I've described above is what is to be considered a round.

CON then goes on to provide 3 arguments on the matter of me claiming that this debate can never actually end. First, let me clarify before responding to those 3 points. I made this claim because unlike the non-comment section part of the debate, there are an potentially an infinite amount of rounds which can be made in the comment section. Of course, even if my opponent argues that we'd have to take bandwidth into consideration, I could just as easily continue this debate elsewhere. .

In response to those three points:

1) Nah, as insisted, a round simply consist of making opposing points to the other debater's position. CON's interpretation is fallacious as shown previously.

2) Even if we adhere to CON's nonsensical interpretation of the topic, his logic here wouldn't follow. After all, how can he say that he has participated in a complete thing, when he has not participated up until it's completion (which would be never)?

3) Basically, nothing new here as this hinges on his fallacious interpretation. However, I would like to point out something very interesting which I just now realized. This debate concerns whether or not I have a suspicion. My opponent has argued based on interpretations of terms which I do not adhere to. Thus, whereas he may continue to argue that I do not have a suspicion based on what he has argued, this does not mean that I agree with what he has argued int he first place. Personally, I do not and my suspicion remains strong.

==================
Logical's Argument #1 (not a new argument since it existed in the previous round)
==================

1. My opponent does nothing to overcome my argument (and if he tries in the next round, you are to ignore it completely since I will have never had the opportunity to respond). I'm arguing that the past greatly supports the idea that he will forfeit. My opponent's argument most certainly does not stand because it is merely based on his own testimony. As already insisted, his goal in this debate is to WIN, thus he has ample motivation to lie.

Furthermore, what's said here sums up this debate quite well: http://dr-logic.livejournal.com...

Vote PRO!
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rumsy 7 years ago
Rumsy
I just thought it was funny he forfeited the final round. I looked up at the title again immediately and grinned.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
It's okay. Someone has to finish the debate. I don't think I so much dropped my points as just gave you the final speech instead of me. People will just have to weigh your arguments with a grain of salt.

On the other note, you're probably right. That's the problem with long debates over semi-pointless subjects. Thanks for the round though.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I thought you would try this during R4 (and had prepared a means of dealing with it), but I must say that during R5, the strategy is ineffective on the basis that you end up dropping everything in your last round. Even without my argument on this debate going on forever, my argument concerning my initial interpretation of the topic still exist and without any objection against them.

But alas, something tells me that no one will have bothered reading the debate that far. I'm thinking people are just gonna look, notice how the topic is worded and that there was a forfeit and vote accordingly.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
It's all part of the strategy. ^.^
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Contradicted myself just now. Oops. :(
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
The topic doesn't mean crap to me. I just like to debate. :D

Not to mention that the term "better" is completely subjective. I'll debate boring/cliche topics like the state of the global economy when I'm running for office or by some even means have something to gain from it.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
It would seem you're a victim of the twin demons of procrastination and distraction, eh Yraelz? Cursed beasts! We go round and round far too often.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
That's the best way to get better. Debate people you think are better than you.
Posted by MillerLife 7 years ago
MillerLife
you guys need something better to debate about I suck at spelling so I suck but I got a debate topic about economics being retarded. I do mean today's global economy need debt to survive = stupid
-or-
the majority of humans have a messed up consensus
but you guys are too good to debate :(
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 6 days ago
fire_wings
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by ethopia619 5 years ago
ethopia619
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:43 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
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:07 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chihuahuadogz 7 years ago
Chihuahuadogz
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:07 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30