The Instigator
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 36170
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Benshapiro

Con

RULES: No rules

ROUND 1: is where you present youre arguements
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

The resolution is "I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history". By "I", he is self-evidently referring to himself, or else the resolution would have said "You" to refer to me. He has chosen the Con position, which means that he is arguing:

"No, I do not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history"

He did not mention that that the burden of proof is shared, and he started the debate. Thus, it is assumed that the burden of proof is on him to show that he does not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history. However, this is an impossible task. It does not matter what he types on a screen, it is still plausible that he does in fact want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history beneath the surface. People do things to cover up their true wants in this fashion all the time.

Since his position is essentially impossible to defend, the debate goes to me by default; Con has the BoP.
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Con

Thank you for your eloquent argument rationalthinker. You have successfully helped me on my own terms. By providing rational and logically sound arguments have helped this to not be the stupidest debate in master debating history, which is what I was trying to prove.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

"Thank you for your eloquent argument rationalthinker. You have successfully helped me on my own terms. By providing rational and logically sound arguments have helped this to not be the stupidest debate in master debating history, which is what I was trying to prove." - Con

My opponent is under the false impression that the resolution is

"This will be the stupidest debate in master debating history"

or

"This is the stupidest debate in master debating history"

The reason this notion is flawed is simple; the resolution is:

"I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history"

Con has not shown that he does not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history. Even if he does not want this debate to be the stupidest (which he still has not argued for), he may still want to have the stupidest debate in master history at some point. Ergo, his argument is a red herring. This could be the most rational debate, but that fact would not help Con negate the resolution any.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Con

I don't want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I already debunked my opponent's last argument in my first round!

I said:

"It does not matter what he types on a screen, it is still plausible that he does in fact want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history beneath the surface. People do things to cover up their true wants in this fashion all the time." - Me

Con completely ignored the point I made. Since Con had the BoP and failed to respond to my objections; Con loses. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
Does my success mean my loss? Since I am attempting to prove that is not, in fact, the stupidest debate in master debating history?
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
I think you may have succeeded whether anyone accepts or not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
BenshapiroRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious win for pro. con had to prove that he did not want to have the stupidest debate in history. con did not prove this. pro did not have the burden of proof ow w/e, so I don't understand the last voter haha
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
BenshapiroRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that Con may be "covering up" his true "wants", but this is pure conjecture without any significant support. Pro refined the resolution, Con confirmed it. Since all we have to go by is Con's expressed (not veiled) intent, Con should win.