The Instigator
Woodycanuck
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

I will lose this debate.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,520 times Debate No: 13740
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

Woodycanuck

Pro

As this is my first debate on this site, it is reasonable to conclude that I will debate a more experienced and accomplished debater, so I will probably lose.

If I do lose this debate, the resolution is correct and proven, and thus I win.

If, however, I somehow win the debate, then the resolution is affirmed and I obviously should lose the debate.

Either way, I conclude that I will lose this debate.

Thank you in advance for accepting, and good look to my learned opponent.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate, and welcome to DDO (debate.org)!

A few things... First, my opponent is the instigator of a positive (non-agnostic) resolution, which means he has the burden of proof [1]. He must prove with his arguments that he is going to lose this debate. For all intents and purposes, losing the debate means making inferior arguments - not necessarily receiving less points - for reasons I will explain in my analysis. I'll separate Pro's points into numerical bullets for clarity.

1. Re: I will probably debate someone more experienced, so I'll lose.

---> While this is plausible, Pro could not have proven that he would have debated someone more experienced making this mere speculation. Had a new member accepted this debate, this contention would have been rendered useless. Additionally experience does not equal ability. For example I have never done formal debating, whereas most users venturing to this site have participated in HS debate. For all I know I could be the amateur in this scenario, while Pro could be a national debating champion despite him being new to the site. Moreover we don't even know if he's new; he could simply be a new account created by an old member.

Basically with this argument we cannot verify any of the claims: we don't know Pro's experience, we don't know Con's experience, and we don't know what "experience" refers to. It's also not true that experience automatically makes you better at argumentation or refutation; after all Mirza's been here quite awhile (I kid). And finally, experience is almost irrelevant if the facts are not in your favor. For instance if I had to prove that the sky was orange, even with 65 years of debating experience under my belt the challenge might still prove too difficult. In short, this contention is not a strong one in my opponent's favor, and it has been negated.

2. Re: If I do lose this debate, the resolution is correct and proven, and thus I win.

---> Lessee hurr. If Pro loses the debate (makes inferior arguments) he will not have won. Indeed winning would imply making superior arguments. The logical law of identity states A = A [2] meaning something is what it is and can not be something different simultaneously. As such, Pro cannot lose and win simultaneously. Here Pro's mistake is assuming that because he will have lost the debate, the resolution would be affirmed... but after already losing the debate, the resolution becomes irrelevant. It may be affirmed, but it won't mean he has won the debate. Ergo, if he does lose the debate, the resolution will be correct but he will not win making this contention false.

Here's an example: Suppose I was Con to the resolution "Murder is immoral." I argued that it was moral and perhaps I won the debate via semantics. After the debate, I admit that the resolution is actually true... however it still won't change the fact that I won the debate, even if the resolution was actually correct. In other words, what matters in a debate is not what is correct, but what side made the better ARGUMENTS. So while you very well might in fact lose this debate (and it seems you will), if you do not make the better arguments PROVING that you will likely lose, then you will indeed lose (rendering the resolution true) but that does not mean you win in terms of being awarded the victor. I will have made the better arguments; I will win the debate despite the resolution being affirmed. Your performance in the debate did not affirm the resolution, and that's all that matters - not whether or not the resolution was true. Another analogy: If I am Pro "Obama is not a socialist," but my opponent beats me in a debate about it, then I might be right but I still will have lost the debate. That's your position.

3. Re: If, however, I somehow win the debate, then the resolution is affirmed and I obviously should lose the debate.

---> This contention doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If Pro wins the debate, then how is the resolution stating he will LOSE affirmed? Nevertheless the only way Pro can win this debate is by proving (through his arguments -- and not the outcome of how voters responded) that he will lose this debate. The only legitimate argument he's given so far has been debating a more experienced member, though that's been negated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

[ CONCLUSION ]

The only way Pro can win this debate is by proving (with his arguments) that he will lose the debate. If he does not do that, he will have lost the debate despite the seemingly paradoxical terms. If he doesn't prove he will lose, then he will lose. When he loses, he loses - he does not win. While the resolution may have been correct, it was neither with Pro's arguments or lack thereof. Lack thereof cannot be evidence in this example.

An analogy is supposing I've taken on a debate with the resolution "The earth is round" and I was Con. Suppose I've proven that the earth is flat during the debate because of my opponent's inability to perform. After the debate's conclusion (I won), I point out that the earth is not actually flat and technically I should have lost. However though the resolution would be affirmed through my own validation/ admission/ performance, I will still not have lost the already concluded debate meaning it is not a factor in the actual debate. Also, the resolution becomes irrelevant after the arguments' conclusion - not the voting conclusion. So, once Pro fails to prove that he will likely lose the debate, he loses in both aspects and terms.

Thanks, Pro! This should be fun...

[1] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 1969. p 370.
[2] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Woodycanuck

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for her valiant attempt at a Con argument. However misguided and futile the attempt may be, she has certainly put forward some ideas for consideration. Unfortunately, she has made the mistake of thinking that you, the reader, are easily duped by doublespeak and hucksterism of the most shameless kind. In this final argument, I will demonstrate beyond a doubt why my opponent's arguments are easily exposed as the fluff they are.

First, on the matter of winning/losing. My opponent claims that a loss is not defined as "receiving less points". This is sheer fantasy and has no basis in reality. My oppponent has a record of 294 Wins, 4 ties, and 13 losses on this site. I guarantee that without exception, the entire record is based on points received. My opponent would have you believe that some (all?) of her "losses" were nothing of the sort. She simply received fewer points. But she actually won. Are you buying any of this? I thought not.

Now, on to the real points of contention.

1. Re: I will probably debate someone more experienced, so I'll lose.

By accepting the debate, my opponent has proven that my position is correct. Again, 294-4-13 (or is that 311-0-0, it's so confusing, isn't it?) against 0-0-0. She is clearly the master debater here.

2. Re: If I do lose this debate, the resolution is correct and proven, and thus I win.

My opponent incredibly takes the position that "if he does lose the debate, the resolution will be correct but he will not win". I dare say, if there was a resolution to legalize marijuana, we can all predict which side my opponent would take! Surely it doesn't require an advanced degree to understand that in a debate, if a resolution is proven to be true, then the proponent of the resolution has de facto won the debate. To use fancy wordplay to attempt to show otherwise is pure folly.

My opponent goes on to claim that "what matters in a debate is not what is correct, but what side made the better ARGUMENTS." Well stated, and I ask you good people, what better argument is there than clear, proven correctness? If I lose the debate, I have proven that the resolution is correct, verifiably and undeniably. And you MUST therefore vote in support of the resolution. To do otherwise is simply to state that black is white.

3. Re: If, however, I somehow win the debate, then the resolution is affirmed and I obviously should lose the debate.

My opponent asks, in all apparent seriousness: "If Pro wins the debate, then how is the resolution ... affirmed?" Surely my opponent understands that by definition, if Pro carries a debate, the resolution is affirmed. She has offered no basis on which to alter the terms of debate in which a win for Pro leads one to conclude that the resolution was DEFEATED. This refutation has been created whole cloth in the Bizarro World!

To win a debate as Pro is a priori to carry the motion. In this case the motion is that I will lose the debate. If the motion carries, I will have lost the debate by the terms of the resolution carried, and thus you have no logical choice but to vote Pro.

________________________________________________

[CONCLUSION]

Friends, Romans, Countrymen,

As evidenced by her contention that the Earth is flat, my opponent has demonstrated exactly what she thinks of logic and reason. Pity her? Yes. Vote for her out of pity? No.

When one decides the outcome of a debate, the only ethical decision-making process is a logical one. It is wrong to appeal to man's desire to witness girl-on-girl action by invoking the name of a hot tv show in your username. Cheap pandering to base instincts at best. I have logically shown that whatever the outcome of this debate, the only logical choice is to vote Pro. Under all scenarios, a vote for Con invokes a risk of a great paradox, one which could quite possibly reverse the direction of time and other unthinkable horrors. We could all be back in diapers by Friday and I certainly don't want the responsibility for causing that on my hands... do you?

Thank you, and please vote Pro. Our very lives may depend on it.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
It's interesting, this topic would make more sense at a formal debate tournament, where it's unclear what the ballot means when you sign it for a particular side. But this site is very different than that - each point is clearly delineated for a specific purpose (more convincing argument, spelling/grammar, etc).

So it's possible to look at the matchup, agree that pro will lose both before and after the debate, but still give Lwerd the convincing argument points. This wouldn't be possible in Lincoln Douglas formal debate, for example, where the ballot can be construed as endorsing a certain truth statement.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

I really want to vote pro. I don't want to admit that theLwerd can win without having a final round.

Yet, her arguments that a "win" means "the side that had better argumentation" go essentially unrefuted. I have to do less work to vote for her.

Woodycanuck seemingly makes the argument in his opening of the last round that you can make the better argument, but still lose based on who votes on the debate. But he may instead be agreeing with Lwerd, that there's a difference between a debater's personal opinion and whether that debater wins or loses. I can't honestly tell what his argument was intended to be, and I think it's unfair to do the work for him.

Had Woodycanuck made a clear-cut judge bias argument, I would have voted for him since it would have gone unrefuted.

Conduct - the forfeit
_____

That sucks about not getting to post your argument L. I almost accidentally accepted a debate with only 3 hours to post each argument.
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Oh Erick...
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
You voted on your own debate? Is that normal?
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
By Pro's own standards, he lost the debate.

By Con's, Pro lost as well :)

Lol @ voting Pro for sources without any sources...? Nice.
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Or have I won....
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
. . . you have lost . . .
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Yeah, I wrote 2/3 of it and then went out to eat. I thought I'd post it when I got home, but directly from there we went to my friend's house and wound up staying the night. I didn't expect us to be going directly there so blah... screw the 2 days only to post your argument :P
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Dang, I was looking forward to the final argument! Now, what is this BOD, BOL, BOT business?
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Han shot first!!!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
WoodycanuckDanielleTied
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