The Instigator
anachronist
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

I will lose this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 24096
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

anachronist

Pro

I will lose this debate. First round is for acceptance.
THEBOMB

Con

Before my opponent can prove they lost this debate they first must 1) prove their existence (they must prove their actually is an "I") and then, 2) prove this debate exists (their must be a debate to lost). Only then can they prove that they lost the debate :P
Debate Round No. 1
anachronist

Pro

The Descartes argument:
I think, therefore I am. Therefore I exist.

The ontological argument for the existence of this debate:
You can imagine this debate, therefore this debate exists.

I will not prove either of these, because that would mean winning the debate, which I am not going to do.
THEBOMB

Con

Descartes:

You may have proven to yourself that you exist. But, how do I know you think? I do not. Furthermore, you could just be a butterfly dreaming of being human. Solipsism holds there is only one person in existence, everyone else is just a product of their mind. So until you can prove you are not just a product of my mind, this debate is fallacious because you can neither win nor lose this debate, only I can win or lose this debate and as such, I must win because voting for "my opponent" would be voting for a non-existent entity.

Ontological argument:

Now let's spin things around, what if my opponent believes in solipsism? Then there is no "you" (me) present in this debate. Therefore, my opponent is simply imagining me, imagine this debate. And they are the only one imagining this debate. The ontological argument, thus, fails. If that is so, this debate does not exist, and neither I nor my opponent can win or lose this debate.

Therefore, the voter's have one of two choices (at the present time) voting Con, off of the Descartes argument, or voting Tie, off of the Ontological argument.
Debate Round No. 2
anachronist

Pro

Ah, but if I refuted your arguments, I'd be winning the debate, wouldn't I. Nope, I'm definitely going to lose.
THEBOMB

Con

Descartes:

There is no "I" to lose this debate. "I" does not exist. Therefore, "I" [my opponent] cannot lose because they do not exist. Therefore, I [THEBOMB] must win.

Ontological argument:

Well seeing how my opponent never contested the Descartes arguments...
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anachronist 4 years ago
anachronist
Yeah, he's right, I don't exist, and therefore lose the debate automatically.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Pro doesn't exist. READ!
Posted by pngwn56 4 years ago
pngwn56
But if pro is in a constant state of winning and losing... then he has lost, and therefore has won.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
nope, the entity "Pro" is the same as the entity "con" (as established by the debate) therefore, Pro losing is the same as Con losing :D So basically, Con is in a constant state of winning and losing :P
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
philosophically the pro can loose the debate even if you win.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
You don't exist :P

We established that already haha
Posted by anachronist 4 years ago
anachronist
Haha, I am losing the debate, therefore winning, therefore losing?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
ummm...VB?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Zaradi, it's a perfectly valid philosophy :P

and Pro doesn't exist dairygirl :P
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
if con loses the debate... then that means he really won the debate, his affirmation was affirmed. and all the voters who voted against him were wrong.

but then, if he won the debate, then he'd have really lost the debate. and all the voters who voted against him were right.

i think im going cross eyed...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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: Descartes!
Vote Placed by nvreynolds 4 years ago
nvreynolds
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter 1historygenius's vote bomb. Any way it seems tough to vote this one. Well done.
Vote Placed by nyyfan 4 years ago
nyyfan
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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: I have to vote Pro because he is currently losing, therefore proving he would lose... I'm confused.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote bomb!
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter nvreynolds
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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: Haha, using philosophy trolling to counter resolution trolling. Very well done sir, vote goes to you.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't vote on a paradox
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
anachronistTHEBOMBTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments