The Instigator
DHDebate
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

I will not contradict myself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,554 times Debate No: 18487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (7)

 

DHDebate

Pro

I've always wanted to do one of these.
Standard rules-
+ nothing may be used that isn't presented in this round.
+ Only 10 questions per round.
+ Contradictions may be pointed out whenever my opponent desires; accordingly I will refute presented contradictions as necessary.
+ I have the right to refuse a question that isn't straight-forward

Let's begin!
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks DHDebate for what will hopefully be a fun and challenging round. I've looked forward to this type of debate for a while as well. However, in R1 you said "nothing may be used that isn't presented in this round". But "this round" only refers to R1, right? So it would seem that I'm barred from using questions outside of round 1. Now, normally I would assume that he doesn't intend that in the way I took it and intends this debate to be fair, but I made the same assumption during another debate we had together, where I assumed he wouldn't use semantics but he did :/ So I just want to make sure that I am allowed to ask questions outside this round.


Moving on, I'll try to use some tactics that haven't been used a ton before, so hopefully this debate will be different than the others.


1. Your full name is Dakota Hiltzman, correct?

4. Is morality subjective?

7. Is the cake a lie?

6. Are you also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange?

3. What made you want to do this debate?

10. Are you a Utilitarian? As in, do you believe that the best action is the one which benefits the most people?

5. Are semantic arguments acceptable in this debate?

7. Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate or Policy debate?

11. Do you have any questions for me?


I ask my opponent to quote my questions in his round and then give his responses after each individual quote, so its easiest to follow for the judges. I'm not using this to create contradictions, its really just to make it easy to follow.


I await my opponents responses.
Debate Round No. 1
DHDebate

Pro

= Pre-Round Clarifications =
Sorry if what I had said was a bit confusing, what I meant is that no information may be used that isn't presented in this round as a whole; not just round 1 of this debate.
You will be able to ask questions all through-out the course of this debate.

= Questions and Answers =

"1. Your full name is Dakota Hiltzman, correct?"
1. No, my full name is not Dakota Hiltzman.

"4. Is morality subjective?"
4. I cannot prove this one way or the other. I can only offer my opinion on the matter.

"7. Is the cake a lie?"
7. I do not know what cake you are talking about.

"6. Are you also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange"
6. No. To say that I am also BangBang-Coconut and Hello-Orange, would be to say that both of those accounts are currently active. However I used to be Hello-Orange, and BangBang-Coconut before switching to this account.

"3. What made you want to do this debate?"
3. I've read a number of other debates like this, and it seems like it would be fun.

"10. Are you a Utilitarian? As in, do you believe that the best action is the one which benefits the most people?"
10. No, I am not a Utilitarian.

"5. Are semantic arguments acceptable in this debate?"
5. As per my clarification in round 1 regarding all arguments being straight-forward, no semantics are not appropriate in this debate.

"7. Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate or Policy debate?"
7. I prefer Lincoln-Douglas debate.

"11. Do you have any questions for me?"
11. Yes I do have a few questions for you.

= Post-round comments =
I will continue to quote your questions as I answer them so long as I can. However as character restrictions begin to become a burden, I'll stop.
BlackVoid

Con

I thank DHDebate once again for posting his responses. This is a really fun round so far.


Contradictions

I have found 2 contradictions so far.

1. In round 1, in reference to this debate, my opponent says "I've always wanted to do one of these". However, in response to me asking "What made you want to do this debate?" he says " I've read a number of other debates like this, and it seems like it would be fun". However, this would indicate that he only wanted to do this debate recently, after he had seen it done before. This is contradictory to his original stance that he "always wanted to do one of these".

2. In reference to semantics, my opponent says "As per my clarification in round 1 regarding all arguments being straight-forward, no semantics are not appropriate in this debate".

The first part of the sentence and the second are contradictory. If he wanted to avoid semantics, he should have said "semantics are not appropriate", but he said "no semantics are not appropriate". By saying "no semantics are not appropriate", he's grammatically saying that its inappropriate to not use semantics. This contradicts all of his respnses to my questions because he clearly answers them in a straight-forward manner rather than using semantical responses.


Round 3 Questions

7. Did you see this question?


5. Do you believe morality is subjective?

13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability?

6. What are the questions you have for me?

1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?

4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?

2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?

8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1?

10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right?



I await your reply.

Debate Round No. 2
DHDebate

Pro

= Rebuttals =
1. This is not a contradiction, it is simply a figure of speech. Furthermore it is a commonly used, and widely accepted figure of speech; I highly doubt any-one understood this statement as you are interpreting it.

The only logical conclusion is that I have not contradicted myself, but that you are simply reading too deeply into my responses.

2. While the flaw my opponent has pointed out certainly does warrant a loss in spelling and grammar points, it is obvious by the context of this sentence I intended to express the thought that semantics where not acceptable in this debate. Again, this is simply my opponent misinterpreting my statements, And while albeit he misinterpreted them due to my error in punctuation; this was not a contradiction.

= Questions and Answers =

"5. Do you believe morality is subjective? "
This question is not straight forward. If you will look to the previous round, the number "5" is also used to mark my opponent's question about semantic arguments.

"13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability?"
13. I've never heard this term before. Accordingly I can not answer the question. As even if I did have an opinion either way I wouldn't know.

"6. What are the questions you have for me?"
Again, this question is not straight forward. My opponent uses the number 6 to mark the question concerning my prior usernames in the previous rounds.

"1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?"
My opponent uses the number "1" to mark the question concerning my full name in the first round.

"4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?"
My opponent uses the number "4" to mark his question concerning subjective morality in the previous round.

"2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?"
Possibly. If you count when other people have reached the end of the game, and I just so happened to be crying at that moment; I myself have never played Portal.

"8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1?"
I am not sure if you mean the third question linear to the order in which the questions where asked, or the question marked by the number "3".

"10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right?"
My opponent uses the number "10" to mark his prior question concerning whether or not I was a Utilitarian.
BlackVoid

Con

My opponent refuses to answer 8 of my questions. Almost all of his responses are "my opponent used this question number in the last round". Why is that a big deal? He doesn't say. He also doesn't explain why its reason to not answer 80% of my questions.

I'm simply numbering the questions 1-10, albeit in a random fashion. Its not meant as an independent way to draw contradictions. If thats what my opponent believes, he's overthinking this a bit.

I'd like to ask the same questions I did last round, and assure my opponent that the numerical structure is only a distraction and is nothing to worry about. Since there are 5 rounds, not much is lost by wasting one as we've just done. I'd request he please answer the specific questions in the manner we would expect. Though obviousy, he doesn't have to answer 13 specifically.





7. Did you see this question?






5. Do you believe morality is subjective?

13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability

6. What are the question you have for me (that you referenced in round 2)?

1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?

4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?

2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?

8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1? This refers to the linear order in which they were asked.

10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right? (This can exclude your R3)


Thanks.






Debate Round No. 3
DHDebate

Pro

= Pre-round Clarifications =
I am still very weary about answering these question which have been used to number more than one question; however I will trust my opponent, and answer his questions so as not to kill this round. However if in a later round, my opponent does in fact use the numbering of his questions to try and squeeze out a contradiction, then I will be exempt from it.

Furthermore, I did indeed have a warrant for not answering some of his questions. That being that they where not straight-forward. My opponent even openly admits this when he says that his numbering system is meant to be distraction.

= Questions and Answers =
"5. Do you believe morality is subjective?"
I do no believe morality is subjective

"13. Do you believe in praxeological systematic regenerability"
I've already answered this question.

"6. What are the question you have for me (that you referenced in round 2)?"
There are several I'd like to ask you. None really in direct correlation to this round however. Here are a few:
- Did you do LD in high school?
- Where where you born?
- Is your profile picture Light from Deathnote?

"1. A plane crashes in the middle of the desert. Half the crew is dead. Around you, you see some dunes, a tunnel, and a lot of sand. Where do you bury the survivors?"
I wouldn't bury the survivors at all. They're still alive.

"4. Approximately how many brain transplants have you received in the last 24 hours?"
to my knowledge, none.

"2. Did you cry at the ending of Portal (video game)?"
I have already answered this question

"8. What was your response to the third question I asked in round 1? This refers to the linear order in which they were asked."
I do not know what cake you are talking about.

"10. Clarification - If you don't answer a straight-forward question, then voters should vote Con right? (This can exclude your R3)"
This isn't a yes or no question. I will lose if I contradict myself, this is the only established means of the Pro losing. Otherwise this decision is one that voters will have to make themselves. For me toanswer this question would take away power from the voters.
BlackVoid

Con

I sincerely thank my opponent for answering the quesitions as originally intended. I again assure him that the numbering system isn't meant to independently draw contradictions. Rather, its meant to draw his attentions and direct him away from the real plan.

First, in reference to my last question in round 3, I'd argue that my opponent is obligated to at least give some type of answer to every quesiton I give. The reason being that if its acceptable to just not answer any questions, that would be an easy avenue for my opponent to not contradict himself. So while he did say that the issue of not answering questions should be left to the voters, I urge them to accept my argument that he is indeed obligated to answer any and all questions asked of him.



Previous contradictions

I'm dropping the first 2 arguments. They were backup plans in case the following contradictions never materialized.


New Contradictions


1. Last round I asked my opponent what his response was to the third question asked of him in round 1. He says it was "I do not know what cake you are talking about". However, this question "Is the cake a lie?" was not the third question I asked.

His answer would be correct if the first question I asked was the one about his full name. But look a little closer. The very first question I asked in the round was at the beginning paragraph, where I asked "But this round only refers to round 1, right"?

Apparently my opponent did not think that counted as a question, but it clearly ends with a question mark and asks for an explanantion. So that was in reality the first question asked. Therefore, going in a linear order, the third question I actually asked was "Is morality subjective?", to which his response was " I cannot prove this one way or the other". This is contradictory to his response of question 8 last round, where he claims his response was "I do not know what cake you are talking about".


2. My opponent did not answer question 7 in my last round, which I argued previously is grounds for voting Con. He probably didn't answer it because he didn't see it, as it was hidden with invisible text. But if you go back to my round 3 and highlight everything directly under my third paragraph, you will clearly see that I asked a question my opponent did not respond to. There were no rules against using invisible font, so this should be a clear reason to go Con :)



3. Con said in round 1 that we are only allowed "10 questions per round". Notice how this doesn't specify that it only applies to me. If my opponent brings up more than 10 questions he should be contradicting the rule as well.

In response to my asking "Do you have any questions for me?" he responded by saying yes and asking me three seperate questions. This brings the total number of questions in his round from 10 to 13, which is a contradiction of his rule 2.



4. My opponent originally says he is not a Utilitarian. But in response to my asking of where to bury people in a plane crash, he says that he wouldn't bury the survivors because they're still alive. This shows that he indeed does value human life and wants to prevent it from being undermined, which is a Utilitarian ideal. This contradicts his original claim that he doesn't believe in Utilitarianism.




I'm going to leave it at that. I don't think I need any more questions at the moment. I'll let my opponent give his responses and then summarize in my final round. Good luck.



Debate Round No. 4
DHDebate

Pro

= Opening Statements =
I thank my opponent for such a great round! This was a ton of fun, and I hope to have many more debates like this in the very near future.

Since this will be my last round, I'm going to be very brief. I'm simply going to address my opponent's supposed contradictions, offer my final thoughts, and end the round.
Again, a huge thank you to my opponent for taking this debate!

= Contradiction refutations =
1. This was not a contradiction on my part, as I never answered my opponent's supposed first question. It wasn't even a question, but a clarification. Furthermore, based off of the structure of my round 2 answers my answer regarding the alleged cake was the only acceptable answer based in both my opponent's clarification in round 3, and the structuring of my answers in round 2.
For my opponent to make this argument, is not a contradiction on my part, but a indirect (i.e. Not straight forward) question. Thus even if you choose to buy my opponent's faulty logic, I've not contradicted myself I had chosen not to answer a question that wasn't straight forward.

2. As my opponent's himself has said "He probably didn't answer it because he didn't see it, as it was hidden with invisible text." This was not a straight forward question. It was hidden.
Any-one simply skimming over this round, would have had no possible way to see that question; thus again I am freed from the burden of answering this question.
I would also like to point out this is major grounds for a loss in conduct points.

3.In round two, I didn't ask the questions my opponent. And in round three, I didn't ask any questions either; I answered my opponent's question by telling him what questions I had for him.
Furthermore, when I quote my opponent's questions I am not asking questions; I am simply quoting what he himself said. My opponent puts me in an unfair position here, he claims that by adhering to his request to quote his questions in order to maintain clarity I break the rules. This is not a contradiction, but a cheap attempt at a win by my opponent.

Also if I have to say it so bluntly; while breaking a rule is grounds for a loss in conduct, it isn't a contradiction. I never said I would adhere to the rules, and I only break them if you accept my opponent's flawed logic.

4. My opponent's conclusion here is a correlation causation fallacy. He claims that because not burying the survivors is utilitarian I am a utilitarian. However this is only true if I am indeed a Utilitarian; which I am not.
My reasoning behind not burying the survivors isn't some deep rooted desire to propel the common good; it's a lack of desire and tough to do so on my part. Furthermore even if I didn't want to bury these people because of a Utilitarian reason, that wouldn't make me a Utilitarian as that not prove I would choose a utilitarian decision every time.

Last week while in the cafeteria before school, I didn't feel well so I decided to give my breakfast away. My reason for doing so wasn't because I wanted to help another hungry friend (thereby making me a utilitarian) but it was because the food was making me feel sick. Ultimately my driving action was one to achieve an end that benefited me; in the same way, my not burying the plane survivors isn't a utilitarian driven action, but one to achieve an end that benefits myself.

= Conclusion =
If at this point you see no contradictions from me, you must vote for me regardless of what my opponent says in the next round. The reason being is that since I won't be able to respond to whatever my opponent says in the next round, whatever he says will not be a binding contradiction against me. I have done all I can not to contradict myself, and I have proven throughout the course of this debate that I have not contradicted myself.
At every point my opponent as show a contradiction, I have shown that I had not contradicted myself. I have pointed out my opponent's smoke and mirror tactics time and time again. I've even adhered to my opponent's requests of quoting his questions in round for maximum clarity of the voters.

I urge you; vote Pro.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks for the fun debate. Was very stimulating trying to come up with all these strategies.



The 4 contradictions presented last round seem to be what this will be decided on. I'll spend this round explaining why they are true contradictions. I'll try to keep it as short as possible as to not bore the readers.


I'd like to start by noting that Pro didn't contest my argument that not answering a question is grounds to vote Con. Keep this in mind as you read the next point.



Contradiction 1.

Pro starts by saying that he didn't contradict himself because he "never answered my opponent's supposed first question". So vote Con right here, since he didn't answer my question which he has conceded is gronds for a loss.

Pro then claims the first question I referenced wasn't actually a question, but a clarification. First, how is the quote "this round only refers to R1, right?" not a question? As I pointed out last round, it ends with a question mark and asks for an explanation, which grammatically makes it a question. But common sense should tell you this as well.

Furthermore, its actually not just a clarification. I planned this contradiction from the start. I knew my opponent wouldn't actually try and prevent me from asking questions outside of R1. I simply made my first paragraph up in order to disguise the question I put in it.

My opponent thinks it wasn't actually a straight-forward question. Once again, the text of it is " this round only refers to R1, right?". That seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.



Contradiction 2.

I guess I was being too optimistic. I was hoping my opponent would give me a little credit for the innovative idea, but instead he asked for me to lose conduct :/

Pro runs the same argument that my hidden question wasn't straight-forward. What does straight-forward even mean? I'd say that its meant to prevent questions that are really complicated and not easy to understand. For instance, "How do epistemic moral calculii objectively quantify degenerative magnitudinal regressions?" probably fits the bill we would consider as not a straight-forward question because its overly complcated. In contrast, the hidden question I asked, which was "Did you see this question" is incredibly easy to understand and answer, making it fairly "straight-forward".

Remember that its accepted that him not answering a question whatsoever wins me the round. He did not answer the question (as planned of course). As such, vote Con! *Insert evil laugh here*



Contradiction 3.

The rule my opponent used is "Only 10 questions per round". It doesn't specify that they have to be from me, so I purposely made him ask me multiple questions as to put him over the limit of his own rule. So it doesn't matter if I asked the questions or he did, nor does it matter if he was just quoting me. There were still 13 total questions in my opponent's round 4, which contradicts his rule. Again, I'm not coming up with this stuff just now, this was the idea the whole time....


He also accuses me of trying to get a "cheap win". If that were true, I would have waited until this round to post all 6 of my contradictions, so my opponent couldn't respond. But I gave him chances to defend all of my arguments, so I feel I'm being fair. Besides, i'm just trying to come up with unique ideas to draw contradictions. I don't think I should be penalized for not using tactics that everyone else has already used.

Finally, he claims that violating a rule isn't a contradiction. But if somethign says "only 10 Q's per round" and he gives 13, that is contradicting the rule he created, thus turning it into a contradiction onto himself.



Contradiction 4.

Pro suggests that he wouldn't bury the survivors of a plane crash because he has a "lack of desire". Well why would he have a lack of desire to bury people alive? Lol, its probably because he considers it a morally wrong thing to do, as does any sane person, which indicates that he's looking for the Utilitarian benefit of not killing alive people.

This answers the correlation - causation argument because the reason for him not burying the survivors is obvious.


With all that being said, it shouldn't be difficult to vote on any of these arguments. I've tried to make these points as clear as possible. I again thank DHDebate for the round and urge judges to vote con.




Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
I knew BlackVoid was to something with his questions in an outlandish order, and the ""I ask my opponent to quote my questions in his round and then give his responses after each individual quote, so its easiest to follow for the judges. I'm not using this to create contradictions, its really just to make it easy to follow."" bit is too suspicious.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
>>"I didn't ask the questions my opponent."
Ans: But you said "only 10 questions per round" - you didn't specify

>>"And in round three, I didn't ask any questions either; I answered my opponent's question by telling him what questions I had for him."
Ans: You directly asked him those questions. You could have refused to ask any or could have phrased it in a different way such as "I wanted to know if you did LD in high school" rather than "did you do LD in high school" - that way you told him the questions you had, but didn't ask him.

>>Furthermore, when I quote my opponent's questions I am not asking questions;
It still said "Only 10 questions per round" - you didn't specify

>>I didn't ask the questions my opponent. And in round three, I didn't ask any questions either; I answered my opponent's question by telling him what questions I had for him.
Ans: You answered them in the form of questions

>>I am simply quoting what he himself said. My opponent puts me in an unfair position here, he claims that by adhering to his request to quote his questions in order to maintain clarity I break the rules."
Ans: See above. You needn't have framed your questions as question if you know what I mean. You could have told him what questions you had rather than asking him.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
1) I checked the definition of clarification and it means to make clearer or easier to understand. That was what it seemed like. Pro said it was a clarification and Con said it was a question. By the definition of clarification, Pro was more convincing.

2) The hidden question was a smart move but Pro didn't have an opportunity to win at all, so losing points on this would be unfair.

3) Pro did ask more than 10 questions and by his own definition, he says "Only 10 questions per round" without specifying that Con may only ask 10 questions per round. This point makes it a Con win.

4) Pro's explanation is far more convincing. Just because he didn't bury the survivors doesn't mean he is a utilitarian.

Since Con only needed ONE contradiction, Con wins despite Pro arguing better on three points. This was to read. :)
Posted by DHDebate 5 years ago
DHDebate
Haha, I love(d) Deathnote. Takeshi Obata is THE BEST mangaka of all time. I've never read a single one of his works I didn't absolutely fall in love with. Plus the fact that he always teams up with a separate writer to make his books makes it all that much better.
</Fantard moment>
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
To answer your question,

Yep, did ld in high school. 3 years :)

Born in Fort Worth.

I'm impressed you recognized it. Freeman is the only other one who figured it out.
Posted by DHDebate 5 years ago
DHDebate
Yes, in a few minutes :3
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I think I figured out Blackvoid's strategy (but it is going to be a secret)
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Do you know the timetable for when you'll respond? I'm really excited for my next round already.
Posted by DHDebate 5 years ago
DHDebate
Thanks S98! :-D
Posted by S98-SAMMAN 5 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
Good luck DH. I'll be watching this one!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro would have won a point for conduct for the indivisible question, if only he had defined what "straight-forward" meant...Moreover, Con was quite devious: he made Pro quote all of Con's questions (and answer some of his own), effectively totaling to more than 10 questions per round...(and thus, Pro unknowingly violated his own rule). Other tactics used by Con (disguising his question in a paragraph to make Pro contradict himself with the number system) just shows how clever he was here.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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: Pro contradicted himself.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 5 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments go to DH because I did not see any contradictions that were not either refuted or were unfair and that is the reason for conduct. I gave conduct to DH because BlackVoid used tactics that I'd consider cheating. DH did have a few punctuation and grammar errors so I gave that to DH. Overall great debate! Great job both of you!
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately outstanding, this probably is one of the best 'Contradiction' debates I've read, kudos to CON, his tactics were certainly supreme. BlackVoid in his villainous form, can surely outwit the Riddler anytime. And of course, since only 1 contradiction is enough to negate, I vote CON. as for Blackvoid's Contradiction Argument 1, it's true that PRO didn't state any rule on how the questions should be asked or how it'd be ordered, so CON can design his questions in any way he wants.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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: The util argument about the plane crash was borderline-abusive, but it doesn't matter as Con wins on the 10-questions contradiction.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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: The contradictions were unique and interesting, but Pro did a wonderful job explaining them away. The one about 10 questions however, stuck. Since only 1 contradiction was needed, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
DHDebateBlackVoidTied
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: While the utilitarianism contradiction is extremely dubious, the rest were brilliant. It was like a twist in a novel when Con revealed the contradictions. Great debate.