If debating was Chess, the instigator would have a better chance of winning
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
iSacasaurous
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 11/14/2012 | Category: | Entertainment | ||
| Updated: | 5 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 875 times | Debate No: | 27222 | ||
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)
 Pro http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm arguing the Pro position. Con must prove white doesn't have a better chance in Chess, or that debating isn't similar enough to Chess for the argument to make sense, or some other trickery. ONE ROUND debate Con is free to starting arguing in the first round.  Con "Debating is similar to chess" -- Pro states The main goal of debating is to state your arguements with logic and reason and whilst doing so pointing out any logical fallacies in your opponent's. Chess however, is on a totally different playing field, in the game of chess one strives to defeat the other by making co ordinated moves devoid of fundamental factors of debating which include being convincing and justifying what you state. "The person who moves first in Chess (traditionally white, instigator) has a better chance of winning. Debating is similar to chess. Therefore, if debating was Chess the instigator would have a better chance of winning." -- Pro states 1. Person who moves first in chess has a better chance of winning 2. Debating is similar to chess 3. If debating was chess the instigator would have a better chance of winning As i have said before debating is devoid of the factors that are most intrinsic to debating. Therefore this logical process is fallacious. In addition, debating has set rounds where Pro and Con will have the same amount of turns to argue and rebutt. Voting commences after the debate has been concluded and as such voters will have to observe all of the arguements before voting. If i have misunderstood you in some way, tell me and we can go again. However, it would be best if you could state your points clearly. Thank you, vote con. |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 5 years ago
| darkcity | iSacasaurous | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: The premise states that if "Debating were like chess, then the party that goes first has an advantage." This is a strange argument, since it is obvious, and impossible to argue against. Put in a more extreme form (for magnification), this type of argument could read: "if debating were a duck, it could fly." I am not certain that Pro intended to make this logical exercise - or if they were doing something much more simple. I suspect the latter. The argument that was actually presented seems to ignore this clever twist, in favor of a more basic "first move gets an advantage" clause that was swept aside by Con. I ended up granting a 'tie' for arguments, which disappoints even me. Con is correct that debating is not like chess - but this did not seem to be the premise of this contest. I always try to score for S&G, in this case the lowercase "I" was a factor. Pro wins there.
Vote Placed by emj32 5 years ago
| darkcity | iSacasaurous | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: One round debates never work...
I was open to trickery, or straight forward denial.