The Instigator
darkcity
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
iSacasaurous
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

If debating was Chess, the instigator would have a better chance of winning

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...
iSacasaurous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 27222
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

darkcity

Pro

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.

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.
iSacasaurous

Con

Not sure how you're gonna rebut or state your arguements when there is only one round but here goes. Debating isn't like chess, at least not in the way that matters.

"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.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
At DeFool thanks for the "if debating were a duck, it could fly." ; -)

I was open to trickery, or straight forward denial.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
darkcityiSacasaurousTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
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 4 years ago
emj32
darkcityiSacasaurousTied
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: One round debates never work...