The Instigator
acotaco
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRaceTo9K
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Is Horseback Riding A Sport

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TheRaceTo9K
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 67934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

acotaco

Pro

In my opinion, horse back riding is a sport most definitely. I believe so because although there are pony rides and many young children take lessons, I think that it leaves a big impression that horseback riding is "easy" or you just sit there. To be able to ride, you must have a strong upper body and core/back strength as well. It also takes a lot of courage and you always have to be on your toes and on the lookout for others and yourself, whilst taking care of the horse.
TheRaceTo9K

Con

I accept. The only problem here is that this debate itself is a truism. How is it a truism? Because definitionally, horseback riding is a sport(1). So how do I plan about approaching this resolution? That truisms are inherently awful for debate, and because he planned on debating a truism, he ought to lose the debate.

Debaters ought not debate truisms because it skews the available ground that debaters have to make arguments. It's impossible for me to debate on how two plus two doesn't equal four when it's a fact, i.e. a truism, that two plus two equals four: it leaves me with no ground to make arguments and, therefore, no way to conventionally win the debate. Likewise, there's no way for me to conventionally debate that horseback riding isn't a sport when it's a truism that horseback riding is a sport by definition, leaving me little to no room to craft arguments to the contrary.

The only way to correct back for this violation is to vote him down. You'll be voting him down because:


        • a) debating truisms harms the fairness of debate. Debating as an activity is a contest between two debaters to find who is the more skilled debater, but that's fundamentally impossible to do when one side is massively skewed to having an advantage.


        • b) debating truisms harms the educational value of the debate. Once all the rounds have been posted and everything has been said and done, the only thing that makes the debate matter at the end of the day is what debaters learned from the experience, but debating truisms squashes any ability to learn since nothing ends up being discussed or debated: one side is simply true, leaving no room to create discussion and, thus, allow for both sides to learn.



As such, I ask voters to vote in negation.




Sources:

(1) - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;(horseback riding - the sport of siting on the back of a horse while controlling its movements)
Debate Round No. 1
acotaco

Pro

Although considered a truism, I still believe that to some they consider that horse back riding is not a sport even though stated in the dictionary. I have heard so many people tell me and try to convince me that riding is not a sport and it gets old after a while. People don't always know what they are talking about and don't always have a dictionary at hand.
TheRaceTo9K

Con

So two interesting things happen in my opponent's last round.

The first interesting thing is that he concedes that horseback riding being a sport is a truism. This means he's going to be 100% linking into the harms coming off the theory argument as to how he's harming debate as an activity, and why he should lose because of it.

The second interesting thing is that he doesn't respond to a single thing I posted in my argument about why truisms harm debate and why it means he should lose because he tried to debate one. He literally just says "Yeah, it's a truism, but a lot of people still think it's not a sport and it's annoying to try and slap them with a dictionary all the time" before kicking it back over to me.

Hold this against him in the debate and extend out my arguments as dropped. Debating truisms make it impossible for debaters to have equal access to argument ground, which harms the fairness of the activity and the educational value of the activity. Because he's harming fairness and education, he ought to lose the debate.

Kicking it back over to pro, hoping for any kind of response.
Debate Round No. 2
acotaco

Pro

First off he is a she, second, why are you twisting words into nasty things like quote, "Yeah, it's a truism, but a lot of people still think it's not a sport and it's annoying to try and slap them with a dictionary all the time".

Third, truisms give an unfair advantage as I now see, yet that is not what this debate is about. If I am talking about horseback riding, than why change the whole debate due to a mistake.

Thank you for informing me and bettering my future debates though, next debate, I will have to do a ton more research
TheRaceTo9K

Con

She*. My mistake.

My opponent still doesn't respond to anything I posted from my theory argument. Extend it out as continually conceded.

Her only question was "why change the whole debate due to a mistake."

The problem with this question is that it makes a critical mistake in that this could've been a debate in the first place. Truisms leave me with absolutely zero ground to work with in terms of making arguments: how am I supposed to argue that it isn't a sport when, by definition, it's a sport? There's no possible grounds for me to do that. That means the only possible recourse for me to win the debate is to argue why debaters who argue in favor of truisms ought to lose the debate.

Back to pro.
Debate Round No. 3
acotaco

Pro

You propose a good statement saying that there is not a possible ground for opposer to argue. What I do not understand is why, by choice, did you decide to accept this debate? If you knew it was a truism, why continue with this arguement? In definition, it is a sport, but to some people, it is not considered a sport because of the appearance of the level of difficulty it is set at.
TheRaceTo9K

Con

Again, no response made to the theory argument, extend it out as dropped once again. Don't let her make a response to it in the final round because she's literally had all debate to make a response to it and hasn't, don't let her make one in the final round where I have the least amount of time to respond to it.

She asks "why, by choice, did you decide to accept this debate? If you knew it was a truism, why continue with this arguement?"

Two reasons:

1. I made the assumption that you weren't as versed in debate theory as I was and, therefore, could win the debate on a theory level rather than a substance level.

2. A theory argument is the only possible way for there to be any kind of discourse on this resolution due to the nature of truisms being undebatable. This way at least you get someone to accept rather than no one.
Debate Round No. 4
acotaco

Pro

Ok, I understand a lot better now. I now realize that I should have probably put this question under the opinion section on this cite. Thanks for your time though
TheRaceTo9K

Con

Well, I guess that's as close to a concession as there will ever be. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
acotacoTheRaceTo9KTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Hi Zaradi :D pro basically concedes that the topic was a truism. Thus it is affirmed that this isn't actually a debate but just a way to get a free win. Thus, con wins both conduct and arguments. To prove this he cites a dictionary proving that the resolution is a truism, hence gaining source points as well.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
acotacoTheRaceTo9KTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go Con because Pro didn't use any and Con did. Arguments go Con because Pro essentially conceded it was a truism and all the harms Con expressed.