The Instigator
schin2023
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Is fencing a good sport to do?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 83528
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

schin2023

Pro

I do fencing a lot and it makes me so happy. Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it! Try it!Try it! Try it!
Zarroette

Con

Thank you for instigating this debate, schin2023.


Negation Case


Introduction: Verily, the definition of "good" is what characterises this debate. As the negation, I intend to demonstrate how both fencing cannot be shown as "good", AND how it can be demonstrated as "bad" (thereby rendering it not good, according to the law of non-contradiction [1]).


Negation Arguments

Link 1: Good misaligns

According to Dictionary.com, there is a variety of definitions in which "good" could manifest as. For example [2]:

- Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

In this sense, from where is moral excellence derived? The burden of proof is on my opponent to deomstrate this.

- Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree

By what value-system can these be derived? Again, my opponent must demonstrate how this could be the case

- Of high quality

What is the discriminate? Again, the burden of proof rests at the behest of my opponent

Further definitions are presented, but as demonstrated by this trend, "good" appears an unfit description of fencing.


Link 2: Fencing is bad

According to the all-knowing logophiles at Dictionary.com, "bad" is defined as [3]:

- "not good in any manner or degree"

As discussed before, "bad" is the opposite of "good", and via the law of non-contradiction, fencing cannot be both good and bad simultaneously.

Hence, according to statistics on fencing injuries, around 5% of Olympics fencers are injured whilst participating in fencing [4]. From this, it follows that injuries are "not good in any manner or degree", and are therefore "bad", which negates the resolution.


Conclusion

Due to either a faulty definition, or a reasonable definition which fails to remain logical (due to fencing being provably "bad"), this resolution is negated.


References

[1] https://carm.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://shop.fencing.net...
Debate Round No. 1
schin2023

Pro

schin2023 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
schin2023

Pro

schin2023 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
schin2023

Pro

schin2023 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
schin2023

Pro

schin2023 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Smithereens// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Win to con for forfeit. In a real life debate however, con would be heavily penalised for not using the implied definition of 'good.' When a definition is not given, if it can be inferred from the structure of the OP, then that definition is to be used. Changing the definition under these conditions is only allowed given a clear contention against the implied definition. In this debate, Con ignored Pro's inferred definition. Deriving from the context of the OP, it was intuitively obvious that the definition was not a philosophical one, but a standard of emotional positivity. A strong Con argument would have been 'Pro's definition unjustly claims objective positive utility for those who fence.' In future, remember to assume the most likely definition. Or in this case, if it is clearly implied, to use it.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by spacetime 1 year ago
spacetime
Zarroette, I don't think you understand what "Link" means.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
What has DDO become...
Posted by WP_henderson 1 year ago
WP_henderson
Rating?
Posted by tashtash 1 year ago
tashtash
true
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Sounds like fencing makes you become very repetitive. So, I for one, will not be trying it, trying it, trying it................... lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
schin2023ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
schin2023ZarroetteTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
schin2023ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Win to con for forfeit. In a real life debate however, con would be heavily penalised for not using the implied definition of 'good.' When a definition is not given, if it can be inferred from the structure of the OP, then that definition is to be used. Changing the definition under these conditions is only allowed given a clear contention against the implied definition. In this debate, Con ignored Pro's inferred definition. Deriving from the context of the OP, it was intuitively obvious that the definition was not a philosophical one, but a standard of emotional positivity. A strong Con argument would have been 'Pro's definition unjustly claims objective positive utility for those who fence.' In future, remember to assume the most likely definition. Or in this case, if it is clearly implied, to use it.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
schin2023ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was bad on pro's part as he does not even respond for the entire debate, con easily wins arguments as well as pro didn't bring up anything at all, so as con was the only one to fulfill her BOP arguments goes to con as well.