The Instigator
Thorough
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Thorough
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,722 times Debate No: 19575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Thorough

Pro

Pro argues that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds.
Con argues against that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds.
I have posted this debate, because I want to win a debate of which I hardly take part.

I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing that,
1) It is impossible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds
2) That politics are not pointless.
Debate Round No. 1
Thorough

Pro

I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.
=> Con will be arguing that I have not decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.
=> Con will not be arguing that politics are not pointless, as the former statement's subject was of my decision, not of the reasoning.
==>Seeing as I have categorised the debate as politics*, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics, rendering my argument ultimate.

Definitions of possible:
1) that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: a disease with no possible cure.
2) that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary: It is possible that he has already gone.
=> Opposition: impossible

Definitions of impossible:
1) not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2) unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.
3) incapable of being true, as a rumor.
4) not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
5) utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.

Words which imply certainty:
=> 1) unable
=> 2) unable
=> 3) incapable
=> 4) not
=> 5) utterly

To negate certainty, one must produce an alternative explanation. This alternative explanation is that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. I have suggested a possibility, which, in itself renders my arguments ultimate and which negates the certainty of a formerly possible impossibility.

*http://www.debate.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
imabench

Con

I am not questioning that you chose to categorize this debate under politics, I am questioning your logic of why. You admitted that your reasoning of why you believe politics is useless is flawed, therefore that argument goes to me.

"the former statement's subject was of my decision, not of the reasoning."

Pro claims that his own statement was based on his decision, not of any rational thinking, common sense, reasoning etc. That means that Pro's idea that "politics are pointless" is flawed, and therefore is wrong. Argument goes to me.

I agree to your definitions of possible, impossible, and words that imply certainty. However I will still argue for why you cannot win a debate if you forfeit four out of 5 rounds because of the nature of how debates are won on this website.

If you forfeit 4 out of 5 rounds, then the one round that you did not forfeit must be the first round. The person who creates the debate provides an opening argument in round 1, the person who accepts the debate must give their stance over an issue in round one. If they do not the debate is cancelled and does not proceed and that is just how the website works. Therefore the one round you did not forfeit must be the opening round, and thus rounds 2,3,4, and 5 are forfeited so that the person forfeiting 4 rounds would not be able to offer any response to any of the points the other side makes.

It is the voters who decide who wins an argument. If the voters read a debate and all the arguments are forfeited by one side, then the arguments given by the other side ultimately determine the debate. If one side does forfeit 4 rounds then 3 scenarios can happen...

1) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and Con provides good arguments supporting their side based on facts and sources, they win the debate because of points they would receive for Conduct, Arguments, Sources, and Grammar.

2) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and Con provides weak or biased arguments, no sources, and issues poor conduct, then the debate will be a tie since Con does not have better Arguments, Conduct, Spelling, or Sources but Pro also didnt have any of these.

3) If Pro forfeits 4 rounds and the Con also forfeits 4 rounds, then the debate would be a tie since both sides gave no arguments, no sources, no grammar, and had no conduct in the debate.

So to summarize the results of these 3 scenarios if one side forfeits 4 of 5 rounds,
1) If the Con wins, the Pro loses
2) If the Con ties, the Pro ties too
3) If the Con ties, the Pro ties too

Therefore it is impossible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds because there are only two possible results that will come from it, a loss or a tie. I underlined those two words because if you look at the Pro's definitions for these words then it proves how you cannot win if you forfeit 4 of 5 rounds in a debate....
Debate Round No. 2
Thorough

Pro

Pro claims that his own statement was based on his decision, not of any rational thinking, common sense, reasoning etc. That means that Pro's idea that "politics are pointless" is flawed, and therefore is wrong. Argument goes to me"

As I have not yet defined in this case "because", from "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.", I now define it not as reasoning, but as evidence. I have hereby used that "it is as pointless as politics" as evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics.

I do not claim that the production of the statement was based on my decision. I claim that the subject of the statement was of the decision, preventing the opposition from arguing against the notion of what is in fact not the subject, but mere evidence.

This argument will progress as follows:
Pro argues A, because of evidence B
=> Con argues against A by disproving B
==> Pro produces a more solid C, evidence for A
===> Con must attempt to disprove C (this round)
or ===> Con must directly disprove A

Although Con has not disproved A, he has disproved B, thereby temporarily negating A. I can now produce C, evidence for A. The evidence I produce is that I have categorised the debate as politics and in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics*. I have now produced evidence for the theory that "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics", of which Con must disprove, once again, temporarily negating A, or directly disproving A.

Possibility is different to morality or righteousness. It may be righteous or moral for Pro to lose or tie in the debate, but it is, nevertheless, possible for Pro to win. Is my opposition suggesting that it is impossible for a voter to vote for Con when it is moral to vote for Con?

It is impossible for a particular scenario to occur
=> It is impossible for any causes of this scenario to occur
This can be traversed to the following:
It is impossible for any causes of a particular scenario to occur
=> It is impossible for this scenario to occur

It is possible for a particular scenario to occur
=> It is possible for at least one cause of this scenario to occur
This can also be traversed to the following:
It is possible for at least one cause of a particular scenario to occur
=>It is possible for this scenario to occur

Therefore, if it is possible for a voter to vote for Pro when Pro has forfeited 4 of 5 rounds, it is possible for Pro to win a debate when Pro has forfeited 4 of 5 rounds.

I have not defined of which website, company or general scenario this debate has taken place. How does Con know this debate was not of differing rules to DDO's, in which a debate can proceed if Con forfeits
Therefore, Con has failed to suggest two more alternative scenarios of which it is moral for Con to win the debate.
Continued from Con's list:
4) If Pro produces the debate and produces a valid argument, Pro forfeits the remaining 4 rounds and Con forfeits all 5 rounds, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default.
5) If Pro produces the debate and produces a valid argument, Pro forfeits the remaining 4 rounds and Con produces invalid arguments, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default.

*http://www.debate.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com... ;Reference for earlier post.
imabench

Con

Pro continues to think I am denying that he has classified this debate under politics and has ignored my questioning of why politics is indeed pointless...

As for the voting on debates, if a majority of the voters are of sane mind when reading a debate when someone has forfeited 4 rounds then the person who has forfeited those 4 rounds would lose. I invite the Con to try to find one debate on this website where someone has forfeited 4 rounds and they have won. If the Con cannot find a single debate then that would mean there are NO DEBATES where one person won a debate after forfeiting 4 rounds.

This debate applies to this website because
1) He classified the debate under politics, this site has a politics topic, so it relates to this site
2) He talks about forfeiting 4 rounds in a 5 round debate, he created a 5 round debate, so it relates to this site
3) He posted this debate on this website, so it refers to this website

This debate relates to this site through 3 different ways, so I assumed that he was referring to this site, if the Pro wanted to argue this applied to any website then he should have clarified that at the start of the debate, not halfway through.

"Con forfeits all 5 rounds" - Con cannot forfeit all 5 rounds as I have already stated.

"Con produces invalid arguments, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default." - But the Pro would also be unable to challenge the Con's arguments and thus both sides would not be able to counter the others arguments. That would result in a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
Thorough

Pro

Pro continues to think I am denying that he has classified this debate under politics and has ignored my questioning of why politics is indeed pointless..."

I have demonstrated that the argument that politics is pointless is the evidence of which the argument that I have posted this debate is the theory.

"I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics."

The word "because" is not used here as reasoning, but as evidence. We can compare this statement to a scenario of which this case is more clearly highlighted:

I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.
Light travels from the Sun's surface to the Earth in 8 minutes, because we can see that the light is green.

The latter sentence shows a clear Theory>Evidence sequence, but is as correct as the former. If we compare this to the former, we find that the theory is that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics and the evidence is that it is as pointless as politics. If the latter were a debate, Con would disprove the evidence or, as in this case, show that it is invalid, in order to negate the theory. I would then produce more evidence which may be more stable or valid, for example, ...because we can see that the distance between the Earth and the Sun in metres divided by the speed of radiation in metres per second equals 480 seconds, which can then be divided by sixty, so as to be transferred into minutes, reaching the conclusion that light travels from the Sun's surface to the Earth in 8 minutes.

Now, I simply transfer this to the former sentence OF THE SAME STRUCTURE:
If the former were a debate, Con would disprove the evidence (that it is as pointless as politics) or, as in this case, show that it is invalid, in order to negate the theory (that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics). I would then produce more evidence which may be more stable or valid, for example, ...because we can see that the evidence I produce is that I have categorised the debate as politics and, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics.

Although informal, an alternative modern definition of the word, "because", to the classical causal definition is "the reason I am stating this is that" (see reliable link). This is clearly not causal, but of the said 'theory and evidence scenario'.

Furthermore, in my opening argument I stated the roles of Pro and Con clearly, yet Con introduces an invalid argument as part of my role and, for the contradiction of this argument, his role also.

I have shown that the statement was theory to evidence, but not causal; and that if this is to be the case, my argument is valid, due to new evidence, and unchallenged; and that the original evidence, therefore, lacks the need to be valid; and ultimately, that the arguments concerning this statement is invalid.

I do not believe that Con is denying that I have classified this debate under politics and I have not ignored his questioning of why politics is indeed pointless. I have merely demonstrated why the evidence is invalid when I can produce alternative evidence and that the theory is the theory of which Con must negate or disprove. Con, however, has demonstrated simply that he does not understand simple logic, such as this.

"As for the voting on debates, if a majority of the voters are of sane mind when reading a debate when someone has forfeited 4 rounds then the person who has forfeited those 4 rounds would lose. I invite the Con to try to find one debate on this website where someone has forfeited 4 rounds and they have won. If the Con cannot find a single debate then that would mean there are NO DEBATES where one person won a debate after forfeiting 4 rounds."

Yet, still it would be possible. I have shown in my earlier post that the fact that it is not moral does not mean that it is not possible. Is my opponent suggesting that, if there are NO INSTANCES IN WHICH SOMEONE HAS EVER BEEN CALLED SUUUUUUUUUUULIPONICAFAC, then it is not possible for someone in the future to be called suuuuuuuuuuuliponicafac? Yes, the people who made the decision would not be of sane mind, but it is possible for two parents who have sexual intercourse to be of sane mind. Is my opponent also suggesting that it is impossible for the majority of people voting on this particular debate to be of sane mind? If there is at least one person in the world who is sane of mind, then it is possible, although unlikely (an invalid word, due to preferation in this debate of "impossible"), for that person and no other to vote. As we are dealing with possibility, I merely need to successfully explain why, in a debate, it is possible for a debater to win in an immoral situation. I do not need to find an example. Although there is no example of a person of the said name, I have demonstrated that it is possible for someone to be of that name.

"This debate applies to this website because
1) He classified the debate under politics, this site has a politics topic, so it relates to this site
2) He talks about forfeiting 4 rounds in a 5 round debate, he created a 5 round debate, so it relates to this site
3) He posted this debate on this website, so it refers to this website"

"This debate relates to this site through 3 different ways, so I assumed that he was referring to this site, if the Pro wanted to argue this applied to any website then he should have clarified that at the start of the debate, not halfway through."

Although the debate may be similar to other debates on DDO, this does not mean it is identical. One cannot look at a frog and "assume" that it is a type of fish, because it can swim and has two eyes, so it contains similar characteristics to other fish. In the same way, one cannot look at a debate and "assume" that it is of DDO, because it contains similar characteristics to other debates on DDO.

We can compare the statement, "Con argues against that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds.", with the statement, "Con argues against that it is possible for an animal to walk on dry land after swimming in a lake with its only two eyes open."

When debating the latter, Con could not find characteristics in the described animal and state that this animal must be a fish, so cannot walk on dry land, because it has no legs. In the same way, when debating the former, Con cannot find characteristics in the described debate and state that this debate must be of DDO, so, for a debate to proceed, the first round must not be forfeited.

But the Pro would also be unable to challenge the Con's arguments and thus both sides would not be able to counter the others arguments. That would result in a tie.

Let us evaluate this scenario:
Pro produces a valid argument, e.g. I like cheese
=>Con produces an invalid argument, e.g. Cows make noise
==>Pro and Con forfeit all remaining rounds

Pro has produced a valid argument, of which Con has not countered. Con has produced an invalid argument, of which Pro does not need to challenge, due to the invalidity.
=>Pro has won by default with their argument going unchallenged and all of their opponent's valid arguments going challenged

http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
imabench

Con

Reasons why politics are not useless,
1) Politics are the activities that are associated with the governance of a country or area, to say such activities are pointless is saying that the governance and maintenance of order of a country or area is pointless.
2) Politics in some cases are a field of study that allow people to explore how government itself works, if politics are pointless than the study of politics would be pointless and thus knowing how the government works, according to Pro, is useless.
3) Politics within the government is the system used for sparring parties to make decisions. If politics is pointless than decision making, according to the Pro, would also be pointless.

All 3 of these things are products of politics and are necessary to continue running the city you live in, the county you live in, the state you live in, and the country you live in. Politics is not pointless.

You cannot imply you were referring to another debating site as a last resort to try to avoid losing the argument. If I tried to argue right now that I was referring to another debating website that was shut down after 2 years, and in that time no debate was won by a side that forfeited 4 rounds, then that would be irrelevant....

I fail to see how you believe that "I Like Cheese" is a valid argument but "Cows make noise" is not a valid argument.

In A debate on this website, the instigator introduces a debate with a topic, the instigator then states their reasoning in the first round but introduces any evidence or arguments until the next rounds. The challenger meanwhile accepts this debate, states what they will be arguing, and then the first round ends.

After that if either side forfeits the remaining 4 rounds then they have failed to provide evidence or logic to reinforce their arguments and thus would lose or tie the debate because
1) They have failed to produce any logical arguments
2) They have no grammar or spelling and therefore could not be given any points
3) They have no sources and therefore could not be given any points
4) They showed no conduct to even post an argument and therefore would not be given any points...

If the challenger did the same, then neither side would get points for anything and then that would result in a tie which would mean the side that forfeited 4 of 5 rounds cannot win.
Debate Round No. 4
Thorough

Pro

Reasons why politics are not useless, etc."

As Con has not challenged the reference of "because", his arguments against the yet invalid topic of the former evidence are also invalid.

"You cannot imply you were referring to another debating site as a last resort to try to avoid losing the argument. If I tried to argue right now that I was referring to another debating website that was shut down after 2 years, and in that time no debate was won by a side that forfeited 4 rounds, then that would be irrelevant...."

I am not referring to another debating site. I am referring to any debate with the said characteristics possible. "a debate" implies any debate. May I remind Con that from few characteristics of the debate described, one cannot draw out a complete debate in one's imagination and "assume" that the debate belongs to a group of debates, such as DDO. The reason why it is not irrelevant is that it creates a possibility. If a debating website that allowed the procedure of a debate in which the contender's opening argument is forfeited and that was shut down after 2 years, contained a debate in which the instigator produced an opening argument, but forfeited the 4 remaining rounds; and the contender forfeited all 5 rounds, it would thus be POSSIBLE for a debater to win "a debate" while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds.

"I fail to see how you believe that "I Like Cheese" is a valid argument but "Cows make noise" is not a valid argument."

The argument, "I like cheese", is the theory and the subject of the debate.
The argument, "Cows make noise", is evidence against the theory, which is invalid, as the fact that cows make noise does not negate or disprove the fact that I like cheese.

This scenario refers to a debate in which it would be moral and, as proved several times without a valid challenge, possible for a debater to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. All of Pro's arguments (1) have gone unchallenged and all of Con's valid arguments (0) have gone challenged. Therefore it is moral for Pro to win the debate.

"If the challenger did the same, then neither side would get points for anything and then that would result in a tie which would mean the side that forfeited 4 of 5 rounds cannot win." and the former.

Con has not given any arguments against the fact that it is possible for the said instigator of the said conditions to win; only more invalid, and, in my opinion, pointless, arguments about how it is immoral for the said instigator of the said conditions to win, even this of which I have proved wrong without valid contradiction.

Also, Con has not given any arguments against my earlier argument, "Furthermore, in my opening argument I stated the roles of Pro and Con clearly, yet Con introduces an invalid argument as part of my role and, for the contradiction of this argument, his role also.", so this, along with several other arguments, has gone unchallenged.

My final argument is that the debate is not pointless. The statement, "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.", merely quantifies the validity of politics:

Simply, A(1)=B(1)

It does not suggest that A(1)=0; that politics is 100% pointless.

To recap:
"it is as pointless as politics" is evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics.
Con has proved that politics is not pointless, yet this does not contradict the evidence, because I have not said how pointless the debate is.
If this does not sway the voter's decision, I have introduced alternative evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics. This evidence is that I have categorised the debate as politics and, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics.
Con has not argued against this evidence so my theory stands unchallenged.
I have demonstrated that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds by confirming the definition of possible and impossible and producing several scenarios of which the debater can possibly win even if they morally should not, for example it is possible for the voters to vote for the said debater if they are all insane, which, although, unlikely, is possible.
Con has merely contradicted this. He supplied no evidence against it.
If this does not sway the voter's decision, I have produced a scenario of which it is moral for the voter to vote for the said debater.
Con has merely contradicted this. He supplied no evidence against it.

Con can only win this debate if he does ALL of the following:
1) Demonstrates that the topic of "Politics is pointless" is valid
2) Demonstrates that, in the said equation, A(1) is not equal to B(1)
3) Demonstrates that because in the former statement MUST be causal
4) Demonstrates that the new evidence is invalid

or ALL of the following:
1) Demonstrates that impossible does not refer to certainty
2) Demonstrates that it is impossible for voters to vote immorally
3) Contradict, with valid evidence, the said scenario, in which, supposedly, voting for the said debater is moral.

The former is an easier option, although both would be difficult and, indeed, morally incorrect.
imabench

Con

Pro has forfeited my response to why politics is rather useful, instead he wants me to question his use of the word "because" or something.....

Now the Pro is trying to use any debate in general (not limited to a website) to try to justify his argument and tries to use my made up example as actual evidence.

If the Debate subject though was "The US should not withdraw from NAFTA" and the opening arguments were "I like cheese" and "cows make noise" both arguments would be invalid: tie.

Ill make this quick
1) Con has not showed any specific example of any debate anywhere that showed someone forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds and winning the debate

2) I Have shown how points are given to each side of the argument by voters and that if one side completely forfeits all 4 rounds then they forfeit any eligibility for those points

3) I have shown the results of each scenario that could come out of one side forfeiting all four rounds, none of which allows for the side that forfeited 4 rounds to win

Thanks for reading and I thank the Pro for a very interesting debate :D
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I was half expecting that to happen when this debate was proposed :P
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lmfao. Next time - you should make it 5 rounds and PRO can only post arguments in one round. Then we'll see what happens lol
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
Oh, I did say as :D
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
"as pointless of politics."

*as pointless as politics.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
ThoroughimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no need for this debate to go 5 rounds, and most of the arguments made were irrelevant. The only argument that mattered was Pros argument showing different scenarios where a person could forfeit 4 rounds and still win, such as voters voting immorally or their opponent posting nothing but invalid statements. These arguments show clearly that it is possible, yet Con never addressed them.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
ThoroughimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It isn't really possible because the person who forefiets doesnt win the debate, howevre hthere can still be more votes for the forefetied person