The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Arts
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,891 times Debate No: 2756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

Yraelz

Con

Scenarios:

A. Logical-Master concedes the debate titled, "Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make." to Yraelz.

B. Logical-Master concedes the debate titled, "My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined." to Yraelz.

I of course am Con. I feel Logical-Master will do no such thing.
beem0r

Pro

C. Logical-Master wakes up at least once in the next 2 days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm).

There's no doubting that L-M will do one of the scenarios listed below the topic resolution, unless he has unnaturally bad insomnia in the next two days. My bet is that C is probably going to be the one. Since insomnia of this magnitude is rare, I would ask my opponent to show some kind of evidence that L-M will not be waking up at least once in said two day period. It is only natural and logical for us to assume that he will in fact be waking up at least once in this time, unless we have been given a legitimate reason to think otherwise.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

D. Logical-Master stays alive up until the time he falls asleep within the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm).

I would like to point out that the resolution very specifically states "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's" It says one, not two or three or four or multiple. The word one is put in there to signify just how many he will do, no more, no less. Thus I will negate my opponents resolution in two ways.

First let me point you as the voters to the fact that my opponent states,

"My bet is that C is probably going to be the one. Since insomnia of this magnitude is rare, I would ask my opponent to show some kind of evidence that L-M will not be waking up at least once in said two day period."

Notice the word probably that exists in there. The resolution however offers us an imperative, with the word, "will". While it is true that I cannot disprove part C of the scenario, without further knowledge of logical, I can look to my opponents statement that says it is "probably true". Thus I can only find myself whole heartedly agreeing with my opponent, when he says this will probably happen. I stand by the statement I made in my first round, being that Logical will not fulfill the first two scenarios. I also feel that Logical will probably fulfill the third one.

My opponent on the other hand needs to advocate, as mandated by the resolution, that Logical "will" fulfill the third scenario. My advocacy that he "probably" will do so lies outside of such a resolution and thereby negates it.

Secondly, should my opponent come up here with undebatable evidence that logical-master will indeed sleep sometime in the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm) then my opponent must also concede scenario D. Scenario D quite clearly states,

"Logical-Master stays alive up until the time he falls asleep within the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm)."

If scenario C is true then scenario D must be true. Logical cannot fall asleep in the next two days if he is dead. Thereby my opponent will be affirming two of the currently four scenarios where as the resolution calls for one. Thus should this be seen to be true my opponent will not have upheld the resolution and thereby will lose this round.

Your turn. =)
beem0r

Pro

In response to the whole bit before scenario D, here:

It is not the duty of Pro to show that the resolution is absolutely, undeniably, 100% rock solid true. The Pro only has to show that the resolution is more likely than the negative thereof. If not, it seems that the majority of the debates on here go to Con, since pro very rarely proves his case beyond the notion of possible error. Therefore, showing that something is probably true fulfills my duty as Pro. Regardless, here:

E. Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm.

So now, it's undeniable that Logical-Master WILL do at least one of these. Now we just have semantics to discuss about whether the resolution excludes multiple scenarios being correct.

The resolution was "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios." I hold that this does not exclude the possibility of him doing more than one. The resolution would have to state "Logical-Master will do ONLY one of the below listed scenarios." I will attempt to explain the thinking behind this assertion.

Let's say L-M does what is stated in 2 of these scenarios (for simplicity's sake). He has fulfilled one of these. He has also fulfilled the other one. To fulfill one does not mean you cannot fulfill more than one. Only if the one is stressed would anyone think this meant that he could do ONLY one. Obviously, you cannot stress something typing, but this would have gotten that across:
"Logical-Master will do ONE of..." or "Logical-Master will do _one_ of..."
Those would have adequately gotten the point "one and only one" across.

Why would the word only ever be used with a number if I'm wrong? "I want only two cups," "only one man showed up in tokyo," "there's only one woman for me," etc. Are these all redundant? Does "one" used in these cases already mean "only one?" If so, I'd like an explanation for this from my opponent.

Conserving the rest of my ammo for the final round. Gwaha.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

Alright, I will be continuing my two pronged argument and refuting my opponents in the process.

First. My opponent appears to be under the impression that he only has to prove the resolution to a reasonable point. This is false as the resolution offers the obvious imperative, "will". If my opponent cannot prove the will part of this resolution then my opponent clearly does not fall under the resolution. Reasonably likely and will are not, in fact, the same thing.

My opponent brings up a case E which states, "Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm." He does this in order to rule a 100% chance of something under the resolution happening. However I have two points on this issue.

1. The resolution quite clearly states, "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's." The phrase however, "does not wake up at least once" is not Logical-Master doing something, it is instead the absence of him doing anything.

2. Even if my opponent can somehow twist, "does not wake up at least once" to mean Logical-Master is indeed making an action there are still many scenario in which Logical-Master would be incapable of doing anything.

a. Logical-master died before the two day span. This proves the resolution false as logical-master no longer exists and is incapable of doing anything.

b. Logical-master fell into a lava pit halfway through the period before ever waking up or falling asleep. Thus he is once again incapable of doing either.

c. Before the period began robots took over Logical-Master's mind and now control his debate.org account. Thus once again Logical-master is in fact incapable of doing anything.

Until my opponent can prove without a doubt that logical master in fact has done 1 of the scenario's then the only possible answer to this question stands as, "Logical master probably will do one of the below listed scenarios" which falls outside of the resolution.

2. As I said in my last round, if you opponent can prove beyond a doubt that one of the scenario's are true then he must also accept the fact that scenario D is true. My opponent accepts this fact in his last speech and merely states that the resolution does not limit it to just one. He cites a few examples where a resolution would limit it to one such as,

"I want only two cups" (this actually limits it to two....)
"only one man showed up in tokyo"
"there's only one woman for me"

Sadly these can all be seen as redundant as the phrases

"I want two cups"
"One man showed up in tokyo"
"there's one woman for me"

all mean the same thing. Tacking the word only onto it simply stresses the fact that is already apparent. For instance if one were in a classroom and the teacher walked around on Halloween with a bag of candy saying, "Take one piece of candy." It would be at the point where a kid took two pieces of candy that she would begin to say, "Take one piece of candy only!" The fact that she said one in the first place means just that, one. Other examples,

"Please shoot one man" does not mean at least one.
"Jack asked for one pail" does not mean at least one.
"Someone stole one dollar" does not insinuate that they may have stolen more.
"She fed one pigeon" .....
"Logical-master will do one of the below listed scenarios"

To say that he did more than one but it counts is like the little kid in my previous analogy reaching into the bag, grabbing two pieces, and saying, "I took one and then another one! I didn't break the rules!"

When it call comes down to it my opponent has attempted to take two pieces of candy and justify it by saying exactly that,

"He has fulfilled one of these. He has also fulfilled the other one."

One is a number, it indicates a definite value. The only foreseeable way in which my opponent could win on this argument is if the resolution had said, "at least one" as it doesn't my opponent has lost.

Much like the little kid who would be punished for attempting to steal the extra piece of candy my opponent must now be voted against for his attempt.

Thank you for the round, I would ask that my opponent does not bring up new scenario's in his last speech as I would have no chance to respond. I have obviously payed my opponent this courtesy in my speech.
beem0r

Pro

My opponent's first "prong" in his last round was that I have not shown that one of these scenarios WILL happen, I've just shown possibility. Let us examine two of the scenarios presented previously.

C. Logical-Master wakes up at least once in the next 2 days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm).
E. Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm.

As you see, one of these WILL happen. The first prong is therefore lacking. But it seems I must now confront the second prong.

The second prong, essentially, is that "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios" means he will do ONLY one of them. I will prove otherwise now.

Let us consider something: none of the scenarios listed, A-E, could possibly happen at the same time as another scenario. Combined with the fact that at least one of these scenarios definitely was fulfilled, there was definitely a time period during which ONLY ONE of the scenarios was fulfilled.

This is not the case of a student taking two pieces of candy, it's a case of a student taking one piece of candy two completely separate times. Therefore, the student would be quite justified in saying "I took one. And then later, I took another one." Overall, he took two. But he had also taken one.

My opponent's logic would have you believe that if I told you "I only ate one piece of popcorn," I meant that I had only EVER eaten one piece of popcorn, when it can in fact be a true statement if used in the correct context.

Let us examine the examples my opponent gave to see this effect at work.

"Please shoot one man" - this does not mean for the rest of your life you'd better not shoot anyone else.

"Jack asked for one pail" - Jack is still allowed to ask for other pails in the future. He will have asked for more than one pail overall, but it will still be true that he asked for one pail (assuming that he did at one time ask for one pail).

"Someone stole one dollar" - Whoever this someone is could very well steal thousands more later, and this statement would still have been true.

"She fed one pigeon" - She is still able to feed more.

"Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios" - As soon as he does one, this has been proven true. He is still able to do more later.

Since the resolution was made before any scenarios were correct, and there was some time X when only one scenario was true, the resolution is true.

What if I tell my waiter "I'll have one bacon cheeseburger" one day, but then I come back and get the same thing the next day? I would not have lied the first time, since there was a time after I said it where I had only gotten one burger, and that's the time I was referring to in my statement. It would only be a lie if I changed my mind and decided to _simultaneously_ get 2 burgers.

Has been a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Edit: I meant to say "I can think . . ." below.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
This was an interesting debate. I believe that Yraelz should have stated "Logical Master will do one of the scenarios listed in the Con's OP"

Due to beem0r being the contender, he is correct on the matter of simply having to represent likelihood. The Burden of Proof always belongs to the Instigator. Thus, in terms of beem0rs position, his job is to show why it's more likely that something WILL happen.

Alas, perhaps my vote will revolve more along the semantic debate as the matter of whether or not the resolution implies that I must do ONE thing is what this debate truly hinges on, correct?

Overall, that was close. The notion that "later" can be taken into consideration is a pretty good counter, but is "later" even really considered as being part of the resolution?

For instance, in one of beem0r's analogies, he talks about how a guy could steal a thousand dollars after the story of him stealing a dollar is known. One thing to note is that these are two different events in time.

Then again, the resolution merely states "Logical Master will do one of the below listed scenarios", thus one the argument that one's lifespan is one event could be made. Specifying a specific time period within the resolution could have been used to prevent this.

To tell you the truth, I'm still not too sure on this particular issue (as I think of reasons to vote differently on the issue of time) and will give it some more thought, but for now, I will be voting in favor of the PRO.

At any rate, twas an excellent performance from the both of you. =D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I keep trying to get around to reading this one, but something keeps coming up. I will definately read/comment when I return.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah hmmm... I forgot to mention this, but I'm actually the same person as Stephen Hawking. My evidence you ask? As if my statement wasn't evidence in itself. LOL....NOOBS
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
atwinraven, what proof is it you have to make such a claim? Is there any direct evidence? If so please share. I rather enjoy the presence of both Kleptin and Logical-Master, and if it true that they are one in the same then it only shows that the user is a debate master.
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
oh wow, you're right.

that's not allowed...

that means he has the potential to vote for himself twice.

he needs to delete one of his accounts.
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
atwinraven,

idk about that... the former seems to argue better than the latter. I'll look into it though...
Posted by atwinraven 9 years ago
atwinraven
logical_master and kleptin are the same person
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
this was a dazzling debate.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Haha, amazing debate. I think we may need to debate more often.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grandma 9 years ago
Grandma
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by proof317 9 years ago
proof317
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by DaPofoKing 9 years ago
DaPofoKing
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Yraelzbeem0rTied
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