The Instigator
Valtarov
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Trailsend
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

My Opponent's Username on Debate.org is Trailsend

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Valtarov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 12382
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Valtarov

Pro

I contend that my opponent's name is Trailsend. Accept challenge in Round 1, Post arguments in Round 2, debate continues from there. Semantics are encouraged.
Trailsend

Con

I agree that my username is Trailsend.

Since Valtarov and I are in agreement, Valtarov does not, in fact, have an opponent, and therefore his assertion that his opponent's username is Trailsend is false.

I accept that, by affirming this as my position, I establish myself as an opponent, thus making Valtarov's proposition true. However, by such acceptance, I render once more an environment of agreement, which implies once again that Valtarov has no opponent for the statement to refer to.

My ally in this debate is free to chase this train of recursion in as many circles as he pleases, but I feel obligated to point out that I currently plan to agree fully with him in the last round, rendering his assertion false and myself the obvious victor.
Debate Round No. 1
Valtarov

Pro

Opponent:: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict) (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary).

Trailsend is my opponent a priori to the debate because the very format of Debate.org establishes me as Pro and he as Con. Therefore, since Pro and Con are necessarily opposed on the truth of the resolution, and I am Pro, and Trailsend is Con, Trailsend must be my opponent. This is evidenced by the fact that he will be the obvious victor. For him to gain victory, he must vanquish me, which means that he is ultimately opposed to me.

He has offered no response to the claim of self-evidence. The username of he who opposes me in this debate is Trailsend.
Trailsend

Con

My ally is absolutely correct.

Someone else might argue that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and the mere label of a stance should be subordinated to the actual content of the stance for the sake of determining whether it constitutes an "opposite position." However, this idea is clearly rubbish, as my ally will correctly demonstrate in the next round.

Indeed, by my ally's own admission, I will be the obvious victor in this debate--so even that is no point of contention between us.

In short, there is no facet of my ally's argument to which I take an opposite position, nor am I opposed to the truth of the resolution.

I look forward to more opportunities to agree with my fellow interlocutor.
Debate Round No. 2
Valtarov

Pro

Valtarov forfeited this round.
Trailsend

Con

Precisely! As promised, the above argument from my ally demonstrates all the reasons why the title given by a website template to a particular position is superior to the actual content of the position, for the purposes of determining whether it is "opposite" to some other position. I couldn't agree more.
Debate Round No. 3
Valtarov

Pro

My opponent still holds to his irrational belief that he is not, in fact, my opponent. His ultimate goal is to defeat me, and thus gain victory. This he has stated. Trailsend, despite whatever rambling, incoherent, agreeable response he might give next round, is still in opposition to me in this debate, both due to the fact that he still vainly tries to gain victory, but also due to the necessarily antagonistic relationship between "Pro" and "Con". None of my arguments have been sufficiently refuted.

If Trailsend truly is in agreement with me, he will agree that I deserve to win this debate that I have clearly won. If he does not agree that I should win, as I have claimed, then he is in opposition to me, and is thusly my opponent.

Vote Pro.
Trailsend

Con

Trailsend forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ayedewynn 6 years ago
Ayedewynn
Despite the fact that both pro and con may be in concordance in regard to the fact that Trailsend's username is, indeed, Trailsend, the debate is still valid. This is because, throughout each round, Con still tried to win the debate. This means that he is in opposition to Pro. Therefore, the debate is validated, and Pro's argument stands.
Posted by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
Just to annoy you, May Jay.
Posted by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
Four rounds for this? REALLY? :P
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
ValtarovTrailsendTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Ayedewynn 6 years ago
Ayedewynn
ValtarovTrailsendTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20