The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,754 times Debate No: 2582
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (11)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Yes that is my resolution. That you, my opponent, is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined. Thought I realize we are also very different debaters, we are still both debaters, and can be compared in such a way. I stand open for your first argument.
Logical-Master

Con

First, I like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge. With that said, let us proceed:

In today's round, the Contender will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that "Logical-Master" is not as good as a debater as Yraelz.

Since this is going to be 4 rounds and since my opponent has not provided any evidence in this first round, I think I will use this round for a brief cross examination.

C/X

Question #1: Yraelz, were you on a debate team during highschool?

Question #2: If so, what kind of debate did you do?

Question #3: How long did you do it?

Question #4: What is your definition of debate? I have one, but would like to know what yours is (in case it differs from mine)?

Question #5: What do you consider to be the purpose of debate?

Questions #6: What do you suppose "with all factors combined" means?

These are my only questions. I'll post my case in round 2.

Till then.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

CX is fine by me. I would like to ask you answer all the same questions to me including what mock trial you have done.

#1>> Yes

#2>> Policy Debate, known as speed reading cards to the rest of the debate community.

#3>> I'd say one year but this would inaccurate as I missed the first 2 tournaments, was kicked from one, and didn't compete in one. So perhaps 5/9 of a year.

#4>> Debate includes a lot of things. I consider it, on its simplest level, to be a game but it includes so much more. Its the ability to persuade, to argue reasonably, to come up with arguments. You can present your own definition if you want, if its disagreeable I will most likely debate accordingly.

#5>> Self improvement. Words are weapons. Debate in itself is simply a game to me, but it can be used for real life application.

#6>> All factors that could possibly contribute to you or myself being a debater in any way. High school debate could be a factor. Your profile picture could be a factor. Anything that potentially influences our debating skills.

I stand open for your case. Luck.
Logical-Master

Con

IMPORTANT NOTE: Lately, I've come to notice how people in the comment section like (or at least attempt) to exploit the flaws of a debater's reasoning while the debate is still going on. This is unfair to both debaters, so I'd ask that you refrain from doing this until the debate is over. Thank you. :D And If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to clarify on this in the comments section.

RE CX:

#1 Yes
#2 High School Lincoln Douglas Debate and High School Mock Trial .
#3 LD: 1 year (depending on what you mean by 5/9, I may have done just as many tournaments). For Mock Trial, I've only done two official tournaments.
#4 I got this particular phrasing from dictionary.com, but it sums up my definition of debate: A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
#5 I consider debate as having two primary purposes; debate is used to find the truth or to persuade an audience to favor your position over your opponent's.
#6 I believe there are many factors, but I don't believe factors such as one's profile picture are remotely relevant.

Onto to my case:

Ladies and Gentlemen: I've decided to retract my earlier statement concerning my advocacy. I intend to argue from a different advocacy during this debate. Since my opponent has not yet presented his case, this could not possibly be argued as being unfair.

My position is simply a position that opposes the claim my opponent is in favor of.

Observation: I want you to pay special attention to the resolution. It states "My opponent is a better debater or at very least equal debater with all factors combined." Upon reading this statement, one thing becomes clear; my opponent is conclusively advocating that I am a better or at very least an equal debater to him when all factors are combined. Since my opponent is urging something to be definite, I am free to counter his position by urging mere possibility. In other words, the CON's position can essentially be viewed as "I MIGHT POSSIBLY be a better debater or at very least an equal debater when all factors are combined." Therefore, my opponent's burden is to provide you with decisive evidence that proves that I am a better or equal debater when all factors are combined.

In this debate, I find it unlikely that my opponent will be able to present decisive evidence for his case and will tell you why.

Based on how we have officially competed, there is evidence to suggest that I am an inferior debater when it comes to a comparison with the level of my opponent.

First, my opponent states that he was a Policy Debater. To show that there is evidence to suggest that he is a superior debater, I will explain this piece of information. I submit that Policy Debate is more beneficial than the forms of debate I had taken up for two reasons:

1) Spreading is used far more commonly in Policy (in fact, I've yet to see a policy debate where this wasn't used) than it is in LD (I have never encountered it during Mock Trial). Spreading is basically the act where debaters speed read their cases. For those who aren't familiar, this video demonstrates this tactic quite well: . This principle is highly beneficial when it comes to debating as it teaches debaters to think critically and strategically in a very short amount of time. Also, because of the practice of spreading being used so commonly, it encourages debaters to have excellent note taking skills, as debaters (for the most part) are essentially required to summarize their opponents' arguments. During my short LD debate career, I never relied on spreading. Against opponents who did, I'd merely clarify on their case during CX.

2) Policy Debate has far more of a demand on research as it deals with using reasoning with empirical data to prove your case. In LD, winning mostly boils down to how well one's reasoning sounds when in the eyes of most judges. In other words, you don't even have a deep factual understanding on the subject to win a round. As for Mock Trial, you're given your information in advance.

Second, there is the matter of what we consider to be the definition of debates. I merely consider it to be an eloquent verbal battle between Pro and Con whereas my opponent considers it to be a game where the players use persuasion and argue reasonably. My problem lies with the last part of that definition. In official competitions, I was not always one who was above arguing "unreasonably" through means of using underhanded debate tactics. For me, one of the principles in a debate where the goal is to persuade an audience is to break all of the rules without getting caught. Before my debates even began, I'd ask the judge a few questions to determine whether or not he/she was a layman. If it turned out that my judge was a layman, I would gracefully resort to logical fallacies to make my opponent look like a moron and appeal to the judge's emotion. Granted, I don't ever intend to do this on debate.org, but there's still the fact that I didn't personally object to using these methods to get a win in real life. By my opponent's definition, this factor negatively influences my actual debate skills.

Now to address the reasons as to why my opponent cannot win this debate:

First, there is the matter of "all factors combined." It is these three words that will prove to be my opponent's downfall in this debate. As you can see in the results of our cross examination, my opponent advocates that "all factors combined" can range from my profile picture to high school debate; my opponent insinuates that anything that influences our debating skills is what "all of the factors" boils down to. In saying this, he is astronomically increasing his burden of proof as there are ideally a limitless number of factors which can influence one's debate skills. It is my opponent's job to show how all factors make me a better or equal debater. Since he cannot even OBSERVE all of the factors, he has no way of doing this.

Second, the reason "possibility" is the most logical conclusion is because neither of us has an empirical means of determining who is superior or whether or not we're equal. As suggested above, there are many factors which can increase/decrease one's debate skills. My opponent has an extremely limited number of factors which he can observe due to the fact that he can only observe my performance on debate.org. Thus, his conclusions would merely be based on his own perception of my debate techniques used here as well as any information which I have provided about my debate background in my life offline.

I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

I thank my opponent for his very conclusive answers in cross-x and will now do my best to refute his case.

In my opponents observation he states that he will be debating my resolution with mere possibility. Unfortunately my opponent has assumed that mere possibility in some way or another negates my resolution. This is a rather fallacious statement; possibility is not on the same chart with certainty and they are not in any way mutually exclusive. For instance, if I look out my window in the morning and happen to notice two squirrels I might say, "Wow that squirrel might be bigger than the other." Obviously this statement urges a mere possibility but it doesn't change the fact that if I caught the two squirrels then one would indeed be one of three things: Larger, the same size, or smaller than the other squirrel.

The fact that my opponent in this case urges mere possibility does not change the fact that one of us is a greater debater than the other. My opponent urging mere possibility only gives credit to the fact that he is not certain at this time.

My opponent after his opening statement goes on to show why it is more likely that I am actually the better debate. I will now show how each and every one of his statements is false beginning with his arguments concerning policy debate:

1. Spreading. He states that spreading is one reason why CX (Policy debate) is better than LD (Lincoln Douglas debate). His main reason for this being that it forces debaters to think critically in a short period of time; this is not true. Spreading is a strategy in policy debate, the goal being to spread your opponents so thin that they cannot answer to all of your arguments. This is where the term "spreading" comes from. The strategy works like this:

a. The affirmative gets up and reads their case in 8 minutes.
b. The negative gets up and reads as many disadvantages, counterplans, Topicalities, and kritiks as they can possibly read in 8 minutes.
c. The affirmative gets up and refutes these arguments with 8 minutes.
d. The negative gets up and reads all new things as fast as possible on the case in 8 minutes; this is the begin of the spread.
e. The other negative speaker gets up in his first rebuttal and refutes the arguments made in step c. This is a 5 minutes speech.
d. Now the affirmative speaker must stand up and respond to 13 minutes of argumentation in his 5 minutes speech. This is nearly impossible if the 2nd negative has put many points on the flow.
e. Finally the negative speaker stands up in his final rebuttal and points out all the points that the affirmative inevitably dropped. Thus the debate round is won simply by forcing your opponent to drop arguments.

This is bad in two ways.

A). It doesn't force debaters to think critically it just forces them to read quickly. In this form of debating it is the debater who talks the quickest that wins.
B. It moots the entire point of debate, to just talk very quickly and then point out what your opponent didn't cover is not truly debate at all.

Thus LD is actually a more beneficial form of debate due to CX's reliance on spreading.

2. My opponents second point is simply that CX debate has a more demanding research burden. This is actually rather untrue. CX debate research is made easy by things like "google news alerts" where you can simply type your year long topic in and they will send you alerts when the most current articles show up. LD topics on the other hand change every month and must be re-researched.

Secondly the research burden in CX counts for nothing. All a debater has to do is cut the card and read it as quickly as possible. A debater in CX doesn't even have to understand the card he/she is reading. In Ld on the other hand debaters have to, like my opponent says, "winning mostly boils down to how well one's reasoning sounds when in the eyes of most judges. " Use reasoning. LD debaters actually have to reason, where as CX debaters speed read.

Finally my own piece of offense. LDers actually become more educated because the topic changes once a month where as the CX topic stays all year. LDers cover a wide variety of moral issues that have an every day application to the lives of an average American. LD is by far more rounded.

Onto my opponents, "Definitions of debate" argument. He attempts to argue that he did not always argue reasonably in official debate tournaments and this makes him a worse debater. Sadly this statement is irrelevant to our current debate and actually the reason I will be proven the worse debater.

Irrelevant: My opponent states that he broke as many rules as he possibly could in debate without getting caught. However this has no bearing in the status quo as my opponent so gracefully states, "Granted, I don't ever intend to do this on debate.org" Thus we can consider my opponent to be reformed.

Reason it proves me worse: If we look to my profile it states quite clearly, "The fact that I consider debate to be a game permits me a moral leeway that allows me to advocate any position." When my opponent described his experiences in LD I could not help but have nostalgic memories of my own experience. I too would determine if the Judge was a layman and then impose as many ludicrous rules and illogical fallacies as I possibly could on my opponent. However there remains a difference between Logical and I, where as he as stopped such strategies online I have continued to use them. I will commonly accuse opponents of not upholding burdens of proof where non-exist, advocate sound but faulty ideas to lay voters, and even force my opponent to play by my own rules where none should exist. My moral leeway makes me an occasionally slimy and thereby worse debater.

Finally, my own point of offense. Where as I have only done 29 debates on debate.org my opponent has done 35. Where as I have only done 5 official high school tournaments my opponent has done a whole years worth. Where as I have done no mock trial my opponent has done some. Where as I have done CX my opponent has done LD. All these factors combine to make my opponent the far more experienced debater, this experience is often reflected in his debating style.

This brings me to my opponents final contention in which he attempts to prove that the "all factors combined" part of the resolution makes it impossible for me to win. He says quite clearly that I can never know all the factors and thereby can never win. However it is not necessary for me to know all the factors in order to be able to prove my opponent a better debater. For example if I was to prove that my squirrel from earlier was a larger squirrel with all factors combined I would not need to know its DNA sequences to be able to determine such. The same is true here, the phrase "all factors combined" was simply inserted so that any factors brought into the debate could be considered. It could have just as easily been replaced with the word, "overall."

Another instance, if I was to prove that the squirrel was mostly brown with all factors combined I would not need to see the entire squirrel to determine this, but simply I would need to see at least 50% of the squirrel being brown. Thus if its entire legs, back and head were brown I would need no knowledge of its stomach to prove it brown.

While there are many factors that could have made my opponent a better debater in the past I simply have to use the major factors in order to prove that he is a better debater now. The major factors in this case would be our past experience in debate coupled with our current debate.org usage. I offer my opponent to bring in other major factors that have influenced him as a debater but until he can do this the fact stands that he is indeed a better debater than I.
Logical-Master

Con

The PRO begins by criticizing my advocacy which urged possibility, but his rendering of it is extremely erroneous. Certainty is a state which lacks doubt whereas possibility is a state that accepts and maintains doubt. For instance, let us observe his analogy in detail. If he were to observe two squirrels and claim that the squirrel of his choice MIGHT be bigger than the other, it would be the same as claiming that the squirrel of his choice MIGHT be smaller than the other. If he were to then use an empirical means of comparing the squirrels, he could disprove the doubt assured from his earlier stance concerning possibility. The main point to note here is that by performing an empirical test and determining which squirrel is objectively larger, he is conflicting with his statement of possibility by dispelling the very essence of possibility.

The PRO states that the reason I am giving evidence is to suggest that he is likely the better debater, but this is straw man. As I've insinuated in the previous round, I'm merely providing evidence to show thdat it's possible (hence my stance).

Re Spreading: The PRO attempts to discredit my point that concerns spreading by suggesting that it is merely of means of keeping your opponent from responding to all arguments. He even posts the CX debate format, but the only thing he manages to accomplish here is to provide fuel for my argument.

With the exception of the constructive portions of policy speeches, everything else is extemporaneous; the arguments (which are being dictated at extremely high speeds) are developed in very little time. As for the AFF speaker in D, this actually helps increase debate skills; the AFF speaker is forced to refute arguments as concisely as possible or make strategic concessions without necessarily weakening the AFF case by any real margin.

In response to the PRO's 2 observations on the format:

Re: A) False. See Above.

Re: B) This is false too. Believe or not, one can actually do this in any debate format. In fact, this is very much encouraged in debate. If your opponent cannot respond to all of your arguments, it is your opponent's fault. As I've implied above, having to put up with lengthy rebuttal/constructive speeches in a short amount of time forces a debate to quickly make his/her points as concise as possible. This in turns increases the efficiency of such a speaker's arguments.

Re Research: In LD, time consuming research isn't even necessary. I know this because many high ranking LD debaters commit to the habit of creating their cases at the last minute (whether it is the night before the tournament or on the way to the tournament). Many LD debaters simply steal their cases online. All that is really required is some prior high school level understanding of logic and philosophy. The only place one will find a modicum of results from research is within the constructive speeches.

Re: LD having a large emphasis on research: This is misleading for two reasons.

1)Because the main emphasis of the sport revolves around values and criterions, the actual FACTS on the issues are not to be upheld with the same level of importance. It is exactly the opposite when it comes to Policy.

2)Researching the entire year makes things more difficult as you'll always have to produce up-to-date info, so re-researching is a definite requirement in Policy.

As for merely cutting cards and reading them as quickly as possible, a true CX debate judge will not vote based on this; the role of a judge is determine which team performed the best in the debate. Also, having to refute your opponents objections to these cards require that you have excessive knowledge of topic. Policy combines reasoning and research whereas LD mostly relies on reasoning.

As for the PRO's offense on this subject, it is merely a repeat of what he stated above. However, I cannot help but notice a contradiction in the PRO's argument. The PRO agrees with me on the matter that LD's primary focus is on reasoning alone. However, afterwards, he is advocating that LD has more of an emphasis on research than CX debate does. Clearly, the PRO contradicts himself.

The PRO states that my argument about "not arguing reasonably" is irrelevant. He supports this idea with the premise that I am reformed merely because I stated that I do not do this on debate.org, but this is no more than an assumption. I refrain from using deceptive tactics here solely because I feel I have nothing to gain by using them. If I am competing for a scholarship or the notoriety that comes from doing well in real world debate tournaments, I will do whatever it takes to win.

The PRO relying on deception:

1) If you recall, the PRO clearly insinuated that there was no emphasis on reasoning within CX debate; he insinuated that it was mostly about listing as many cards as possible. According to that rendering of CX debate, it is very much unlikely that he could have employed the kind of tactics he is referring to. Not only that, but CX debate judges need a set amount of skills due to the nature of the sport, so it's highly unlikely that he ever ran into any layman. On the other hand, LD tournaments are known for sometimes relying on layman judges.

2) When resorting to deceptive tactics in attempt to win, you must break the rules without getting caught. Here, the PRO states that he uses deceptive tactics on this website. Naturally, a question arises: How do we know he isn't using such deceptive tactics now? If I am truly the inferior debater, it would be his job to hide that truth at all cost. Besides, there's no doubt that many of the voters on this website are laymen, being all the more reason for him to employ such tricks.

Re experience: The PRO's experience argument is dismissible for:

1) The PRO stated that I had done more debates here than he had. If you'll notice, many of my opponents have forfeited their rounds or have come to this website merely to troll. Debate.org experience shouldn't count for much due to how most of the audience votes on factors besides the actual arguments.

2) He states that he has done 5 official high school tournaments, but make sure to note what I stated when I had answered the question on that matter. To tell you the truth, I've only done 4 official LD debate tournaments, as I've spent more time on speech rather than debate. If you include High School Mock trial, that merely boils down to one more tournament than the PRO. However, think about that for a moment. As I've shown, CX debate requires far more work than what I've participated in. Basically, the PRO is saying that I had a harder time mowing a 200 square ft. field with a driving lawn mower than he did mowing a 180 square ft. field with a pushing lawn mower (during a heat wave).

Finally, the PRO suggests that it is not necessary to know all the factors, but this is false. As he has acknowledged with "using deceptive tactics", there are factors which can DETRACT one's actual debate skills. If all the factors merely added or did nothing to effect one's debate skills, the PRO would be correct, but this is clearly not the case. Since there are factors which can detract from one's skills, knowing "most" or "all" of these factors is necessary.

The PRO then attempts to support his argument with his squirrel analogy, but this is the "false analogy" fallacy at work. When measuring the size of a squirrel, one merely needs to verify one thing to determine which squirrel is larger. However, one can't merely measure one factor to determine who has the better ability to debate as other factors can always be used to show otherwise.

Re Major Factors: What's considered "major" and what's considered "minor" on this matter mostly revolves around personal interpretation. The PRO is free to try and show otherwise. However, I assure you that anything he states in attempt to disprove this will fuel my case.

Your move! =D
Debate Round No. 3
Yraelz

Pro

As my final round I will be spending time covering each of my opponents points and then offering a brief summary.

My opponent begins his round attempting to dispel the logic behind my squirrel analogy. He frequently attempts to use red herring arguments in order to distract the voters from the real issue here; arguments such as this,

"Certainty is a state which lacks doubt whereas possibility is a state that accepts and maintains doubt."

However my opponent neglects my arguments from my last speech stating quite clearly that possibility and certainty are not mutually exclusive. The fact that I'm not sure which squirrel is larger does not mean one squirrel is not larger until I prove it to be. The fact that one squirrel is larger exists even if I am not sure which is. The same is true of our debate now, the fact that my opponent thinks that there is a possibility does not detract from the fact that one of us is indeed the better debater.

Re Re Spreading: My opponent states that my claims somehow fuel his case, this is simply not true. He back up his claim with the idea that arguments are developed in a very short period of time, which is not true. If anyone voting has seen a policy debate card (evidence) it looks something like:

MY OPPONENT IS A BETTER DEBATER - Yraelz '08
[Citation here]

Content here.

A. All a policy debater has to do is read the tag, this is there argument. At which point they continue the debate by flying through the card as quickly as possible. My opponent also makes the claim that the debater in D has to become very good in order to respond to everything however this is also not true. That debater responds to what he can without crying and then the negative speaker stands up and points out everything he dropped. At which point the final affirmative speaker needs to pull a large amount of B.S out and sound very charming in order to win the judges (this does not happen often!).

LD on the other hand has beautiful sounding speakers that debate about moral issues and make sound points all of the time.

B. My opponent states that this kind of strategy can happen during any form of debate. However this argument is misleading as it is the fact that this form of debate is inherent in CX debate that makes it worse than LD.

Re Re Research: The con in attempting to disprove my research point actually strengthens my others points. He quite clearly states,

"All that is really required is some prior high school level understanding of logic and philosophy."

He goes on to state that many LDer's simply steal their cases from online but the same can be seen true of Policy debaters. In fact, all policy debaters have to do is run 20 or so cards together in a way that sounds nice, LDers have to actually write a case.

Re Re LD having a large emphasis on research: My opponent attempts to prove this misleading in two ways.

1. He states that facts do not have the same importance as they do in Policy debate but this cannot be true as policy debate has no foundation in fact. Policy debate relies on cards that can be cut from any source. Thus every debater in policy debate will carry a card that says AMERICAN ECONOMY IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES, and at the same time carry a card saying AMERICAN ECONOMY IS STRONG. This allows Policy debaters to make an argument on any issue that comes up with absolutely 0 reliance on fact.

2. My opponent states that CX debate is more difficult to research because I need up to date evidence all year long, but this statement is clearly fallacious as my opponent has completely disregarded my Google news argument. In policy debate all one must do is put tabs on Google news and they will send the debater the latest up to date info on each subject. At the very least an LDer is going to have to change his tabs from month to month.

My opponent then goes on to point out this supposed contradiction in my case. He argues that at one point through my speeches I am advocating that LD depends on reasoning and then at another point arguing that it depends on research more than policy. This is a fine example of the false dilemma fallacy as these two options are not actually mutually exclusive at all. LD is in fact rather capable of relying on both reasoning coupled with research.

The con then finishes this section by arguing that the fact that he has stopped using slimy tactics on debate.org is of little importance. This is false, it is of massive importance when I still use these slimy tactics on debate.org and he does not. It effectively makes me the worse debater.

Re Pro uses deception:

1. My opponent states that deceptive tactics would be almost impossible in CX because of lack of lay judges. LD on the other hand is apparently chalk full of lay judges. The first part of this is proven quickly untrue by the fact that CX and LD events are held at the same tournament. It is further proved untrue by the fact I live in Montana, where lay judges dwell in mass. The only tournament I ever had experienced judges at was Gonzaga. So yes, perhaps my opponents even had many lay judges but at the same time so did mine. Voters need to look to the fact that my opponent also competes in mock trial now, where the judges are no longer lay judges. So in essence my opponent has had less chance to use his deceptive tactics than I have.

2. The con states that perhaps I am using my deceptive tactics now. This line of thought is pointless as there is obviously no way to prove it true.

Re Re Experience: My opponent attempts to discredit my claims.

1. He states that he has not done more debates because many of his debates have simply been forfeit. However I have two points.

a. The same is true in my case, my opponent does not somehow attract troll debaters. Everyone on this site eventually hits one.
Example: http://www.debate.org...
b. I have nearly lost debates in which my opponent forfeited, this makes me a worse debater. http://www.debate.org...

2. My opponent tries to prove that the fact that he has done more tournaments is of no consequence because Policy debate is harder. Please see all my above points on policy debate for proof.

Finally the Con attempts to argue against my point stating that knowing every factor is not necessary. For this I once again gave the squirrel analogy in which I pointed out that knowing factors that effected the squirrels color (genetic composition, diseases that may have crippled the squirrel etc...) are not actually necessary to determine the squirrels color. In fact to tell that the squirrel is primarily brown we simply need to be able to see that 50%+ is brown.

My opponent argues against this by stating that knowing most of the factors or all of them is necessary. This is obviously not true for 2 reasons.

a. Providing that one factor is of far greater importance than the others then it may need to be the only factor measured. In this debate we've measured a couple factors of great importance.

b. I offered my opponent to bring other factors into the round that I had somehow missed. The fact that he could not supply any is evidence of the fact that he agrees that the factors in round right now are the most important and major ones. I would like to point out that if my opponent decides to bring these factors into his final round they should be disqualified as I would have no chance to respond.

Re re Major factors: I offered my opponent to bring these into the round, he did not such thing. Right now the factors in the round are the major factors.

Closing note: If the voters feel that my opponent has done better or at least equal debating as me they may vote for me. =)
Logical-Master

Con

YL attempts to show that I've used a red herring by quoting a statement I made in the previous round. However, this is the very statement that proves true certainty and true possibility to be mutually exclusive. Since he does not clarify how this statement is irrelevant, there is no reason to consider my opponent's accusation.

If YL is not sure about the size of the squirrel, then his preemptive conclusions on the squirrel are regarded in his eyes as being within possibility. Indeed, the fact that he isn't sure about the size of the squirrel doesn't mean that one of the squirrels isn't larger. However, if he cannot use empirical means to show that one squirrel is larger, he cannot be certain about the size of the squirrel. Therefore, he would have to acknowledge that one squirrel was POSSIBLY larger than the other; whether or not the squirrel is truly larger is COMPLETELY irrelevant. If he is unable to empirically prove it, he must regard his conclusions as being in the realm of possibility. This applies for this debate too.

YL drops my accusation concerning the straw man, so you're free to extend it.

Re Spreading: YL uses straw man by claiming that I advocated that all arguments were developed in a short time slot. He goes about disproving the straw man by citing the "constructive portions of the debaters" speeches. This completely overlooks the claim I made in the previous round that specifically referred to the constructive portions of the speeches being excluded. Basically, he does not demean the actual clash between both contestants in a CX. Thus, his "round 4" objection on this matter can be overruled.

Re A: YL cites what the debater "supposedly" must do, but does not even attempt to dispel the strategies I listed. Therefore, he concedes to them.

Re beautiful sounding speakers: This is a red herring; the skills of the debaters don't increase merely through relying on fancy pitches in their voices.

Re B: YL yet again overlooks my point. I had insinuated that your goal is to keep your opponent from being able to refute all of your arguments. This can be done through making your reasoning "air tight" or simply presenting numerous arguments. 2nd, I pointed out that such difficulty is beneficial as it helps a debater argue efficiently. I agree with him on the fact that this is more inherent in CX and it is for that reason that CX is more beneficial.

Re Research: YL doesn't bother to explain how my point strengthens his, so you're free to dismiss his objection. As for stealing cases, this is easier to do in LD due to the fact that the actual research on the topic is of little significance. When it comes to CX, stealing cases can be detrimental as your opponent can easily expose your lack of knowledge/understanding on the topic during cross fires. During LD, your opponent will be most interested in focusing in on your logic instead. As for writing cases, I've addressed this with debaters commonly writing a case at the very last minute or stealing cases online.

Re Research Emphasis:

1) 1st, while it's true that any card can be cut from any source, this doesn't mean that this will benefit a debater who decides to cite Esquire magazine on whether or not anti-global warming programs should be funded. Sources are cited to affirm their credibility. Citing a card from an unreliable source will serve as fodder for the other team in the following round. 2nd, if your card doesn't sync well with the conclusion you're making, your argument will merely be fodder for the other team.

2) I haven't ignored this. The problem is that merely "googling" to get the best evidence is not as easy as it sounds. 1st, to maintain your stability during cross fires, you have to have an in-depth understanding of the evidence you're talking about. This takes plenty of time. 2nd, you have to remember that nearly every single debater has access to google, so you're going to want a means of getting evidence that people don't typically have easy access to. For these 2 reasons, the issue of having to regularly maintain up-to-date-info is more difficult than simply browsing wikipedia for 5 minutes or stealing your case from lddebate.org

Re Contradiction:

Yraelz: ". . . like my opponent says, "winning mostly boils down to how well one's reasoning sounds"

No false dilemma. If YL agrees that LD boils down to reasoning skills rather than the fruits of one's own research, he cannot suggest that LD has more of an emphasis on research than CX. He even insinuates that CX purely relies on cards. (ex: suggesting that a CX debater only needs 20 cards to win In other words, he is suggesting that CX relies is emphasized on research. Thus, he cannot claim that LD has a larger emphasis on research.

Re Tactics: Incorrect. If I still condone the usage of "slimy tactics", neither of us would be worse in this department as we would both be equal. How often we use it is of little importance in this debate due to the fact that neither of us can evaluate the rate of usage.

Re Deception:

1. 1st, LD and CX tournaments often being held at the same tournament is a non sequitur as it does not bring one to the conclusion that CX and LD tournaments have an equal number of lay judges. 2nd, I don't even need to know where the PRO lives to support my lay judge claim. Comprehending a CX round requires a set amount of skills that a typical person doesn't have; a judge needs to keep up with spreading as well as the many rules there are in CX. In LD, the tournament organizers can quickly go over the modicum of rules in LD with laymen.

As for MT lay judges, tournaments sometimes rely on lay judges to ascertain the persuasive abilities of attorneys/witnesses similar to the manner of a real jury, so the he is wrong. He completely overlooks what I said regarding the content of CX so you're free to extend that.

2. YL must prove his innocence. After all, he made the claim that he uses slimy tactics in debates here. And the fact that he stated that he was certain to use these tactics when confronting judges whom he deemed laymen is certainly enough reason to consider this claim (considering that the Internet is filled with laymen).With this noted, you have plenty of reason to cast doubt on the his arguments

Re Experience:

1 A) Red herring; it does not address/attack the idea of many of my opponents forfeiting. B) PRO states otherwise in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
As you can see, he believes he won that debate and even provides reasons.

2. Read my rebuttals too.

YL doesn't address the objection I made against his analogy during R3 so you are free to dismiss this analogy once more for the same reason.

Re A). I replied to this before by stating that what's considered major/minor is merely left up to interpretation. YL attempts to hide this fault by saying we've discussed factors of great importance, but this is not really the case. Until he explains why theories behind High School CX/LD/MT are to be considered a decisive factor in determining who the better debater is, you have no reason to consider any of what the PRO has said on the matter.

Re B) I declined YL's offer due to a far more important issue that I talk about above ; I'm not supplying the evidence he asks for because that would assume that I agree with his rendering of this matter on the issue concerning factors.

Re Major Factors: YL doesn't explain why he declined my offer to explain how major/minor factors weren't left up to interpretation. In fact, he completely ignores it. The fact that he does this means that he concedes to the matter of major/minor being left up to interpretation. Therefore, he cannot say that he has used the major factors to prove that I am a better debater than he is.

See the most recent entry on this webpage for closing statements: http://dr-logic.livejournal.com...
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
You know... I'm not really doing myself a favor here. First I prove that I am an idiot under the American Heritage dictionary and then that I am a worse debater..... Could we do one where you have to prove me something nice.....?
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
yuh-rail-z but normally it is just yrael.
Posted by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
How exactly is "Yraelz" pronounced? It's been haunting me for a while.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
YL is short for Yraelz. In this round, the character limit was so vicious that I couldn't even afford to refer to you as the PRO. I ended up using exactly 8000 characters. :{
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Any reason for the YLs in the last round?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Alas, that character limit is extremely annoying. :(

It should at LEAST be doubled.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
And that's all I can do. Had to get this one out of the way as I won't have that much time for this site over the next couple of days.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
In that link, make sure to visit the comment page as it proves that I can't go back and edit.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Fine, but if you get Atwin then I get sweatycrease.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Atwinraven is one of my other accounts.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 candice 9 years ago
candice
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 jmanstar 9 years ago
jmanstar
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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