All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

# My opponent's win percentage will not increase as a result of this debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Teaparty1
 Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point Started: 8/16/2015 Category: Miscellaneous Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 952 times Debate No: 78736
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 Con If he/she does experience an increase in their win percentage, I technically win. If he/she does not, my opponent technically wins. So the question is, how will you vote?Report this Argument Pro Your position is that my (Pro) win percentage will go up as a result of this debate. Either Con can win, we can tie, or Pro can win. Assuming there is a 33% chance of each of those, that leaves a 66% chance that Pro's win percentage will not go up. Con has the BOP, right? Con hasn't fulfilled his BOP that my win percentage will go up.Report this Argument
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
How will I vote? Against your dumbass for sure.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
If he were smart enough to make it 2 rounds he could've pointed that out, and greg is not allowed to use the score to decide which way to vote, only the arguments within a debate are to be judged.
Posted by Teaparty1 2 years ago
Thanks. By the way I realize that the math was wrong, and I know how probability theory works. I guess the BOP thing was taken into account for the voters.

This was a very clever debate resolution. Lastly, congratulations on winning.
Posted by Aran55633 2 years ago
Con turned out to be right. You, TeaParty1, have experienced an increase in your win percentage.

But I don't feel like I should have received more points and "won". This was just an idea that popped into my head, and I wanted to see what would happen.

I am surprised that it didn't end in a a tie, though. That seemed most likely. It was the only outcome which would not have been self-contradictory, and would technically mean that you, as Pro, would have "won" because you would have witnessed either no change or a decrease in your win percentage. (I don't know if ties are taken into account when the site configures the win percentage) The voters either didn't realize that, or felt that because I, as the instigator, had the BoP and couldn't prove my case, I should "lose"... But again, that means that I, as Con, was right; you have experienced an increase in your win percentage, as I "predicted".

Thanks for the debate. I had fun. :)
Posted by Teaparty1 3 years ago
Greg at the time of your voting Con was right, why didn't you vote Con?
Posted by Aran55633 3 years ago
The idea was to set up a debate where each option was antithetical with itself. If you choose option 1, you are really selecting option 2, and vice versa. I wanted to present this situation to the voters and see what would happen.

There was NO evidence that either of us could give, because you cannot predict who will vote on this and how those individuals will vote.

If you "win", then I will have chosen the correct side in this debate. If you "lose", you will have taken the correct side. That's the point.

And you are still wrong on the math.

Take abiogenesis. (this is just an example, I'm not trying to say that life came into existence through abiogenesis) Whether we are talking about the likelihood of life coming into existence at all, or just at some point over a set amount of time, we lack the ability to determine what the odds are. With there being two possible outcomes, (either living beings will come into existence, or they won't) you cannot simply assert that the real world probability is 50/50. That's not how it works.

The same can be said here. You cannot show that the voters, upon reading this debate, will be equally likely to vote for any of the three options just because you cannot predict how they will vote. That's not how probability theory works.
Posted by Teaparty1 3 years ago
But the evidence Id have to use to support those numbers would be arguments that would sway people. Considering neither of us gave a real argument I think the 1/3 is pretty accurate.
Posted by Teaparty1 3 years ago
You're right. Its not evenly split.
Posted by Aran55633 3 years ago
You're suggesting that each possible outcome is equally likely, but you have provided no evidence which should lead anyone to a conclusion which is to that effect.

When the voters read the debate, they will make a decision on how to vote based on that information. They will not make their selection at random. So why would you assume, then, that each is equally likely?
Posted by Teaparty1 3 years ago
Those numbers seem pretty accurate considering this debate. You don't agree?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
© 2018 Debate.org. All rights reserved.