My opponet should win this debate
Debate Rounds (3)
The proposition in this 'debate' is that the person taking the position of con (my opponent) should win this debate. I (pro) will be arguing in favor of this proposition while my opponent (con) will be arguing against it.
Burden of proof is split 50/50.
First round acceptance.
Both debaters must only argue in favor of their position (agreeing or disagreeing with proposed statement) This of course goes without saying in most debates but for obvious reasons it may get a bit tricky here. Breaking this rule (even accidently) results in automatic victory for the other person (the person who did not break it).
Also, 2000 character maximum. Should be more than enough for something like this.
Already my opponent shows his natural good sense.
"Please keep your argument clean and easy to read"
Of course! such a proposal will only increase the chances of this being a productive and useful exchange. Why did I not think of implementing a rule such as this? This oversight on my part could have resulted in this debate degenerating into the nonsensical, irrational, random, and downright silly conversation such as those that are all to common on this site (sources 1-4).
As I pointed out in round one, I am rather new to this site. This means that as of the time of writing this, I have no win/tie/loss debate record. My oponent, however, has a record of over thirty debates completed, of which over three fourths resulted either in a win or a tie. Of those that did not end in a tie my opponent has won two thirds of his debates (source 5) The mathematical odds, therefore, are 3:1 in favor of this debate not resulting in a loss for my opponent and 2:1 in favor of my opponents victory. Furthermore, my opponent has never lost a debate to forfeit (source 5 again), demonstrating that he is very unlikely to lose this debate to forfeit.
While I also have never lost a debate to forfeit, this is irrelavant due to the fact that as of writing this I have never completed a debate. None of this proves conclusively that my opponent WILL win, but it does show that he SHOULD, or at least is very likely to, as is stated in the proposition.
I now pass the debate to my opponent. As BoP is split 50/50 my opponent must either refute my arguments completely, create a signifigantly stronger argument than mine, or a bit of both. I look forward to my opponents response.
(1) Nonsensical http://www.debate.org...
(2) Irrational http://www.debate.org...
(3) Random http://www.debate.org...
(4) Downright silly http://www.debate.org...
1) Sources: Although my opponent has provided none, mine are clearly heavily cherry picked to support my argument and therefore not necessarily reliable. This should be a tie.
2) G and S: My opponents use of all capital letters in round one fit very well with the context of what he was saying. As he was merely giving an example of all caps this technicaly incorrect usage should not be held against him. G and S could even go in cons favor if the voters are picky enough about pros punctuation in round 2, but will most likely be a tie.
3) Convincing argument: I believe I made a very good case from mathmatics in round two, unfortunately my opponent refutes my entire mathematical argument quite well when pointing out that many of his stats are from troll debates. My BoP was therefore not upheld. Arguments to con.
4) Conduct: My opponent is so ugly and stupid that I consider their 'insults' a compliment. This is a very mean and uncalled for insult from me while also rendering cons attempted insult into very excellent conduct on their part, due to the fact that I took it as a compliment. Therefore, conduct should go to con.
Good luck to my well-arguing and therefore clever opponent, who is also ugly and stupid as I have pointed out, in making their concluding argument. I look forward to the voting results.
1. According to this source here http://hello-homebody.com... I have won the debate. Now that I have sourced an unrelated source Pro should get the point.
2. As you have pointed out I constantly made grammatical errors so any smart voters would give Pro the grammar and selling point.
3. I did not refute your "entire" mathematical argument I merely reduced it's impact and for making that brilliant argument you should get the point.
4. Insults are meant to make others feel bad and no matter how you took it it is still bad behavior from me. Conduct goes to Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I hate debates like this, but I hate debates going unvoted more. I did not find any arguments compelling in any way. The only point I will award it S&G to PRO because CON missed a comma and an "is" in the second sentence of the his second round comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.