The Instigator
iamadragon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

PRO will not win this debate.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,715 times Debate No: 6507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

iamadragon

Con

I'll let my opponent go first.
burningpuppies101

Pro

If I get this straight, you are trying to prove I will win. I have to prove the negation of me not winning. '

1. You have to prove it. If you can't prove it, the assumption goes to my side. You took on the debate, you took on the burden of proving it.

2. There is no objective way to prove it, so I automatically win. You can't prove that I will win or lose, in any objective sense. You may be able to influence the vote depending on how you debate, but you can't objectively prove it. Therefore I win.

Thanks for the debate.

PS This debate was mainly taken just to get it off the challenge screen. There is no debate in this. But my opponent has decided to try to make one out of it, so he has the burden.
Debate Round No. 1
iamadragon

Con

"If you can't prove it, the assumption goes to my side."
"There is no objective way to prove it, so I automatically win."

Not really. You don't have to definitively prove something to win. Not proving something definitively doesn't mean the other side wins. If that were the case, we wouldn't have debates, because one side would always win.

What about gravity? Do you think it exists? If I made a debate with you where I said gravity exists, would you say it doesn't because I can't definitively prove it does?

"I have to prove the negation of me not winning. "

No, you don't. The resolution is "PRO will not win this debate"; by accepting the PRO position, you have to argue that you will not win this debate.

"PS This debate was mainly taken just to get it off the challenge screen. There is no debate in this. But my opponent has decided to try to make one out of it, so he has the burden."

What is your definition of a debate? Here's one, of many:

"Contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; esp." from the online Oxford English Dictionary.

We are most certainly having an argument; we are certainly contending against each other; there is definitely a dispute; there is clearly controversy; we are discussing all of these things.
burningpuppies101

Pro


Let me get this straight. You claim that we can prove nothing in a debate, and still win??? NO logic in that statement. You have to prove something to win. Since you can't prove anything in this debate, you cannot win. My job is merely to negate the topic. The meaning of negate is:to deny the existence or truth of. Meaning that I have to deny everything you say, since you are trying to prove the truth of me winning this debate. I merely have to deny it, and refute what you say. I don't necessarily have to prove that I will not win this debate, since that is not my full job. A lot of my job is to refute your arguments.


Well, in the first place, proving the existence of gravity isn't a debate, it is a scientific fact. However, there are ways to argue that gravity doesn't exist the way we think it exists. If the neg can show enough doubt in voting aff, then we default neg. That's basic debate.


Look. You have started this debate. In traditional debate, that means that you are affirming the topic. However, since you wanted to screw with things, you have chosen neg, and changed the topic to match your wishes. The topic should be interpreted, "My opponent will win this debate." That is what you are trying to argue. Since you have taken it upon yourself to argue this, you automatically are affirming the topic. Therefore, I am negating the topic, since I have no burden of proving something.


Fine. this is a debate. Now get around to actually debating the topic. Why will I win this debate?

Conclusion:

My opponent has forwarded no arguments as to why I will win. He has to prove that I will win. He has not. Therefore we default to me. If you don't buy that, which you should, then look to my many arguments arguing why he will not be able to prove that I will win.
Debate Round No. 2
iamadragon

Con

Seriously?

What about debating the right to bear arms? What about debating things like abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.? There is no right or wrong in any of these topics, and thus, you cannot "prove" one side right or wrong. You can give logical arguments to support your reasoning, but you cannot "prove" you are right.

"Well, in the first place, proving the existence of gravity isn't a debate, it is a scientific fact."

Gravity is a fact? No, it isn't. It's a scientific law, but it's not a fact, and that's because it hasn't proven. According to your logic, if you can't prove gravity exists (which you can't), then you would lose a debate where the other person is saying gravity doesn't exist, especially since he just has to sit there and watch as his opponent is unable to prove that gravity exists.

Conclusion:
My opponent believes that in a debate, the winner must prove his argument in order to win. This makes no sense; if one side can prove his argument, then there is no debate.
burningpuppies101

Pro

Ok, I'm sorry. You cannot definitively prove something in all cases. However, for a debate, you have to show that one's reasoning is better than your opponents.

Let's get back on topic here. The resolution is that I will not win this debate. My opponents job is to show, with superior reasoning to mine, that I will win this debate. My job, as the opposition to him, is to negate the topic.

Lets review the debate:

My opponents arguments:
Nonexistent. He has made no argument about why I will win. Since he has not shown anything, we default to my side.

My arguments:
1. My opponent has to prove it.
2.Impossible to prove
3. I win by default.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Garbage. I should have won this.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Had this debate won, or essentially won the debate and that the period had ended.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
What the hell? I thought I won this debate well before the period ended. I also think I didn't even vote.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
The not saying population wins again.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
someone hates you...
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
can someone explain the votes?
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Oh, I know. I meant to direct that at Maya9.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
oh, no i realize that there are much worse debates out there. But what bugs me is the fact that we are on debate.org, and any debates are voted on for no reason. I couldn't care less what the score was. I just want to know a reason.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
LOL! 56 points? I rock.

And really, even if you are a humorless fool and these things get you antsy for no reason, you should see that there are much worse debates here.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
which would be why you should vote for me.

quick question; can someone provide justification for their votes? If they can't then they shouldn't vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
iamadragonburningpuppies101Tied
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 King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
iamadragonburningpuppies101Tied
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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
iamadragonburningpuppies101Tied
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