The Instigator
bikerman457
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Pizza is better than Tacos.

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...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,444 times Debate No: 64288
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

bikerman457

Pro

Pizza is a great food and is very rarely do people not like. That proves that people like Pizza better. It's more common for people to like Pizza than Taco.
MonetaryOffset

Con

I accept.

FRAMEWORK


The burden of proof in this debate will necessarily fall on PRO, who is making a positive claim. Let's review what precisely he has to prove.


If we call Pizza X and Tacos Y, PRO needs to prove the following:

X > Y

PRO's case for proving that Pizza is better than tacos must be able to prove that the former is objectively better than the latter. This is to say that, in order to carry his burden, he must be able to prove X > Y objectively, or that it follows in every case. If any of the following options are still on the table by the time this debate is over, you vote CON by default.

X < Y
X = Y


WHAT PRO MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE


In order to prove objectivity, PRO must be able to establish the following:

P1) A framework for "objectively better" exists.
P2) (x), (y), and (z) criteria establish a framework for "objectively better."
P3) X posses (x), (y), and (z) criteria, but Y does not.
C1) Therefore, X is objectively better than Y.

PRO must not only be able to prove that one can be objectively better than another, but that X is in fact objectively better. Without accomplishing these two things, you vote negative by default. If he fails to disprove the notion that tastes and preferences are subjective, you vote negative.


REBUTTALS

PRO writes, "Pizza is a great food and is very rarely do people not like."

He begins by asserting that Pizza is a great food. He is attempting to make a categorical statement, but provides no evidence or framework by which to substantiate it, so the assertion can be discarded outright.

The second remark is, first and foremost, a concession, because he concedes that some people do not like pizza. If pizza were objectively better, or even objectively good, everyone would like it. Second, he provides no evidence for it, so it's a moot point. Third, even if it were true, it is nothing more than an ad-populum fallacy.

PRO writes, "That proves that people like Pizza better."

I refuted his last point, so this falls as well.

PRO writes, "It's more common for people to like Pizza than Taco."

PRO provides zero evidence for this claim, and even if it WERE true, it would not establsh objectivity, especially because PRO concedes that some people like tacos more than Pizza. That, in fact, is a concession. Moreover, he provides no framework by which to gauge objectivity.
Debate Round No. 1
bikerman457

Pro

You say I did but but yet you yourself did nothing to prove why Tacos are better. All you did was complain about my arguement, meaning you also have no evidence why Tacos are better.

Info time:
Looking this question up on Yahoo answers you will see that almost everyone will say pizza is better (https://answers.yahoo.com...)
MonetaryOffset

Con

Pro writes, "You say I did but but yet you yourself did nothing to prove why Tacos are better. All you did was complain about my arguement, meaning you also have no evidence why Tacos are better."


Pro fundamentally misunderstands the burden of proof, and note that he dropped every one of my arguments pertaining to it. As I noted in the last round, PRO is making an affirmation, and theefore he, not I, have the burden of proof. He must prove that pizza is superior to tacos. I do not need to prove that tacos are superior to pizza. In fact, if the OPTIONS that tacos are better than pizza, or that the two are equal, are still on the table by the end of this debate, you vote negative by default, as I pointed out in the last round.

Also, PRO has completely failed to establish a framework for objectivity. I extend forward my framework analysis.


PRO writes, "
Info time:
Looking this question up on Yahoo answers you will see that almost everyone will say pizza is better (https://answers.yahoo.com......)
."

There are so many problems with this it's absurd.

First, PRO cannot simply post a link and expect me and our audience to pour through it. HE needs to make the argument himself.

Second, this is NOT a scientific poll; it's yahoo answers, so the results are not the slightest bit valid.

Third, even if people DID choose pizza over tacos, it would be, as I pointed out, ad populum -- we're looking for objectivity.

Fourth, there were people who choose tacos over pizza, which disproves the fact that pizza could be objectively better than tacos, and in fact defeats PRO's entire case.
Debate Round No. 2
bikerman457

Pro

Pizza is a more logical choice than tacos

why?
You are sitting in a restaurant you are eating with 5 other people. The menu is simple Pizza or Taco. You ask everyone what they want. Say the group has no preference and says they like both equally. lets put in some prices. These prices are where you can get the cheapest pizza and tacos around Little Caesars and Taco Bell. The Pizza is 5 dollars rounding down tacos are about 1 dollars is you go with tacos.You would need 2 pizza so 10 dollars for Pizza and 2 tacos for everybody meaning tacos are 12 dollars Of course you would chose Pizza, everyone at the table likes it and its cheeper.

Now I known what you are going to say. Hey Pro side this is only one situation.

Pizza is easier to find.
Take a walk down any street what do you see every where you turn. Pizza resturants.
Pizza Hutt
Little Caesers
Hungry Howies
Pizza Ranch
Domanios
Papa Johns
Old Chicago
Pizza Inn
jet's
Chuck e cheese's
CiCi's
Californa Pizza Kitchen.
Heck, even Subway has pizza
and those are the chain resurans
Now lets think about the ones with Tacos...
Taco Bell
Chipotle
Baja Grill
Qdoba
Moe's
On the border.
and not much else.

After looking at those list it shows how much easier Pizza is to get making it a better choice.
MonetaryOffset

Con

PRO has already lost this debate, because he REFUSES to respond to my framework analysis, and provide a framework for objectivity. He makes a number of baseless assertions, which he refuses to back up, but does nothing to establish objectivity -- every step of the way, his contentions are based on nothing more than personal opinion and subjective tastes/preferences, which do not meet his burden of proof.

Moreover, PRO completely fails to respond to my earlier arguments, where I noted that his remarks are already indicative of a loss, that he attempted to change the goalposts, and that subjective tastes do not establish objectivity. I'll extend those points forward.

He claims that pizza is a "more logical choice than tacos." Even if this WERE the case, he provides no framework or logical analysis as to how he came to this, or why this alone would establish objectivity, so the point falls completely flat.

He provides a completely incomprehensible hypothetical that doesn't do a darned thing at advancing his burden. His contention boils down to: "6 people can eat two pizzas, while 6 six people would need two tacos." The prices he provides, as well as the preferences, are without any basis whatsoever in reality. He pulls the prices out of the sky, as well as the fact that people would each need two tacos. Moreover, he fails to establish WHY people would choose pizza over tacos in his hypothetical -- why price establishes objectivity. If he cannot connect that point to objectivity, he loses the debate. Moreover, he even CONCEDES in his hypothetical that people may be indifferent to pizza and tacos. If that is the case, pizza cannot possibly be superior to tacos.

Bear in mind again, voters, that PRO must prove OBJECTIVELY that pizza is better than tacos, and that he has the sole burden of proof to do this. I, however, have no such burden from the other end. If, by the end of this debate, PRO has failed to achieve this burden, you vote negative. This is to say that, if it is even possible by the end of this debate that tacos could be superior to pizza or that the two could be equal on an objective basis, or that we cannot draw a conclusion objectively, you vote negative by default.

He then lists a number of pizza restaurants and says that pizza is easier to find. How in the world does that advance the point of one being objectively better than the other? He doesn't explain how this is so, or even prove the point, because he only provides pizza restaurants, but doesn't even prove the point that pizza is easier to find than tacos -- just that pizza is easier to find. Because there is no objective standard, which it to say that PRO neither proves this case of his or demonstrates how it proves objectivity, this contention can be discarded outright.
Debate Round No. 3
bikerman457

Pro

In conclusion.

Pizza is not only the better choice as I proved above it's the more logical, cheeper, easier to obtain choice.
MonetaryOffset

Con

PRO fails to respond to the entirety of my rebuttals. Not only has he not shown that pizza is more logical, cheaper or easier to obtain because he provided zero framework for comparison and zero evidence for a single remark he made, but he has not established a framework for objectivity. Moreover, he dropped my entire framework and burden analysis, which we must once again extended forward. As I noted in my framework analysis, he not only needed to prove that one could be objectively better than the other, but also what characteristics qualify one as objectively superior. PRO has failed to do that, and because there remains ambiguity and he has, once again, failed to provide a single stitch of evidence, justification or proof, you vote negative by default. On top of that, PRO has dropped all of my rebuttals from the last few rounds, so I will extend those forward as well.

Thank you PRO for this debate, and to our audience, please VOTE CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bikerman457 2 years ago
bikerman457
I agree with Monetary he proved in the debate why that was not his job not stop this madness, I refuse to let some mad idiot win for me.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Dear Lord...his vote gets removed, and then he drops another one, this time a 7-point votebomb--and virtually all of his votes are RFD-less votebombs.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
rstreeter13. your RFD is absurd. I articulated SEVERAL TIMES why that was *not* my burden. In fact, the burden was solely on PRO to defend the position that pizza was superior to tacos, whereas there were three possibilities for my side:

(1) Tacos are superior to pizza
(2) Tacos and pizza are equal
(3) We cannot come to an objective conclusion

I articulated this at SEVERAL points during the debate, so that you missed this is baffling. PRO failed to establish any degree of objectivity, so you vote negative by default. Ignorance is not a virtue.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
bikerman457MonetaryOffsetTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide rebuttals to a majority of the challenges raised by Con. This effectively cost him the BOP as it was his duty to overcome such challenges. Clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
bikerman457MonetaryOffsetTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty straightforward. Pro had the BoP, he chose not to address it. Every single argument he made was a subjective evaluation, and each time he made one, he implicitly conceded the debate by saying that some people might disagree. He failed to prove that any objective good exists for pizza, and as such, failed to show that it should be better than anything. Con chose not to take to the offense and argue for tacos, though he didn't need to - his burden was just to show that there are no objectively better aspects to pizza as compared with tacos. He showed that in spades, and Pro fails to respond to any of his framework analysis that secured his win here. Hence, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Luxray2854 2 years ago
Luxray2854
bikerman457MonetaryOffsetTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, Pro never really backed up his claim therefor Con gets the points for arguements.