The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

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 4 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 60147
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Felt like doing this again for fun.


RULES
-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)
-The debate cannot be a one-round debate
-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10
-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued
-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating
-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater.
-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 1 vote on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less
-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable
-My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments
-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D
-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence. I already did that last time.

Good luck and have fun!


AlexanderOc

Con

http://www.debate.org...


All the rules Pro provided in the first round of the above debate apply to this one as well. I will be asking him 5 Y/N questions a round, he can either respond with "yes" OR "no". If he contradicts himself, then I win.

Since I'm not allowed toa argue ths round, 9SpaceKing will not be able to provide any responses next round.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent breaks one of the rules. I said "My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater." In the last round. The debate he chose was about making contradictions. Therefore all points go to me.

But, why the heck waste all of this space?
Go ahead, try to ask your questions.
Good luck!
However, I remind the voters that even if I contradict myself, my opponent broke a rule I insisted the first round, and when voting, ALL POINTS GO TO PRO.
AlexanderOc

Con

False Accusations

What is my opponent going on about me breaking the rules? That is a completely absurd accusation as I have done nothing of the sort.

"'My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater.' In the last round. The debate he chose was about making contradictions."

It's hard to semantically pick apart this rule without sounding stupid. So I guess I'm going to sound like a moron today.

"My opponent can't do... any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions..."

1. The debate I provided didn't "refer" to breaking rules or contradictions, it outright stated that the other person would contradict himself.
2. I didn't "do" a debate that talks about contradictions, I simply provided text that upon being clicked takes you to a debate about contradictions. I don't see where I "do" anything.
3. The debate I provided did not mention "...breaking rules or contradictions...". It's about person contradicting himself, not breaking contradictions.
4. I never "chose" a debate about making contradictions. I was forced by an unnamed 3rd party to provide it.

On With The Debate

Do you hate debates that involve questions?
Are you involved in a debate that involves questions?
Can you say the alphabet backwards?
Are you confident in your debating skills?
Will you answer all the following questions with a "yes" or "no"?
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

The debate refers to contradictions, which by its definition one needs to contradict oneself to fulfill the purpose of contradiction. You chose the debate, otherwise I can just flip the tables and announce that because you stated you didn't chose the debate, I can just change it to something compeltely different.

Whatever. I won't contradict myself anyways.

Do you hate debates that involve questions?
No.

Are you involved in a debate that involves questions?
Yes.

Can you say the alphabet backwards?
Yes.

Are you confident in your debating skills?
Yes.

Will you answer all the following questions with a "yes" or "no"?
Yes.
AlexanderOc

Con

Fair enough.

Are you Asian?

Do you speak Russian?

Will you answer no to this question?

Do you think you will win all of your future debate?

Are you committed to FSM?


Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

FINAL ROUND

Are you Asian?
Yes.

Do you speak Russian?
No.

Will you answer no to this question?


.....
Yes.

You see, it was a trick question. However, I did not contradict myself! Why not? This answer was sarcasm. You see, I did answer it truthfully while still not contradicting myself. So, my answer is technically "Yeah, my answer was toally 'no' to this question." It's like you asking if I'm 1111 years old and I say the answer in such a lame-dumb way that you KNOW I'm using sarcasm, and that I can't possibly be telling the truth because everyone knows it's not the turth--I ain't 1111 years old. Thus, as a clever loophole around this trick question, I used sarcasm and said "yes", letting everyone know that I obviously was not answering "no" to that specific question. Plus, there was a picture to let you know it was sarcasm. :P

Do you think you will win all of your future debate(s)?
No.

Are you committed to FSM?
No.

Thus, my opponent has failed. Even his true trick question failed to stump me. He broke a rule I stated in round one, so all points to me. Even if he didn't break a rule, he still failed to show how I contradicted myself. I win.
AlexanderOc

Con

xD As funny as that is, it doesn't actually work for a few reasons.

But before we get into that, let's get into some other contradictions.
First off, let's address these 2 questions:

Q: Can you say the alphabet backwards?

A: Yes

Q: Do you speak Russian?

A: No


The issue here is that Pro wouldn't be able to say the Russian alphabet backwards if he doesn't even speak Russian. Never was it implied that I was referring to the English alphabet.
Also, the only reason somebody would assume I was is because that's the normal language he speaks. So there is a subjective bias to this. Objectively though, alphabet could be referring to any language.

Q: Are you confident in your debating skills?

A: Yes

Q: Do you think you will win all of your future debates?

A: No

If Pro were actually confident in his debating skills, then why would he doubt his ability to win his future debates? Granted, it is a minor contradiction. However it is still objectively one.

Finally, on to the main event.

Q: Will you answer no to this question?

Here, my opponent uses sarcasm to cleverly answer this. Here's why this doesn't work.

1. Sarcasm is implied, not objective. Pro just assumes we know he is implying sarcasm. However we don't actually know he is. The only evidence we have is a man making a dumb face. To me personally, he looks more confused than sarcastic

2. Answering a sarcastic 'yes' does not mean you mean 'no'. It means not 'yes'. One could sarcastically say yes, but mean maybe. The meaning is never made clear, only the non-meaning.

3. The question was asking about the actual answer, not the metaphorical answer. The meaning of the 'no' is irrelevant, only the actual use of it. Ignoring the implications of the yes and the no, the reality of the situation is Pro responded to the question with a Yes.


So, I'm pretty sure I lost this for a few reasons.
-Shameless semantics
-Rule breaking
-Last round arguments.

Regardless, it was fun. Clever try there Pro.



Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ugh. phew. I feel much better now.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
thx.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
I reported him, don't worry.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
get rid of it, mods!!
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Talk about a vote bomb.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
and BTW there is actually a way out of the question "will you answer this question with a no?".
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
read more carefully next time. But, in the mean time--why waste the space? Ask the questions for fun.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Free win for Pro then. Shoulda checked everything before accepting.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Whoa, you're right. Missed that last part.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
That debate contradicts this rule "-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
9spacekingAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I get the idea of that debate, however was it open to the ideas and logic that AlexanderOc applied and I would not definitely conclude that we have some rule-breaking here. I personally don't like the contradiction-debates at all, because they don't require skill from the one taking up the challenge. It's just luck to have someone who fails at asking the right questions. The questions given here are ... well, open for interpretation and seem a rather childish approach. Only one-sided-views come to the conclusion that Pro necessarily contradicted himself and I am not going to award any argument points for that reason. In the light that CON knew that this should have been a serious and intelligent self-challenge and that he deliberately sabotaged that idea, I award a conduct point to PRO.
Vote Placed by J03ybatts 2 years ago
J03ybatts
9spacekingAlexanderOcTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: oc the clear winner
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
9spacekingAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke some rules there. Very funny anyway, haha.
Vote Placed by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
9spacekingAlexanderOcTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF because of the clear violation of the rules.