Pro Should Have Won the Referenced Debate
Debate Rounds (3)
http://www.debate.org...)" Pro should have won.
If you do not wish to argue using this resolution then do not take this debate.
I ask that this remain a semantics-free debate and that the Contender not warp the true purpose of this debate which is to ascertain whether or not Pro should have won the above debate.
The Contender introduced hi main argument in the last round.
This made it impossible for the Instigator to respond to it within the confines of the debate. His first round was wasted asking for clarifications, which is something that could have easily been done in the comments section or through private messaging. In addition to being invalid his response did not even address the issue of the debate and instead just said that neither of them should receive the #32 even though payment was rendered so that supposedly Nick owned the #32.
The key points of the debate were not so incoherent to justify wasting a round asking for clarification.
In the comments section of the debate the Contender claims to need clarification on two key points of the debate, and another, different two in his round one response.
1.) He claimed to not know the Instigator's stance on the rebate's resolution.
2.) He claimed to not know who was receiving the beer as payment.
3.) He claimed to not know the significance of the numbers.
4.) He claimed to not know why Mike agreed to the trade.
The first is absurd, the Instigator clearly states his position no the debate resolution in the last sentence of the opening round, in all caps, "But NICK OWNS THE NUMBER."
The second, while not as obvious is still easy to glean. The opening scenario states that, "...Nick comes into my office with Mike there and tells MIKE he will trade his number to MIKE for a case of BECKS BEER." This excerpted portion informs the reader that Nick is the one that is receiving the beer in exchange for the #34.
The third really has nothing to do with the debate, the significance of the numbers is not the issue. The issue is that a tangible product was traded for an intangible, potential one that turned out to not exist, therefore was the trade valid? The significance of the numbers is moot.
The fourth is also moot, it does not matter why Mike agreed to the trade.
Both sides share burden of proof.
Since the debate resolution is phrased as a question it would be the job of both Instigator and Contender to prove their side, the instigator took a stance, this stance was not validly contested and the Contender did not have a valid counter-stance as his argument for his side was proposed in the last round, and at least to me did not provide a compelling reason to show why Nick should not get the number that he paid for.
In conclusion had all voters on the debate voted objectively the spread would have been:
Conduct: Tie, neither debater exhibited uncivil behavior within the confines of the debate.
Spelling/Grammar: Con, Pro abuses punctuation and capitalization.
Arguments: Pro, as outlined above.
Sources: Tie, neither side had any.
This vote spread would have left the end score of the debate 18 - 6 with Pro emerging victorious. I look forward to my opponent's response.
I negate the resolution that "Pro should have won the referenced debate", and will do so by arguing that the debate should have ended up, as it indeed did, in a tie. I agree with my opponent that Con should have got the spelling/grammar vote, and that the sources vote should have been a tie. I disagree with my opponent on the other two votes, which leads me nicely into my two arguments:
=== THE CONDUCT VOTE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO PRO ===
As my opponent himself said in his first and second contentions: "[Con's] first round was wasted asking for clarifications, which is something that could have easily been done in the comments section or through private messaging.... The key points of the debate were not so incoherent to justify wasting a round asking for clarification."
That Con wasted the first round of a two-round debate in this way - meaning that Pro never had a chance to officially counter any of Con's arguments - is surely not befitting conduct of a debate.org debater, especially when (as quoted above) he had the chance to ask those questions and receive a response in the comments section before accepting the debate. Pro should therefore have got the conduct vote.
=== THE ARGUMENTS VOTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIED ===
As my opponent pointed out in his third contention: "Both sides share burden of proof." I agree with my opponent that Con's argumentation in the final round should not be taken into account, given the unfair context of Pro being unable to respond. However, this does not mean that we should immediately give the vote to Pro, who had an equal burden to prove his side of the case. My opponent claims that this was effectively done, saying that Pro "took a stance, [which] was not validly contested."
However, merely "taking a stance" is surely not enough. Pro did not give any arguments within the confines of the debate itself as to why his stance is correct. His first round was spent detailing the scenario and asserting that "NICK OWNS THE NUMBER" (http://www.debate.org...). The second round was spent clarifying the importance of the number to both parties and repeating the question that is the foundation of that debate:
"Bottom line, if you make a TRADE with an object that does not EXIST does that trade still STAND???
YES OR NO?????" (http://www.debate.org...)
In neither of the rounds does Pro provide any substantive argumentation for his side of the debate, and so gave voters no objective reason to vote for Pro on argumentation over Con. Those 3 points should have thus remained undistributed.
=== CONCLUSION ===
The points spread should have been as follows:
Conduct: Pro, as Con derailed the debate by unnecessarily asking for clarifications in the first round.
Spelling/Grammar: Con, for the reason my opponent gave.
Arguments: Tie, as Con's arguments shouldn't be taken into account given the context (as my opponent pointed out), and Pro didn't provide voters with any reason to believe his case.
Sources: Tie, for the reason my opponent gave.
This spread would have led to a 6-6 final result, leading to a tie. Even though none of the voters in the original debate actually used the above spread, they nonetheless collectively came to the right decision. I await my opponent's response.
///That Con wasted the first round of a two-round debate in this way - meaning that Pro never had a chance to officially counter any of Con's arguments - is surely not befitting conduct of a debate.org debater...///
I concede this point to my opponent, in accordance with my argument the scare should now stand at 24-6 in favor of Pro.
///=== THE ARGUMENTS VOTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIED ===///
Here is a common quote: "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
tbg685 asserted that it is indeed Nick that owns the number and Mirza's only two other options were that Mark owns the number or neither of them owns the number. He chose the latter in an invalid last round argument, but even then he did not dismiss tbg658's claim that Nick owns the number. My opponent may try and make this opposing opinion imply dismisal, but in reality it is indirect contestation of the point whih does not imply dismissal. This justification by Pro's opinion alone makes Pro's argument better than Con's.
///In neither of the rounds does Pro provide any substantive argumentation for his side of the debate...///
With this statement it is implied by you that while Pro's argumentation was un-substantive they/it was there. An un-substanive argument tops an invalid one. This alone is an objecive reason to award the "Arguments" category to Pro.
In conclusion based on my concession of a point and defense of another the point spread favors Pro in an even greater disparity.
=== THAT PRO'S "UN-SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT TOPS AN INVALID ONE" ===
Firstly, I'd like to clarify my use of the word 'substantive' - as can be seen in previous debates of mine on this site, I tend to use the words 'substantive' and 'argument' interchangeably, and sometimes together unnecessarily. (http://www.debate.org...) I apologise that this linguistic imprecision seems to have led my opponent to believe that I was implying something - namely, that Pro provided argumentation - which I was not.
I believe, however, that despite this it was clear enough through my analysis that I was implying no such thing. The essence of my point was that Pro provided no argumentation in either of his two rounds: the first round set out the debate and made an assertion, and the second round clarified a query and re-phrased the debate resolution. If it were a vote for "how well someone outlines the resolution", then Pro would win easily – but it is actually a vote for argumentation, and Pro did not provide any in either of the rounds. For this reason, he didn't deserve that vote to fall on his side.
=== THAT EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE LAST ROUND ARGUMENT AS VALID, THE VOTE SHOULD STILL GO TO PRO ===
My opponent and I both agree that Con's last round argument should not be taken into consideration when it comes to distributing points. Nonetheless, my opponent provides what I call an "even-if" argument, which says that even if the argument WERE valid, Pro should still get the arguments vote. To support this argument, my opponent says that I "may try and make [Con's] opposing opinion imply dismisal, but in reality it is indirect contestation of the point whih does not imply dismissal."
However, this does not appear to be the case, and I would like my opponent to clarify what he means in saying this. For as he pointed out, Pro claimed that "Nick owns the number", and Con rebutted this by arguing that "No-one [i.e. neither Nick nor Mike] owns the number". (http://www.debate.org...) It is clear that these two scenarios are mutually exclusive: it is not possible both for Nick to own the number, and for neither Nick nor Mike to own the number. To accept both is to say that Nick both does and doesn't own the number, which is clearly a logical contradiction. Therefore, any argument for one scenario also functions as an argument against the other scenario, implying a dismissal of that scenario.
In other words, if we accepted Con's argument as valid, then his arguments (however insubstantial) naturally trump the non-existent arguments on Pro's side, meaning that Con would've won the arguments vote, and consequently the debate as a whole. It is only because (for the reasons my opponent provided in his opening round) Con's arguments are invalid, that he does not do so. Given this, neither side argued their case to satisfaction, and so the points for argumentation should have remained undistributed.
=== CONCLUSION ===
My opponent has given two scenarios in which Pro should have won the arguments vote:
1) Because Pro's assertion trumps Con's invalid argument
2) Because even if Con's argument was valid, Pro should still have won the arguments vote.
I have shown both of these scenarios to be inaccurate. Pro's assertion was precisely that, and not an argument that made any attempt to convince voters that his side was preferable; and accordingly, if Con's arguments were taken into consideration, they would naturally trump Pro's lack of arguments. For both of these reasons, Pro should not have won the arguments vote, and it is only because Con's arguments are inadmissible/invalid given their context in the debate that Con doesn't deserve the vote either.
Consequently, the arguments vote should have been tied, the final result should have been 6-6, and the debate should have been tied. I await my opponent's response.
///Firstly, I'd like to clarify my use of the word 'substantive' - as can be seen in previous debates of mine on this site, I tend to use the words 'substantive' and 'argument' interchangeably, and sometimes together unnecessarily. I apologise that this linguistic imprecision seems to have led my opponent to believe that I wasimplying something - namely, that Pro provided argumentation - which I was not.///
It would not be a reasonable claim to say that I could have known this about my opponent before the debate began. I maintain the contention that this is an admittance of some agrgumentation. The voters will need to be true judges on this one.
///Nonetheless, my opponent provides what I call an "even-if" argument, which says that even if the argument WERE valid, Pro should still get the arguments vote.///
What I did with my claim was an "even-if" statement, but not in the context he is implying. This was the statement in question: "My opponent may try and make this opposing opinion imply dismisal..."
This is what I would refer to as a preemptive rebuttal which would only apply if my opponent were to make the claim that the round 2 argument. He clearly did not with the clarifying statement in round 2: "My opponent and I both agree that Con's last round argument should not be taken into consideration when it comes to distributing points."
In conclusion it is my contention that I have upheld the resolution. The ending score should have been 24-6. I strongly urge a Pro vote.
=== ON THE EVEN-IF STATEMENT ===
My opponent has clarified his original intention in providing the even-if statement that I quoted in the last round, such that it is now not something which should be taken into account when voting. As my opponent put it, it was "a preemptive rebuttal which would only apply if my opponent were to make the claim that the round 2 argument. He clearly did not..." So there's no further need to deal with this point.
=== ON PRO'S LACK OF ARGUMENTATION ===
My opponent quoted the part of my argument where I made a minor linguistic clarification, and then proclaimed this to be evidence of a "an admittance of some argumentation" on my part, justifying his lack of rebuttal. This is clearly factually inaccurate, for as I explicitly stated immediately afterwards: "despite this [linguistic imprecision] it was clear enough through my analysis that I was [not implying what my opponent was claiming that I was]." I then proceeded to re-inforce my original argumentation, thus making it crystal clear that I was not conceding any part of the argument. I don't understand why my opponent seems to believe otherwise in the light of such evidence to the contrary. He is correct when he says that "voters will need to be true judges" of this; I consequently ask that voters take into consideration that my argument stands unrebutted before casting their vote.
=== CONCLUSION ===
I have made two arguments in this debate relating to the vote-share in the referenced debate. The first (on conduct) was conceded by my opponent. The second, which despite minor linguistic difficulties remained clear and re-inforced throughout, stands unrebutted and unrefuted. For this reason, the resolution is negated. The ending score should have been 6-6, and the debate should have been a tie. Vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years 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:||3||1|
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.