The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 57170
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round will be definitions and questions.

I will be arguing that Pro (AlexanderOc) has the ability to answer 5 questions provided by Con.

Con is free to choose any questions he pleases and gets to choose from which source the word "Answer" will be defined.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Definitions from Oxford English Dictionaries
Answer: The correct solution to a question in a test or quiz.
Quiz: A test of knowledge, especially a brief, informal test given to students.
Note that the definition of quiz includes the word "especially", not always. Therefore I will quiz pro with five questions, and he must provide a completely correct answer to every single question. He must prove that the answer is correct in an empirical and verifiable way. The burden of proof is clearly impossible. A single unanswered or incorrectly answered quiz question results in a Con victory. The majority of my questions do not have answers at this point. The "possibility" of pro being right is irrelevant since Pro has affirmed that he is right.

Questions:
1. "Is the universe heading towards a big freeze, a big rip, a Big Crunch, or a big bounce?"
2. "Can gravitational waves be directly detected?"
(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
3. "Is there a world independent of human beliefs and representations?"
(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
4. What kind of phone do I own?
5. What will be the date of my death?

Pro must answer these questions correctly.
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

I must point out one fallacy in my opponent's definition of "Answer" before I begin.
A quick look at the Resolution and Con's definition of Answer show a discrepancy. The Resolution contains the verb 'answer while Con's definition contains the noun 'answer'.

Applying his definition to the resolution makes it sound similar to this,
'Pro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.'

That statement is utter nonsense without proper grammar, however I agreed to let Con choose this definition. So I must defend that very resolution.

I. Rebuttals

"Pro has affirmed that he is right."
This is a baseless claim. I never affirmed I was right, I affirmed I could 'the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.' For all you know, I could very well be left.

"He must prove that the answer is correct in an empirical and verifiable way."
According to who? I never gave my opponent the option to make his own rules for this debate. I must prove the resolution true in an empirical and verifiable way, not your questions.

"A single unanswered or incorrectly answered quiz question results in a Con victory."
I must say, sincerely doubt your future prediction abilities. You have no way of knowing who will receive the most votes after this debate concludes, and assuming that number will correlate to the number of questions answered is not supported anywhere in your claim.

So as I have shown, I am not at all obligated to answer Con's questions. I am only obligated to empirically prove the resolution made above using the definitions provided by Con.

II. Construct

Pro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.

Now, proving a resolution like this can be extremely difficult. Imagine me saying, 'Sun the hot be, revolve moon Earth.' and forcing you to verify it. I'd imagine you can't.

Now on to the verifying!
Let's start by breaking this statement apart.
"Pro can the correct solution..." It is not entirely impossible to correct this statement. All that is required is a good dictionary.
http://i.word.com...

Let's say 'the' was actually an adverb. This statement now entails that an entity is essentially stating that "Pro" has the ability to do something, to another entity/object known as a 'correct solution'.

"...to a question in a quiz or test..."
This portion is meant to convey that the 'something' "Pro" has the ability to do applies to a question that is within a quiz or test. The simplest of the three parts of this resolution

"... 5 questions from Con."
The final statement in this is saying this 'question' "Pro" has 'something' to do with contained within a quiz or test is derived from 5 questions provided by Con.

By putting all of this together, we can confirm that the resolution is a statement about an entity (unknown) telling another entity/object (correct solution) that Pro (AlexanderOc) has an ability to do something that relates to the questions held within a quiz or test provided by Con.

How do I empirically prove this? The same way you empirically prove anything, by showing observable evidence. Were the resolution to be "somebody was punched" and I presented a video of a man punching another man, this is observable evidence yes? So in order to prove that an entity made a statement about me to another entity, I will show you it happening.



So essentially, By giving me the noun definition of "Answer" Con has waived my need to answer his question, turned the Resolution into utter nonsense, and has made absolutely false claims within his Construct.

And with that, I conclude my rebuttal. Good luck Con!
Raymond_Reddington

Con

My apologies to Pro, a better definition to achieve a more intelligible definition that is similar, just in verb form, will be:
Answer: Provide the required responses to (a test or quiz)- from Oxford English Dictionaries
Pro has granted me the ability to "choose from which source the word "Answer" will be defined." and to achieve this we must have a definition that makes sense. Pro is affirming the resolution and must fulfill the BoP. Also to prove the resolution is true, Pro must correctly answer my five questions, to show his answers are correct he must give empirical and verifiable evidence. Pro has 2 options:
1. Attempt to affirm a resolution that makes no sense. Doing this is an impossibility that will result in an unfulfilled BoP.
2. Answer the questions according to the intelligible definition. Another impossibility.

Pro makes the claim that: "You have no way of knowing who will receive the most votes after this debate concludes, and assuming that number will correlate to the number of questions answered is not supported anywhere in your claim."

Basically he says he does not have to answer all five questions to win. The OP states that "Pro (AlexanderOc) has the ability to answer 5 questions provided by Con.". Failing to do so will result in a Con victory.

Pro says "So essentially, By giving me the noun definition of "Answer" Con has waived my need to answer his question, turned the Resolution into utter nonsense". This does not waive his need to fulfill the BoP which he has not done. Confirming an unintelligible resolution is still confirming the resolution which requires he fulfill his Burden. I once again provide Pro the chance to answer my questions...
Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

In Con's opening statement, he offers another definition for the word answer. I have not given Con permission to change this definition mid-debate! The initial definition will stand until this debate ends as my opponent has no right to shove another option in given his distaste for his first one.

I. Cross-examination

"...and to achieve this we must have a definition that makes sense."
The definition does make sense and I have shown in my previous construct that the current resolution does too. A new definition is not required and is therefore to be rejected.

"Also to prove the resolution is true, Pro must correctly answer my five questions, to show his answers are correct he must give empirical and verifiable evidence."
Allow me to remind the audience of the current resolution.

Pro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con

No where in that resolution is it stated/implied I must answer Con's questions. I explained this resolution already and showed how it does not obligate me to respond to Con's questions. I have also proved the resolution true and my opponent has failed to contest that evidence.

Next Con gives me 2 options that he claims are impossible. Allow me to explain why I need to do neither.

Option 1. I would have no need to affirm an insensible resolution. The current resolution has been sensibly explained and I have successfully proved it, fulfilling my BoP.

Option 2. I will state again, I have no need to answer Con's questions. Doing so will not fulfill my BoP or support the resolution. The resolution does not require me to answer the questions in any way.

II. Rebuttal

"The OP states that "Pro (AlexanderOc) has the ability to answer 5 questions provided by Con.". Failing to do so will result in a Con victory."
The OP was made without Con's definition of 'answer' being applied. Now that it has been applied, the resolution is far different and as stated, requires answering no questions. Failing to confirm the current resolution will lead to a Con victory, but unfortunately for my opponent, I have affirmed the resolution without further contest.

"This does not waive his need to fulfill the BoP which he has not done. Confirming an unintelligible resolution is still confirming the resolution which requires he fulfill his Burden. "
My BoP has not been waived, only my need to answer your questions. I have fulfilled my BoP by explaining the resolution and verifying it. Until Con rebuts my construct, my burden has been filled.

III. Final remarks

Con has failed to counter my construct and fails to understand that the current resolution does not obligate me to answer his questions.
Con has also tried to undermine me by pushing a new definition into the argument without any consent.
I hold no responsibility to answer my opponent's questions. I have confirmed my construct, and my BoP has been fulfilled uncontested.
As far as debates go, Con seems to be falling behind.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Pro has attempted to decipher the unintelligible resolution by assuming the word "the" can be interpreted as an adverb. His entire argument hinges on this.

""Pro can the correct solution..." It is not entirely impossible to correct this statement. All that is required is a good dictionary"
"Let's say 'the' was actually an adverb. This statement now entails that an entity is essentially stating that "Pro" has the ability to do something, to another entity/object known as a 'correct solution'."

The major problem here is you cannot use "the" as an adverb here and be grammatically correct.
From pro's own dictionary source:
Main Entry: 2the
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English th83; by that, instrumental of th"t that
Date: before 12th century
1 : than before : than otherwise "used before a comparative 2 a : to what extent b : to that extent 3 : beyond all others

There is no use of a comparative here, and the resolution is mumbo jumbo. Pro is affirming a statement that he cannot prove, because it doesn't make sense. Since he has the BoP here, he will automatically lose.

Pro has valiantly attempted to affirm a statement that makes zero sense, and if you abide by his interpretation of English grammar, he succeeded. His interpretation violates grammatical rules, and the resolution is reduced to unintelligible, and unconfirmable craziness.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Pro

My opponent has pointed out a flaw in my definition of 'the'. It appears that I have confused the adverb form 'the' with the pronoun 'thee'.
As such, I can no longer make sense of the resolution.

By defining 'answer' in noun form and corrupting my OP with a grammatically incorrect statement, my opponent has left me unable to fulfill my BoP. As he stated, it is impossible to prove an incomprehensible Resolution.

At this point all I can do is commend my opponent for his foresight. That misdefinition has won you the debate. Were it not for that, the current resolution would allow me to answer the questions, which I could very well do.

However the current nonsense resolution prevents me from doing so with any benefit.

And with that said, I conclude.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Pro has conceded. Affirming a resolution requires fulfillment of the Burden of Proof, even if the resolution is nonsense.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Definitions should always be in the first round, with edits to them applied as needed before the start of the debate.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
http://www.debate.org...

If the photo does not appear in the debate, here is another link.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Gah, that last argument broke my mind a bit.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Thank you wylted. Make sure to tell everybody at the end so I don't do this again.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
There is a way to snipe this resolution, but I'll keep it to myself.
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
I will take this if the rules specifically state answer and get correct
Posted by Gogert777 3 years ago
Gogert777
Sounds interesting.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: concession
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Ambassador95 3 years ago
Ambassador95
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 conceded.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
AlexanderOcRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.