The Instigator
Mixer
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Pro should have won this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,011 times Debate No: 10226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (10)

 

Mixer

Pro

Pro should have won this debate: http://www.debate.org...

i will let my opponent argue first
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

"Should" indicates a moral imperative. My opponent suggests that Pro "should" have won the debate. However, should it also not be the case that Con win the debate? Both participants have their imperative to win.

The problem occurs because if one person wins, the other must lose. By asserting that Pro should have won the debate, my opponent necessarily states "Con should have lost this debate". In reality, both Pro and Con should have won. No one participates in a debate with the purpose of losing. Thus, it is erroneous for my opponent to make his suggestion.

The winner of a debate should not be decided based on my opponent's opinion, but it should be decided based on which debater gave the stronger logical arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Mixer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. This is my second debate on this site, and i am honored to have such a high ranking debater to share the experience with.

I appologize for not being clear on my premise. By "Pro should have won this debate", i really meant "The outcome of the voting after the debate should have been in pro's favor"

"The winner of a debate should not be decided based on my opponent's opinion, but it should be decided based on which debater gave the stronger logical arguments."
I completely agree. That is why we shall spend the last two rounds debating who had the stronger argument.

Con's case is based on a fallacy

"In fact, when you consider that the cubits were measured using string and someone's arm length, the values make mathematical sense."
The method of measuring one person would make a consistent unit of measurement for this one example.

The fallacy is this: All units of measurement are relative to another (ie 1 inch=1 inch), so the measurements put into the ratio should reach the mathmatical proof pi. The bible does not use any language to say it was an approximation. It said "and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about". It did not say and his height was about five cubits: and a line of almost thirty cubits did compass it round about. You cannot make an assumption that they wanted you to make an approximation.

Conclusion:
If they did, that was an error in writing. If not, it is a mathmatical error.

I am sorry for waiting so long to reply. Holiday season gets crazy.
Best of luck
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and completely understand his delayed response as holidays can get hectic :)

My opponent has clarified his case and as such, I will modify my argument to fit his new contention, which is to show that Freeman should have won because his argument was better.

My opponent makes the argument that since KRF created an argument based on a fallacy, then he should have lost. However, this is not the way that debate works. A debate is decided based on the presentation of argument, not on who is inherently right or wrong.

The winner of the debate is KRF, because Freeman did not uphold the burden of proof and KRF provided enough evidence to call Freeman's argument into question. Keep in mind that despite what my opponent may say, the debate is decided based on what is present in the debate, not on the discussion that occurs afterwards.

Regardless of whether or not KRF's arguments were fallacious, it must be pointed out that Freeman did not adequately respond to them. Instead, he dismissed them with little to no rebuttal.

Furthermore, let us keep in mind that the scope of the topic was quite large and yet, Freeman decided to list but ONE piece of evidence, knowing full well that he bore the burden of proof. This shows a great deal of confidence, but the results clearly show that his confidence was misplaced.

As such, the clear winner of that debate was KRF. Perhaps if Freeman responded with my opponent's argument in round 2 instead of what he wrote, then the results would be different.

I look forward to my opponent's response, thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Mixer

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

"My opponent makes the argument that since KRF created an argument based on a fallacy, then he should have lost. However, this is not the way that debate works. A debate is decided based on the presentation of argument, not on who is inherently right or wrong."

I agree and disagree. A debate is half argumentation and half presentation. It is not simply presentation alone. A debater should be able to make clear facts and present them in a clear way, however weighing both elements come MUST come into play when considering should win and not presentation alone. The voting on this site displays this by making argumentation the most points.

" KRF provided enough evidence to call Freeman's argument into question."

The evidence is irrelevant because the contention was a fallacy.

"Keep in mind that despite what my opponent may say, the debate is decided based on what is present in the debate, not on the discussion that occurs afterwards."

I disagree again. When considering who should win a debate, one must extend all arguments and weigh them carefully.

"Regardless of whether or not KRF's arguments were fallacious, it must be pointed out that Freeman did not adequately respond to them. Instead, he dismissed them with little to no rebuttal."

He acknowledged that they were fallacious, gave a short rebuttal for each point, and then gave a general rebuttal. He called it "The Triumph of Reason"

"Furthermore, let us keep in mind that the scope of the topic was quite large"

I agree

"and yet, Freeman decided to list but ONE piece of evidence, knowing full well that he bore the burden of proof."

He only needed one counter-example to prove his contention. Perhaps if he had provided more than one example, his argument would have been stronger, but KRF still did not disprove his contention. No matter how much evidence you have for a fallacy, it will never disprove a contention.

As such, the clear winner of the debate was Freeman.

I had fun. Best of luck.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent counters my assertion that the winner of the debate should be based on how the argument is presented by saying that argumentation should also be taken into account. I agree with him and when I said "presentation of argument", I also meant the argument itself. Fallacious arguments must be SHOWN to be fallacious by the opposition. Furthermore, my opponent did not catch a fallacy at all, he is simply making an argument. A fallacy is a mistake of logic, what my opponent is doing is setting forth a more reasonable interpretation.

There is nothing inherently wrong about KRF interpreting the Biblical calculations as approximations, as he provided his reasons for doing so (that measurements were based on variable measurements such as arm length and hand width). This is a perfectly valid argument and not fallacious at all. It just so happens that my opponent has a better interpretation. If KRF were debating my opponent, then my opponent would surely win, but this was not the case. KRF gave an argument, Freeman had a chance to respond and didn't.

My opponent states that Freeman argued that KRF's counterpoints were fallacious in the "Triumph of Reason" section, but this is untrue. The "Triumph of Reason" section was nothing more than further illustration of Freeman's main point: That the exact value of Pi was not stated in the Bible. Freeman never addressed KRF's arguments. He never mentioned a single thing about approximation in the language, never mentioned a single thing about the difference in measurement of the outer and inner diameter. He did not mention that the arguments were fallacious, he did not say anything except that the numbers of Pi were not exactly precise. KRF, however, accounted for these imprecisions in detail.

As I said before, if Freeman used my opponent's argument, perhaps then he should have won. But my opponent's assertion that Freeman should have won because KRF performed a fallacy is invalid, because KRF's argument wasn't a fallacy. It was just an argument of lesser quality than my opponent's.

Since that is the case, it comes full circle back to what I said earlier: Freeman should not have won that debate because KRF's arguments were not addressed in full and Freeman did not fulfill his burden. Even if I granted my opponent's assumption that the argument was fallacious (even though it was not), then it would be at best, a tie.

Regardless, I think that my opponent made a very good argument against KRF's case and it would be nice to see him debate KRF.

Thank you to my opponent and the audience, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Actually as a matter of fact the debate in question will never be over.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Just going to point out something the voting period for the debate in question is not over, therefore the resolution is wrong. Just saying.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Well, you know, my mommy lets me stay up late.
Posted by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
i dont feel too bad. i was bested by one of the greats. Also, shouldn't a gentleman of your years be in bed rather than out and about debating people?
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
I just stumbled upon this by accident. This is funny. Why not just debate me on the issue? Isn't a debate about the actual topic better than a debate about the debate? At any rate, I'm pleased to have Kleptin in my corner.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
If I were to ever do a debate like that again I would come up with at least ten contradictions instead of just one.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Although, I do agree that PRO was destroyed in that particular debate.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"In reality, both Pro and Con should have won."

Isn't that a case for PRO?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
MixerKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
MixerKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
MixerKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by newman 7 years ago
newman
MixerKleptinTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
MixerKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
MixerKleptinTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
MixerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
MixerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Apologician 7 years ago
Apologician
MixerKleptinTied
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 atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
MixerKleptinTied
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