The Instigator
LakevilleNorthJT
Pro (for)
Losing
68 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
84 Points

Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.

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  
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: 5/19/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,443 times Debate No: 4099
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (54)
Votes (41)

 

LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

I will let my opponent start. I believe the resolution is quite clear. Just to clarify, apples are fruits that the human species consumes. Let the apple debate begin!!!!!!!!
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like to request that voters vote on who provided better arguments.

With that said, let us proceed:

Ladies and gentleman, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent; my opponent must conclusively prove green apples tasting better than red apples is really his opnion. Now I know what you're thinking: Since he stated that pizza rocks his world, it must be true. However (and respectfully), your presumptions are misguided here. Him stating something about his personal life in a debate that directly concerns the validity of his personal life is not to be considered valid evidence. Besides, another reason such evidence is faulty is that I could merely counter it by claiming that I've met my opponent in real life and know that he really prefers red apples to green apples in his own opinion. In both cases, you would have to take our words at face value.

I believe that there is an objective means of solving my opponent's conundrum. He can drive to my location (which is listed in my profile)(I will set up further instructions here) and I can have two or three of my campus psychologists mentally examine my opponent. They can examine him and conduct multiple tests that will lead them to the conclusion as to whether or it is really in his opinion that green apples taste better than red apples. After they conduct their tests, they can posts their results online and you can confirm for yourselves that my opponent was involved in their study. Either that, or something similar.

Again, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent and nothing within his opening argument constitutes as evidence.

As for my position, I'm going to advocate that it MIGHT be in my opponent's opinion that green apples taste better than red apples. This position conflicts with my opponent's since my opponent is advocating certainty. Essentially, what I'm saying is that we don't have valid evidence to make a conclusion.

I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.

My arrogance is going to kill me one day. :D
Debate Round No. 1
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

First, I would like to thank Logical-Master for accepting this debate. Next, I would like to agree with him that voters should vote for whoever debated better this round.

First, I would like to start off my defining words which I think will have a major impact on this debate. All oif these definitions are from Merriam Webster dictionary.

Opinion- a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.

From this definition you can clearly see that Logical- Masters argument, "Besides, another reason such evidence is faulty is that I could merely counter it by claiming that I've met my opponent in real life and know that he really prefers red apples to green apples in his own opinion. In both cases, you would have to take our words at face value." is flawed. Because me and my opponent are not continuosly by each other, the last time he supposedly saw me would be a while back. From this time, my opinion could have easily change.

Negative-to cause to be ineffective or invalid
Affirmitive- asserting that the fact is so

I will more thouroughly explain these definitions later in this round.

The advocacy of Logical- Master can be summed up as such. "Essentially, what I'm saying is that we don't have valid evidence to make a conclusion." I think everyone can agree that this round is going to come down to who has the burden of proof. I made a claim and logical- master said it's not true. Now we must see who's burden it is too prove their position. LOGICAL-MASTER SAYS THE BURDEN OF PROVE IS MY RESPONSIBILITY BUT GIVES ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. I will now show you how the burden of prove rests upon my opponents shoulders. In order for me to explain thuis, it is essential to look to three things. The resolution, my definition of affirmitive and my definition of negative.

Resolution = Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.

Negative-to cause to be ineffective or invalid
Affirmitive- asserting that the fact is so

In this round I am the affirmitive and my opponent is the negative. Given the structure of my definitions, in a debate, we assume any given fact, or in this case a resolution to be true. The affirmitive's burden is as the definition states to assert the fact to be so. I have asserted in my original speech and now that in my opinion green apples are indeed better than red apples. Thus, my opponents burden is to prove the resolution, or my assertion (which are essentially the same thing) to be invalid. Thus, the burden of proof lies upon my opponent. Until he shows why this is untrue, I would win the round. My job then is to refute any arguments my opponent may come up with as to why the resolution is false. But until then, I urge you to see that the burden of proof lies upon my opponent.

In this round I have shown that the burden of proof lies on my opponent. Until then, we still affirm the resolution because it is true until my opponent proves otherwise. Thus you must AFFIRM.
Logical-Master

Con

NOTE: Now having considered the comment section, it is rather apparent that the route I had intended to go is not what the audience wants. Since my role here is to serve the audience and bring them to the truth, I will abide by their wishes and directly pursue the resolution. Since my opponent thinks the notion of online-testimony being flawed is a flawed notion in itself, I will do this in a different approach.

Let us truly begin:

First things first. In order to evaluate his position, I need to examine his evidence. Since he hasn't presented any, I will be gracious and provide him the opportunity even with the both of us merely being limited to this online discourse. Thus, I insist that we start things with a one round cross examination. In it, I will ask 31 questions that concern the resolution, and it is the instigator's job to answer every single one of these questions. If he feels that doing this will eat up his character limit, I even grant him permission to continue posting in the comment section. After he answers these questions, I will evaluate the necessary answers and explain to you the truth which they reveal. Concerning his case, that too will be addressed in the next round as C/X is of more importance at the moment.

#1. Why is it your opinion that green apples taste better than red apples? What do they taste like?
#2. In your lifetime, what would you say was the percentage of red apples you've eaten compared to the percentage of green apples that you've eaten?
#3. How often do you eat apples?
#4. Do you like red apples?
#5. Do you like green apples?
#6. Do you like apples more than any other food?
#7. Would you prefer that people in general prefer green apples over red apples?
#8. If you had to choose between eating a rotten green apple and a fresh red apple, would you eat the rotten green apple?
#9. If you intend to have children (or already have children), do you intend to feed them green apples before feeding them red apples?
#10. Do you prefer apples over all of the other fruits?
#11. If you were to eat nothing other than green apples for six months straight, do you believe you would lose interest in preferring green apples over red apples?
#12. Did you know that shinigami's like apples?
#13. Do you ever get motivated to do something merely through eating green apples? What about red apples?
#14. Do you like eating apple seeds?
#15. In your opinion, do you believe the matter of taste is objective? If not, why?
#16. In your opinion, how do you believe the euphoria of tasting red and green apples measures up to having sex? And even if you haven't had sex, you can at least give an estimate based on what you perceive of it.
#17. When considering the animals that like apples, which apple do you think they prefer?
#18. Do you uphold the saying that "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree?
#19. Do you imagine green apple juice (the beverage) as tasting significantly better than red apple juice (the beverage)?
#20. If someone were to tell you that green apples tasted bad and that red apples were better, which of the two actions would you more likely take up: Would you try to tell this someone off by telling him/her about the greatness of green apples or would you feel it better for this someone show you what's wrong with green apples in attempt to understand this someone better?
#21. What color apple do you think Isaac Newton used to test gravity?
#22. Are you honestly answering each of these questions with honesty and to the best of your ability given the amount of space you've used? If not, then are you aware that you are in contempt of this debate?
#23. What kind of apples do you think are used to make apple jacks? Do you like Apple Jacks?
#24. How much would you be willing to do to eat an apple?
#25. Do you think Apples can cure cancer?
#26. The first time you ate an apple, how did it feel?
#27. How many apples do you think it takes to screw a light bulb?
#28. If someone were to steal your apple, what would you do?
#29. Do apples calm you down? Are they like a drug to you?
#30. If you had to choose between a life without apples and a life without sex, what would you choose?
#31. If someone were to hit you with a green apple, would you never eat green apples again?
Debate Round No. 2
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

I will now respond to my opponents argumentation:

Logical- Master Insists that we have a cross examination in the next round. Thus, the only arguments I will provide in this round is how this is absolutely unfair.

My main contention is that Logical- Master does not provide a detailed system of analysis as to how he would be using this data. For all I know, Logical- Master could take whatever answeres I give and draw a comletely invalid conclusion. People who are voting on the round would assume that Logical- Master's conclusion was true and I would lose the round. No matter what answers I provide, it is logically assumable that LM's conclusion would be that I think green apples are not as good as red apples leading to a clear and decisive loss.

I cannot be expected to answere these questions without knowing the system in which Logical- Master will be using them.

In this debate Logical- Master is being absolutely unfair and asking me to do something which would lead him to an easy victory. This is absolutely ridiculous and unfair and should be a reason why you vote against my opponent.
Logical-Master

Con

blech! That's no fun. This has been made too easy.

------------------------------------------------
RE: CROSS EXAMINATION TACTICS
------------------------------------------------

Ladies and gentleman, I offered my opponent a simple means of providing evidence for his side in this debate. All he had to do was answer some SIMPLE questions. What on earth is confusing about a question like "How often do you eat apples?" In fact, I was even willing to allow him to post answers in the comment section. I offered my opponent an extremely gracious way to argue in this debate (as I would have been permitted to making assumptions otherwise), and he not only spat in my face, but yours as well for holding this debate in contempt.

His only argument against the proposed cross examination was that he had no idea how I had intended to analyze his questions and that I could use these questions to provide invalid conclusions. I'm sorry, but that's BOGUS. In competition debates, since when are debaters required to tell their opponents how they intend to analyze the data provided during cross examination before said cross examination ensues? ABSOLUTELY NEVER. In LD debate, it was always the same. AFF would approach the front of the room, give his/her case, NEG would approach with Cross examination , AFF would sit down, NEG would give his/her case, AFF would Cross examine NEG, provide his/her rebuttal, NEG would provide a rebuttal, and then AFF would respond with the final debate. In that simple process, you'll note that there isn't ONE single point where either debater explains how EXACTLY they intend to utilize C/X before C/X. Now if you were judging a round and you saw one of the debaters REFUSE to have C/X with the other debater, what would that make you believe about the confidence of the other debater? My thoughts exactly.

Furthermore, OF COURSE I could provide invalid conclusions (anyone can in any debate, including debates without C/X). THAT'S WHY MY OPPONENT IS HERE. He is HERE TO point out these invalid conclusions or any possible invalid conclusions that could come from my conclusions or questioning. What makes this situation appalling is that I had not only given him permission to post in the comment section, but he also had 2 rounds to refute anything I could say.

------------------------------
RE: BURDEN OF PROOF
------------------------------

Now with that out of the way, I shall quickly end the life of this "burden of proof" argument. Ladies and gentleman, what my opponent is suggesting is completely absurd. Neglecting the fact that his argument suffers from the negative proof fallacy (the resolution being true because there's no proof it's false, plus I could easily turn this logic around)(sorry about the fallacy jargon), he is suggesting that the burden of proof belongs to me. According to him, the AFF in any debate could simply walk up and say "The burden of proof belongs to the negative side so rather than provide an actual case, I'm simply going to rebut his/her arguments when the time comes. If Neg doesn't refute all of my refutations, I win by default."

Now is it just me, or does that sound a bit awkward? Better yet, let me phrase it in a layman's situation: A man named Joe walks into a bar and claims Unicorns exist. A man named Maury takes notice of this claim and ask Joe "How do you know Unicorns exist." Joe responds by saying "How do you know Unicorns don't exist?" "Maury says "Hmm, well I don't have any evidence, but that doesn't answer my question. Joe responds by saying "Ha, then Unicorns exist, as you don't have any evidence to say they don't exist." In that situation, what sense does it make for Joe to initiate discourse by making a claim without backing it up and then demanding anyone who challenges him to prove otherwise? Shouldn't Joe provide reasons for his claim so that anyone who opposes him shall know what they are opposing? Most importantly, why should Joe's claim be taken as true?

All of these factors dictate exactly what's wrong with my opponent's "BoP" argument. Simply put, he started this discussion so he is obligated to bring evidence to the table belongs. Through not doing this, he is not asserting the resolution by any level beyond saying his case is true simply because it is (begging the question).

----------------------------------
EVIDENCE FROM NEG
---------------------------------

But nevertheless, I shall satisfy the audience with evidence rather than merely go the route I originally intended to go. PRO thought he'd be tricky through absurdly denying my proposition for Cross examination, but this is actually harmful to his case:

1) We must keep in mind that it is within PRO's best interest to win this debate as he is made it quite clear that I should lose this debate in his previous rounds.

2) With the above being noted, we must note that he has denied the opportunity to strengthen his case with the evidence that would be produced from my questions. Just imagine if he were able to answer every single one of my questions without compromising himself as well as exposing me on any attempt to simply provide invalid conclusions (as this would suggest that I really have no valid way of rebutting the resolution).

3) PRO should have nothing to hide. If he really believed that it was in his opinion that green apples tasted better than red apples, he should have been able to answer my questions without hesitation. Yet now that we know he is terrified of answering questions that simply attempt to get him to confirm to us whether or not he believes he is right or wrong (for crying out loud, I asked him WHY it was his opinion that he liked green apples over red apples and he couldn't even answer that?) while considering that he wishes to actually win this debate, THIS WOULD SERVE AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE in that PRO either thinks of red and green apples as being equal or actually prefers red apples over green apples.

I must note PRO's Achilles heel in this debate was admittedly refusing to even attempt to present evidence (or a legitimate case for that matter). Since I have the only evidence in this debate, it is more likely that the resolution is false than it is true. Therefore, even if you don't buy my argument from the route I had intended to go earlier for the reasons beem0r pointed out, this argument should be sufficient.

I now wait eagerly for my opponent's final round.
Debate Round No. 3
LakevilleNorthJT

Pro

"NOTHING MY OPPONENTS SAYS HELPS HIM WIN THE ROUND. HE IS JUST RAMBLING ON AND TRYING TO WIN THE VOTES OF PEOPLE FAILING TO READ THE ROUND."

This quote created by me addresses the main strategy of LOGICAL- MASTER.

I will now address my opponents arguments. He argued through three areas, CROSS EXAMINATION TACTICS, BURDEN OF PROOF, and EVIDENCE FROM NEG. The first and third are essentially the same and I will address them as such.

My opponents argument rests on the fact that he doesn't have to show how he is going to use the evidence and gives the example of LD debate. I am a high scholl LD'ER but I got news for my opponent. this is not LD debate. IT IS DEBATE. COM DEBATE. I should not be required to answer these questions until Logical- Master tells me how he is going to come to a decision as to what type of apples I like. Logical contends that these questions are simple and I should easily answer them. The truth is that most of the questions proposed are ridiculous and there is no way to use the answers logically to show that I like one type of apples over the other. I believe that many voters agree with about the fact that the following questions are absolutely irrelevant to this debate and are a complete waste of time.

#9. If you intend to have children (or already have children), do you intend to feed them green apples before feeding them red apples?
#12. Did you know that shinigami's like apples?
#16. In your opinion, how do you believe the euphoria of tasting red and green apples measures up to having sex? And even if you haven't had sex, you can at least give an estimate based on what you perceive of it. (JUST THE FACT THAT HE'S ASKING HIGH SCHOOLERS TO PERCEIVE WHAT SEX IS SHOULD RESULT IN A IMMEDIATE LOSS)
#18. Do you uphold the saying that "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree?
#24. How much would you be willing to do to eat an apple?
#25. Do you think Apples can cure cancer?
#26. The first time you ate an apple, how did it feel?
#27. How many apples do you think it takes to screw a light bulb?
#28. If someone were to steal your apple, what would you do?
#29. Do apples calm you down? Are they like a drug to you?
#30. If you had to choose between a life without apples and a life without sex, what would you choose? (WHAT IS UP WITH THE APPLES AND SEX COMPARISONS. PEOPLE READING THIS ROUND PLEASE SEE THAT THERE IS NO WAY THESE QUESTIONS COULD BE USED IN A LOGICAL MANNER WHEN LOOKING TO THE RESOLUTION)
#31. If someone were to hit you with a green apple, would you never eat green apples again?

My opponent keeps on saying my opinion isn't true and I like red apples more. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE ROUND: I JUST AS EASILY COULD HAVE MADE THE RESOLUTION: RESOLVED: IN MY OPINION, RED APPLES TASTE BETTER THAN GREEN APPLES IF THAT WAS MY TRUE OPINION AS WHICH MY OPPONENT CLAIMS.

Burden of Proof: What this round comes down to is the fact that my opponents is trying to prove something that is not possible. My opinion cannot be disproved and Logical's question series wasn't relevant in this case. As I said before, I could have easily changed the resolution if that was my opinion. Just because I made the original statement is enough proof for me to win this round. Logical has no way of winning this round and he should have realized that before he accepted.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND SHOULD BE LOOKED AT BECAUSE I HAVE NO CHANCE TO RESPOND.

My opinion still stands and cannot be disproved in anyway by my opponent. Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.. Vote PRO.
Logical-Master

Con

It is quite clear that my opponent is simply relying on smoke and mirrors in R4, thus, I shall prove to you that there isn't a single shred of valid reasoning that would logically lead you to vote PRO.

------------------------------------------------
RE: Cross examination tactics
------------------------------------------------

1) Alright, PRO's only response to my LD example is that since we aren't in an LD debate, it shouldn't apply. First, you should note that this concedes to the idea of their being no need to explain what particular methods one intends to use in analyzing C/X during any LD debate. Wanna know why no one is obligated to reveal how they intend to use C/X before C/X ? Because there's utterly no purpose. Cross Examination is simply the Socratic method which primary purpose is either for clarification or to reveal a contradiction.

Given that this is the case, what difference does it make if we're on debate.org? PRO never bothers explaining this. Rather, he simply repeats himself in saying that he should not have to respond to my arguments without knowing how I intend to analyze him. Which as explained in R3, is simply absurd.

2) As for the so-called irrelevant questions, HOLD IT! This is not something PRO insisted in the previous round. You must note that his only original problem was that I could have used these questions to provide invalid conclusions (an argument which PRO completely drops in this round).

3) Next, EVEN IF YOU TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH HE CITES AS IRRELEVANT, it still doesn't change the fact that PRO has ignored questions which would EXPLICITLY help me in gathering evidence.

For instance, why couldn't PRO answer me on these questions listed below?

#1. Why is it your opinion that green apples taste better than red apples? What do they taste like?
#2. In your lifetime, what would you say was the percentage of red apples you've eaten compared to the percentage of green apples that you've eaten?
#7. Would you prefer that people in general prefer green apples over red apples?
#11. If you were to eat nothing other than green apples for six months straight, do you believe you would lose interest in preferring green apples over red apples?

These are questions and others straight up call the resolution into question. At the very LEAST, PRO could have labeled the mere ten questions he had a problem with as being irrelevant while answering the other 20 which he has no objections against at all.

4) To pacify PRO, I shall address these so-called problems (which he should have brought up previously) he has with MERELY 1/3 of my questions.

#9. This question can used to determine the level of interest PRO has in green apples. Does he like them enough to impose his beliefs on others?
#12. From this question, I could learn whether or not his interest in apples was simply a fad due to the overwhelming popularity of death note. If it was truly a fad, then it is likely that he doesn't really like apples, but rather Death Note instead.
#16. Once again, a question used to determine how much he likes apples as well as to determine whether or not he thinks red and green apples equaled out (as I did say red AND green). The sex part was simply used to get him off his guard. Thus, making him more likely to answer honestly.
#18. This determines his familiarity with the many ideas associated with apples and is yet another potential means to figure out just how much he is interested in apples.
#24. Again, a "a how much you like apples" question as well as to determine whether or not he thinks red and green apples are equal.
#25. Another knowledge based question as well as means of determining whether he likes apples or merely something associated with apples.
#26. This would give me incite on the factors that drove him to like apples, particularly what drove him to think that red apples are not as good as green apples.
#27. Trick question. This could be used in determining whether or not he was simply in a state of delusion or psychological illness.
#28, This is question that would help in letting us conclude whether or not he liked all kinds of apples (as is the case with all questions that simply generalize apples) as well as to determine the degree to which he liked apples. The reason there are multiple questions like these is to make it easy to spot when/if PRO contradicts himself.
#29. Again, a question with the same intent as above.
#30. See the reasoning in #28.

5) (NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHEN VOTING): Although I could gather evidence from every single one of my questions, I'll admit that not all questions had the same amount of importance. This was done so that my opponent would not figure out where I was going with these questions. When using C/X, it's of the most importance that one doesn't allow the opposition to figure out where these questions are leading. If PRO knew where these questions were leading, he would be able to devise a means to answer each question without compromising himself; he'd know when to lie or provide vague answers. Clearly, my method worked as rather than answering the questions, PRO simply tries to avoid all of them altogether by demanding that I tell him where these questions are leading.

6) Finally, he says that he could have just as easily made the resolutions ". . RED APPLES TASTE BETTER THAN GREEN APPLES IF THAT WAS MY TRUE OPINION AS WHICH MY OPPONENT CLAIMS." To this, I say not necessarily. For instance, PRO could have thought that he preferred green apples, but upon reading my questions and considering his own answers, he could have immediately realized that he didn't truly prefer green apples to red apples. I'm willing to say that this is more likely the case as PRO could have just as easily answered a question such as "Why is it your opinion that green apples taste better than red apples? What do they taste like?" to strengthen his so-called opinion.

7) (CLINCHER FOR EVIDENCE): When we take into account the above points, it becomes apparently clear that PRO had no valid reason to ignore all of my questions. Thus, with no valid reason, the three points I had made in "Evidence From NEG" during R3 stand uncontested.

------------------------------------------------------------
RE BURDEN OF PROOF:
-------------------------------------------------------------

1) Notice how PRO ignores my rebuttal concerning why the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative. If we are to take ignoring as conceding, then it would make no sense for him to be claiming that I cannot disprove the resolution when it is in fact his job to prove it (something of which HE DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO in ANY OF HIS ROUNDS).

2) Since when are we trying to prove/disprove an opinion? We're trying to prove/disprove whether or not someone POSSESSES an opinion. BIG DIFFERENCE. Last I checked, it works quite well in the courts. Ladies and gentleman, what this round really comes down to is whether or not we can tolerate the fact that my opponent has refused to actually take part in this debate, has refused to present any evidence for his side, and has allowed the only evidence asserted in this from (from yours truly) to go completely uncontested. Given these facts, it is rather clear that PRO loses the debate.

BRIEF OVERVIEW: PRO has provided no evidence for his case, has dropped arguments concerning the burden of proof, and has provided me with evidence for my case through refusing to have C/X. The fact that he is admittedly an LD debater (he is familiar with C/X and KNOWS that no one is required to explain where they are going with their questions) and the fact that his reasons for refusing said C/X don't hold water would suggest he personally feels the resolution is false. Thus, I believe it is evident as to who has upheld their side of the resolution and who hasn't as well as who has won this debate.

Thanks for the debate! Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 4
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Oh, I forgot two key steps.

4. ????
5. Profit!
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Oh, right.

I would have done the following.

1. Show that many people who use debate.org are generally very arrogant/egotistical.

2. Show that Lakeville's argument shows just that, due to its "You can't prove me wrong, my testimony is irrefutable!"-ish nature.

3. Show that it is most likely, given that Lakeville has this mindset, that he would prefer to win a debate in which he was defending a lie, since this would fulfill his arrogance and stroke his ego more so than winning a debate of this sort that was actually true [which would do very little in terms of a person's ego].

From this, it seems more likely that PRO would make the resolution on this matter the opposite of his actual opinion.

Basically that, but more wordy.

I think C/X worked fine though. Could have backfired if he answered the questions carefully and showed any contradictions you brought up to be irrelevant, though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Oh, and I almost forgot to ask. You said you would tell us what route you would have gone, beem0r. I am quite interested in the inner machinations of your own methods. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Thanks for the feedback.

That said, I cannot help but address what I perceive as mischaracterization of the debate. Usually, I wouldn't do this, but I couldn't help but detect that you were challenging me to do this in that other comment section.

1) *sigh* PRO brought this up in R4 and I addressed it rather concisely in my R4. I quote myself: "For instance, PRO could have thought that he preferred green apples, but upon reading my questions and considering his own answers, he could have immediately realized that he didn't truly prefer green apples to red apples."

2) I addressed the matter of questions perceived as irrelevant as well. I quote myself: "Next, EVEN IF YOU TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH HE CITES AS IRRELEVANT, it still doesn't change the fact that PRO has ignored questions which would EXPLICITLY help me in gathering evidence." Simply put, label irrelevant questions as irrelevant and respond to other questions. The matter of belief that I historically manipulate answers is coming from you rather than the debate, which is invalid when it comes to debate judging.

3) See #1.

4) See #1.

5) See #2.

6) See #1.

7) Similar to #2: If you're voting to punish me, then that's invalid judging. Leave your bias out of the debate. Also, don't rely on personal attacks. That makes your faith in your ability to actually argue look weak and detracts from whatever argument your attempting to make. Maintain perfect composure at all times and never let anyone see your emotions.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
1. Most debaters are OK with lying in the context of the debate. At least good ones.

2. Did he seem impassioned to you? It seemed, if anything, like a smug "you can't prove me wrong." In this case, it seems more likely if anything that he was lying. [i.e. he made the resolution a lie as a smug "you can't prove me wrong" gesture]

3. See #2 above.

4. There's little incentive for telling the truth on a debate website, especially if you're just arguing that no one can disprove you.

5. If he suspected L-M to twist his words, then he should hjave been prepared to show these twistings for what they were. This would only give PRO more ammo. If the truth was on his side, there should be no important contradictions.

6. I never said his OPINION was not his opinion, I said his STATED opinion was not his opinion. For example:
President bush is the best president the US has ever seen.
Believe you me, I don't believe that statement. And yet I said it.

7. It's not an unwinnable debate, as shown by the fact that L-M provided evidence that makes the resolution lean to his side [the C-X attempt, and PRO's refusal].

Not to mention CON would have had at least one more route to go. He himself said he saw 2 ways to take the debate, C-X being the one he chose.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Posted in top-t0-bottom order.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
1) That assumes that he is ok with lying. I do not think I would lie - I (as well as most of society) find it wrong to lie. This can be especially effective on a person's self image. Which brings me to the common sense point - if he liked the other apple more, why didn't he flip a word in the resolution to make it true?

Its much easier to just change a word in the resolution (which he created) than to continually lie. People are more impassioned supporting their own beliefs than one that wasn't theirs. And its very convenient for him to just flip the word. Hence, its likely he was being truthful.

2) Since the res. is opinion, its ok to warrant it with opinion. Combined with a likeliness of honesty (see 1) I vote Pro. Additionally, proving that someone isn't willing to answer sexually charged questions by someone who historically manipulates answers from their original intent (we all know this) isn't enough to prove anything either. So even conceding your premise (which I don't) neither side provided any "proof" - but Pro at least provided some evidence. Con merely tried to negate Pro (albeit creativly).

3) He doesn't need to make that argument - its common sense. Why else would he create this debate if he didn't believe it? Especially when he controls topic wording?

4) There's more incentive for truth than lying (see 1, 3)
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
5) And we all know how LM and you twist things. Arguments not made, arguments that were not important - both of you historically emphasize these. You change wording and intent to be entirely different, and for some reason the mega-lay-voters on this site buy that BS. He recognized said BS and I give him kudos for not playing into it. And I reject the premise that those were clarifying questions. I get the whole "sex was to throw him off" thing, but that's just dumb. It crosses a line between debate and retarded.

6) "His opinion is not his opinion" oh sure. That makes a ton of sense. Again, I think that its reasonable to assume he's telling the truth.

7) It was a dumb resolution. So I'm punishing the arrogant idiot who out of pride chose to accept an unwinnable debate. Pro desires an eye roll, but Con did choose to accept this stupid topic - and all that came with it; a loss.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
1] The reason to doubt his claimed opinion is that he would give this opinion whether or not it was really his opinion.

2] Neither is it enough to affirm the resolution. Evidence is needed on both sides, and L-M used the fact that PRO was unwilling to testify as evidence for his side.

3] He didn't make that argument. Neither is it true, since one cannot simply "decide" that he likes food X better than food Y when he really doesn't. I can't just "decide" that I now prefer eating feces to eating spaghetti.

4] He CAN be fully accurate. He can also intentionally lie. The fact that he said X is not evidence for the resolution, because whether the resolution is true or false, he would have said X, whether it required lying or not.

5] L-M only requested that he answer a cross-ex. By answering these and not having contradictions or things clearly pointing to the resolution being, he would in effect have been giving evidence for his side, since if he was lying, we might expect contradictions or obvious lies to pop up.

6] What he says is NOT the de facto answer, since he could and would have lied if the resolution is false. His opinion is NOT his opinion because "he says it is," it's his opinion because he ACTUALLY thinks it's true.

7] It was a dumb resolution, so you're punishing the person who didn't make it and got it off the 'challenge period' list rather than the person who made it. Right.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
But you never gave credible evidence that he was lying. Your refutation was "he could be lying".

I would submit that;

1) you have given no reason to doubt his opinion
2) the fact that there is a possibility is not grounds to negate the resolution
3) he could hold an opinion for the purpose of this debate, in which he would still win
4) The only person who can accurately speak to his opinion is him. Others may be able to infer, but will never be fully accurate.
5) It is unreasonable to attempt to force him to go get people.
6) This is not a matter of fact - it is one of opinion. If the resolution was Resolved: The US Should sanction Iran and he said "I'm an expert, and I say yes." then you'd have ground. But here, the dispute is over a matter of opinion - a matter over which he has supreme jurisdiction. What he says is de facto the answer, because the answer by definition is what he says! His opinion is his opinion because he says its his opinion.

7) And most importantly; it was a dumb resolution. I don't know why you took it.
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by masterdebater15 8 years ago
masterdebater15
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 Nox 8 years ago
Nox
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 emman101 8 years ago
emman101
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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 lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
LakevilleNorthJTLogical-MasterTied
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