The Instigator
draxxt
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate (a revision of two flawed resolutions.)

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  
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: 4/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,024 times Debate No: 3727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (14)

 

draxxt

Pro

Good day to my opponent and to the judges. I would like you to vote on what you see before you and not what your own personal biases might be. Now that that's done, let's proceed with the debate, shall we?

There is no possible way I can fully win this debate for the following reasons:

1) To win I must get the most votes.
A) If that were to occur, I would not be proving the resolution.
B) Therefore, though I have won in score, I haven't won the initial goal: prove the resolution.

2) If my opponent gets more votes, I will not have won. Therefore, Pro loses but upholds his purpose in this debate, winning in the proven category.

For the reasons you see above, you must vote Pro. Or Con, either way I sort of win.

-EG
Yraelz

Con

Its actually pretty possible for my opponent to fully win this debate. Unfortunately he doubtfully will do so.

This is how it is going to run.

In my opponents second round he will state,

"I have seen the error of my argument and have decided to switch the resolution to something a little more choice. From here on out the resolution will be -Flag burning needs to be illegal-"

This resolution of course my opponent has the ability to absolutely win thus proving the current resolution true. I of course will respond in my 2nd round stating that I agree to the change in resolution. Thus the new resolution will stand and we will continue this debate with our new topic.

Sadly I doubt my opponent will actually do this, non-the-less I have proved how my opponent has the possibility of fully winning this debate. Perhaps he will even think of some amazing way to refute my point, at which point the voters will have two choices.

1. You can vote for Pro thereby affirming the resolution which my opponent has already stated would not make sense considering the resolution says it is impossible for him to fully win.

2. You can vote for Con thereby negating the resolution which would mean that it is possible, which if my opponent manages to disprove my example will mean that the vote is equally non-sensible.

Thus if the debate does simply come down to this I urge for no vote at all. This will avoid an action that does not make logical sense and I believe the time spent voting could better be used for constructive criticism.

Thank you. =)
Debate Round No. 1
draxxt

Pro

I must admit, this is a rather silly debate. But I digress...

My opponent, Yraelz, seems to have misunderstood one fact... The resolution states that Pro cannot win (Rather that it is impossible for Pro to fully win.)
Therefore, We see that my opponent's solutions are, invariably, situations in which the resolution would be proven and disproven all at the same time.

My opponent states, "You can vote for Pro thereby affirming the resolution which my opponent has already stated would not make sense considering the resolution says it is impossible for him to fully win. "

This has already been established, therefore my opponent has actually ADOPTED one of my contentions.

Also, his second contention states, "You can vote for Con thereby negating the resolution which would mean that it is possible, which if my opponent manages to disprove my example will mean that the vote is equally non-sensible. "

Fair enough but at the same time it would prove the resolution is correct as well, meaning that I have actually won.

Either way you look at it, my opponent has taken on the same views as myself and hereby believes: "Thus if the debate does simply come down to this I urge for no vote at all. This will avoid an action that does not make logical sense and I believe the time spent voting could better be used for constructive criticism. "
I believe you should vote.

The resolution stands firm, Yraelz. Therefore, for them to vote would be an action of support to whomever had the best debate. Though, I am fairly certain all that needed to be said has been.

Good luck in the next round, thank you to the judges for... judging, and, please, no flames about how this is a fallacy, I know it is and I wrote this resolution for fun and the sake of debate.

Thanks again,
-EG
Yraelz

Con

There is only one way to see if this debate is a witch! This will consist of me proving that this debate weighs the same as any number of ducks! At which point we will need to see that this debate is indeed a witch and thereby we must vote in negation of said debate and burn it!

First off we must take a look at my proposal to the creator of this debate, I have extended a helping hand to him and allowed him to change the topic which we are debating. It is apparent through my opponent sticking with his issue that he must a witch and through him this debate topic through his inability to adapt. A normal human has any and every ability to adapt to any situation. A witch on the other hand must recite his/her spell verbatim in order for it to take its full affect on the debate.org users. We must not allow this!!

For this reason alone I stand by my last round, I am still allowing my opponent, the witch that created this witch, to change the topic thereby throwing off the witch and saving this website. I am even being nice about it, under the new topic my opponent, a witch, has every single chance to win.

It is through my continued kindness that I allow my opponent the opportunity of escaping his/her self made paradox, and through this same kindness that I prove that it is possible for my opponent to win this debate!

Furthermore we must reject the witch! The witch wishes to warlock a wizarding wailing of words upon whoever wishes to with words to work on our website! And by these words the witch is casting a spell, a subtle spell. What spell is this my readers ask? The witch wants to destroy intelligent debate as we see it! The witches strategy is simple, yet cunning. The witch presents a proposition that can simply not be solved for and upon refusing my counter proposition which would lead to intelligent debate instead opts to force each and every voter to vote for a position that is logically flawed. The witch desires to move each and every one of you to opt for a logical fallacy, and through said logical fallacy for each and every one of you to reject logical interpretation.

Sadly this is flawed, as a rejection of logical interpretation would be in itself a rejection of the very ethics and foundations of humanity as we know it. Such rejections could only lead to consequences such as mass anarchy and genocidal killings as these things are the inherent biproducts of a lack of logic replaced with the mind of a witch.

Simplistically put, the witches spell is an attempt to reject logical debate on debate.org. However the spell goes further than that in the sense that such logical rejection will have an imprint on each individual who reads this debate and has the potential to carry over into the real world. For this reason my opponent has multiple negative pre-fiat impacts to the witch which is this case. I on the other hand have offered to completely logical alternatives, either A. My opponent can change the topic, which I will concede, or B. You should not vote for this debate as it could potentially create the prefiat unlogic impacts which I have discussed.

I would also like to discuss a third alternative and reason to vote against the witch. This reason is purely to uphold reason and reject the witches furthering of the unlogic inherent in the witches spell. If we reject the witches anti-logic we set a precedent for rejecting witches on this fine website which is just one more way in which we can, as human beings, uphold logical interpretation and reject the lack there-of which the witch which is witching this debate is attempting to uphold.

Finally a semi-logical proof of why my opponent must be a witch.

A. My opponent weighs a weight.
B. A duck does weigh.
C. Any number of ducks does weigh any weight.
D. Therefor some number of ducks does weigh the weight of my opponent.
E. A witch can burn.
F. This is true because a witch is made of wood and thereby isn't a human.
G. Wood can float.
H. Therefor Wood weighs the same as ducks, as multiple ducks together can float.
I. My opponent weighs the same as ducks therefor my opponent is made of wood and is undoubtedly a witch!
Debate Round No. 2
draxxt

Pro

My opponent is funny at best. I am not a witch. That is a plaintive and rather obvious rebuttal. The fact of the matter is, I wanted one paradoxical debate in which there is no winner. Is that so wrong? I truly hope not.

I still decline the notion of changing the debate topic. If you wish to challenge me on that topic later, that would be fine. But for now, my opponent has not even attempted to find a semantics-based clause, loophole, or refutable point whatsoever. It is in this lack of rebuttals that I see no logical choice but to vote Pro.

Thanks and I await your debate request posthaste.
-EG
Yraelz

Con

Hmmmmm... Well the only thing my opponent states about my case is quite simply,

"I am not a witch."

So considering my proof of him being a witch was only semi-logical I'm going to have to let the voters decide on this one.

However my opponent has left every other logical point standing so I will be arguing each in turn.

First off I have constantly extended the possibility of my opponent changing the debate topic mid round. I have furthermore consented to a change in topic on our wonderful debate. My opponent however seems pretty intent on forcing voters to vote for an illogical statement, one way or another. So let us examine the resolution, it states, "It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate." however if my opponent has the possibility to simply change the debate topic at any point, as I have granted him, then this resolution is proved untrue. Thus I once again extend the invitation, I invite my opponent to change the resolution in the comment section so that we may continue our debate there. This means that my opponent still has the possibility of winning this round.

Second I point out that my opponents case promotes a rejection of logic. However my opponent makes no comment what-so-ever thereby he agrees to the rejection of logic. I go on to point out that rejection of logic has the potential in modern day society to promote such events as anarchy and genocide, thereby his case on a pre-fiat level has the potential to promote such events through swaying the judges towards illogical acts.

Finally I point out that should my opponent attain votes in this debate then it is likely he will attempt to make similar illogical debates again. Thus a vote in negation is not only an affirmation of logic but also a precedent against my opponent making these types of cases.

Thank you everyone for this debate.

---------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note.

I presented the entire witch argument as a practical joke. As I pointed out it was a semi-logical proof. It should be noted that I completely understood the witch argument in its semi-logical way and that it had no complete logical intention behind it.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Monty Python FOR THE WIN!! VOTE Yraelz.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Okay well, thank you, and I inferred what you meant there.
Posted by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
I ment I debate in south Dakota srry.
Posted by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
No I looked for the debate that he was the best.... I don't do that. I looked the debate over.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
No problem, armychick, but my opponent is right, if you feel I won, vote for me. Otherwise, vote for my opponent. I think I won but right now, the votes show otherwise. (And did you mean outside of SD?)
Also, I think we may meet one day in either nationals or Boston, either one.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Did you just vote for my opponent because he voted for you in another debate....?
Posted by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
Returning the favor for the vote Draxxt gave me! Thanks! you asked me if I debated in VA or something.. I haven't I debate in South Dakota. And yes I am the Blonde one! Thanks for relizing my opponet is a complete idiot!
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
We want... another shrubbery!
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Well... I actually saw that one coming, you know? The only way for this to work is if I were to say "Resolved: It is impossible for Pro to fully win this debate under this Resolution." But it was still impossible for me to fully win as I never accepted that. I negated the possibility that resolution posed. Thank you for an exciting debate.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
It seems every time I get my win rate back up above 70% or even close to 75% it suddenly just drops again. ><
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
draxxtYraelzTied
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 scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
draxxtYraelzTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
draxxtYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by sillycow 9 years ago
sillycow
draxxtYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
draxxtYraelzTied
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 brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
draxxtYraelzTied
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 jmanstar 9 years ago
jmanstar
draxxtYraelzTied
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 armychick 9 years ago
armychick
draxxtYraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
draxxtYraelzTied
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 Bravo453 9 years ago
Bravo453
draxxtYraelzTied
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