The Instigator
steven0806
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 76799
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

steven0806

Pro

Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana and this is what I think.
tejretics

Con

== Intro ==

I accept. Since there seems to be no restriction on the round structure, and since Pro has presented an R1 argument, I shall as well. To clarify, my argument shall be a "kritik" of the resolution, i.e. an argument that challenges an assumption in the topic.

== The Kritik ==

First, I must clarify *what* a kritik actually means. The term "kritik" is derived from the German word Kritik, and literally means a critique. But in standard debate resolutions, it means challenging an assumption held by the affirmative or negative side in the resolution, e.g. an undefinable term. [1]

(1) Link

The kritikal link of the kritik I am presenting demonstrates how it relates to the resolution. The kritik I am presenting suggests that there is no objective criterion for the term "better". To claim that Steve Young is a "better" quarterback than Joe Montana, one has to *objectively* determine that Steve Young is "better", but the term "better" is inherently subjective.

Pro *concedes* this by saying: "[T]his is what I think." The Aff's *own* perception is that Steve Young is a better quarterback, but that does not imply that an objective criterion can be determined as to who is *definitively* better. The offense on an objective criterion for "better" can also be portrayed via. epistemic nihilism, i.e. the idea that *nothing* can be known with certainty, and epistemic justification is impossible. [2]

If there is (a) no objective criterion for "better", and (b) knowledge is impossible, it would result in an implication that directly relates to the resolution.

(2) Impact

The impact here is that, if there is *no* objective criterion for the term "better", then it is *impossible* to affirm the resolved, since one cannot justify that Young is indeed a better quarterback than Montana. Since the burden of proof lies entirely on the Affirmative, it lies entirely upon the affirmative to objectively justify the resolution.

Since (a) the possibility of epistemic justification must be demonstrated by showing a problem with the Munchaussen trilemma [3], and (b) there lacks an objective criterion as to what is "better", and that must be established by the Aff, voters *must* presume negation, and if the resolution fails to affirm with a positive case, you automatically vote Con.

The resolution is resoundingly negated.


== Sources ==

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
steven0806

Pro

con didn't say rebut my views using some strong supportive statistics and whatsoever. so i will still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana.
tejretics

Con

== Overview ==

Aff *drops* the K entirely, without any justification as to *why* the K fails to negate. The link section demonstrated that for the onus to be fulfilled, the assumption that an objective criterion as to what is "better" has to be established. The K negates by failure to establish criterion, thus even if an AFF case were presented, the K would still be sufficient to negate *sans refutation*.


== Aff Case ==

AFF fails to present a case; thus, the primary impact analysis on the debate must be conducted based on the NEG case kritik presented, that succeeds in negating the resolution due to failure in establishing criterions. Ultimately, the onus is upon the AFF, and AFF commits fallacy of negative proof by asking me to "present statistics", while AFF has not done so themselves. Negative proof and burden of proof fallacy is committed, and shifting BOP is *not* an argument. [1-2]

One could K assumption of the BOP, but that's irrelevant since AFF hasn't presented a constructive case to defend their position; thus, the entire judging should be based on: (1) links of K, (2) impacts of K, and (3) burden of proof.


== Underview ==

Pro fails to affirm the Resolved soundly since the K negates the resolution sans constructive; thus, even if a constructive case were presented, it would still fail to uphold an objective criterion for the term "better", since it's inherently subjective. As mentioned, presume NEG since the K negates on its own.


== Sources ==

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 2
steven0806

Pro

the con still didn't rebut my view, so i don't know how to rebut con's view. So, i will still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana
tejretics

Con

== Case ==

Pro *fails* to respond to the kritik, and still fails to fulfill BOP. Since the BOP is on *you*, you have to *defend* your view. I have presented an argument on the term "better" being inherently subjective, and, as such, one cannnot claim something is better than the other, since "betterness" cannot be decided on or justified.

The kritik negates the resolution, and AFF drops the kritik. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
steven0806

Pro

well, i think con should argue that Steve Young is not a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana rather than saying something that doesn't relevant to our motion. so con, would you please give reasons you think Steve Young is not a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana, and also, I still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana.
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Relevance

I *clearly* presented the relevance of the K to the resolution in the "Link" section. I shall present it again. If the term "better" is incoherent, then x cannot be better than y, so Steve Young can't be better than Joe Montana, or vice versa. Thus, the K succeeds in negating the resolved in showing that an objective criterion for the term "better" doesn't exist. AFF fails to present an objective criterion for what is "better", thus I forward this contention and it still negates.

R2) Burden of Proof

Pro still commits fallacy of negative proof. [1-2]

"[G]ive reasons you think Steve Young is not a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana, and also, I still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana."

(1) I am *not* obliged to give reasons if you don't. You're making the positive assertion, thus YOU have to justify it, not me. Quoting Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [3], via. Hitchens' razor. [4]

(2) I have *already* provided the reason via. K -- I showed that nothing can be "better" than another, so Steve Young *cannot* coherently be "better" than Joe Montana.

== Underview ==

The AFF case fails to affirm since it shifts BOP and fails to respond to the K. The resolution remains resoundingly negated.

== Sources ==

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://rationalwiki.org...
[3] Christopher Hitchens. God Is Not Great, p. 150.
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
Debate Round No. 4
steven0806

Pro

Well, in conclusion, I quite enjoyed this debate. However, the NEG case fails to rebut since it shifts BOP and fails to respond. The resolution remains resoundingly negated. But I still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana. Thank you.
tejretics

Con

Thanks, Pro, for a fun debate.

== Rebuttal ==

"However, the NEG case fails to rebut since it shifts BOP and fails to respond."

I'm not the one shifting BOP -- the BOP lies upon the affirmative; thus, once more, AFF commits fallacy of negative proof.

== Summary ==

The kritik successfully negates the resolved, and Pro *drops* the K and fails to fulfill BOP. Thus, I negate in that AFF fails to establish an objective criterion for what is "better".

The resolution is negated. Vote Con.

Thanks for an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
jAnd this is why you ban kritiking,using instigator advantige.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Please just respond to the kritik
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
steven0806tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro, as shown by Con, and it remained unfulfilled, since Pro provided absolutely no arguments. Sources were only used by Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
steven0806tejreticsTied
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 does nothing but repeat while con shows he has to show how Steve Young> Joe Montana.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
steven0806tejreticsTied
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: As Con pointed out, the BOP lay on Pro and not Con. As Pro presented no arguments whatsoever to support the resolution, he already loses. (Interestingly, Pro accuses Con of shifting the BOP when the BOP had always been on Pro.) Moreover, Pro did not challenge Con's kritik at all. Had he showed that it is objectively possible to evaluate the ability of a quarterback, he could have countered it, but he failed to do so, and only told Con not to use a kritik. Pro has made no arguments whatsoever, does not fulfill the BOP and dropped the kritik, and thus arguments go to Con.