The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The User in the position 'Con' of this debate just trumped.

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 1 vote the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 30884
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Resolution: It is more reasonable to believe that the user in the position 'Con' of this debate just farted than it is to believe that (s)he did not fart.


Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3/4 - Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5 - Q & A with three questions from three different people in the audience.

Definitions
Trump - To fart
Fart - To expel intestinal gas through the anus; break wind. [1]

Sources
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com......


tmar19652

Con

Since you didn't clarify, you alone have the burden of proof. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Clarifications
The burden of proof is shared.

Arguments
To make my case, I will use simple interrigation [1] [2].

My questions
Q1. Do you promise that for the rest of this debate you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Q2. Did you trump?

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://people.howstuffworks.com...

tmar19652

Con

Clarifications
The burden of proof is actually on you to show that I “just farted”, as I am “innocent until proven guilty of farting”. Also you did not clarify this in the first round like I did, so you still have the burden of proof.
Arguments
1. The odds of a human farting at any given time
• The average human farts 14 times per day (1).
• Most farts only last a few seconds(2), and there are 86400 seconds in a day.
• Therefore, if I fart 14 times a day, for 10 seconds each, the odds of me farting at any given time is 7:4320 (140/86400). This means that it is highly improbable that I “just farted”.
2. Because you have the burden of proof, you must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that I just trumped.
Answers:
Q1. Yes, I swear to tell the truth for this entire debate
Q2. No, I did not just trump




Sources
1. http://www.heptune.com...
2. http://www.kgbanswers.com...
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

Arguments
Con denies farting, which begs the fact that whoever denied it (1) supplied it (2). We can make a syllogism from this.

(P1) The statement 'whoever denied it supplied it' is a joke.
(P2) The most popular type of comedy is observational comedy, which relies on the statement 'it's funny because it's true' [1].
(C) Therefore, we are justified in thinking that the statement 'whoever denied it supplied' is funny because it's true and that Con just farted.

The odds do not matter when we have evidence.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notes
(1) This refers to the causation of the release of intestinal gas.
(2) This refers to the fart.
tmar19652

Con

Observational comedy would be evidence if you could prove it to be true in all circumstances. My opponent brought up the point, that it relies on the premise " is funny because it's true", however this is a comedic premise, not a factual one. Thus, unless you can prove that observational comedy is always true, then I am still innocent of trumping.

Also, I have shown that the odds of me trumping were slim to none, and I have taken an oath and stated that I did not trump, therefore I have proven my innocence.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

I'd just like to expose the fact that to prove that Observational comedy is true in all cases, i'd have to list every single joke ever used that would be considered observational comedy. I think it would be much easier to have Con point out one time where something considered observational comedy isn't true.


Conclusion
- Until con provides evidence of the premise 'it's funny because it's true' that observartional comedy is relied upon is a comedic premise and not a factual one, we have good evidence that suggests that con did just trump.


tmar19652

Con

Actually, you have the burden of proof, so it is your job to prove that observational comedy is always true. Also it is your argument, so it is your job to prove it to be true.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

KingDebater forfeited this round.
tmar19652

Con

My opponent had the burden of proof to show that the resolution;"It is more reasonable to believe that the user in the position 'Con' of this debate just farted than it is to believe that (s)he did not fart." is true, however they did not fulfill this burden. Therefore, I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
He who made the rhyme, did the crime.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
That is how we were playing. So no change
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
Okay, if that's how you want to play it, then we'll play it that way.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
It doesn't matter if it is fair, you should have clarified in the first round, and I have the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" behind me.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
I think sharing the burden of proof makes the debate fair. Just because I forgot to put it there, doesn't mean that you can just shift the whole of the burden onto me. You're only doing this to win, not because you want to have a fair debate.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
I already clarified for you, and you have the burden of proof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
KingDebatertmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an interesting argument, but it was trumped by Con's argument as well as the fact that Pro forfeited.