All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

# The con wins a debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Funny Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 86668
Debate Rounds (2)

 Pro Let's test it out.Report this Argument Con Nup. Pro won in this debate http://www.debate.org...Report this Argument Pro Ha! Now you fell in my paradox. Read carefully. You are con. This implies you mean to say opposite of topic. Therefore your motto is that pro wins the topic. If you win this debate, this means that you were correct for saying pro wins the debate but I lose and I am pro, therefore your argument goes wrong. Hence, I should win and that is what I want. You are now stuck in the bog of words. Thanks for entering the trap.Report this Argument Con What? The resolution clearly states that Con wins the debate. I was Con. I showed you that Con does not win all debates. What else is there? I had carefully read over all words, and showed you that Pro can win. Because you were Pro that con wins a debate, and I was Con and showed you evidence that Pro can win, I clearly win.Report this Argument
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
=> Because of all reasons discussed below, A is a tie!
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
My RFD for Arguments

The debate topic was not actually a trap or a paradox, as Pro argues. It was actually very simple and obviously impossible for Con to win.

[Con's arguments]

The topic is that "The Con wins A debate". Therefore, the existence of any case where Con has won a single debate would automatically prove that "The Con wins a debate." In order for Con to refute this and win this debate, they MUST show that there exists NO CASE that Con wins/has won A debate.

Con showed a case where Pro has won a debate and argued that: "I showed you that Con does not win all debates.", but that doesn't prove that Con doesn't win A debate. Therefore, that case doesn't help Con.

[Pro's arguments]

It was very easy for Pro to win. They only had to show a single case where Con HAS WON a debate, and there are plenty of such cases. But they didn't.

Pro said: "If you win this debate, this means that you were correct for saying pro wins the debate but I lose and I am pro, therefore your argument goes wrong."

Pro simply argues that:

1 - If Con wins this debate, it would be their evidence that Con wins a debate and they win.
2 - If Con looses this debate, then Pro wins this debate which is what they want.

1) If Con wins this debate, then it only means that Pro has provided a convincing argument for their proposition (only 3 points for arguments), and they can still loose the debate, since Con can get points for Conduct, S&G and Sources which would be more than 3 points of Pro. So, this case doesn't help Pro.

2) If Con looses this debate, then Pro wins the debate. Note that even if this happened, it is not a case against Pro, because it doesn't mean that Con doesn't win a debate. It is neither for Pro, since Con lost. So, this case doesn't help neither Con nor Pro.

AND, there is another option, which is a tie, where neither Con nor Pro wins this debate. It is not clear that Con will win this debate. So, this case also doesn't help Pro.

=>
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
You said a debate. You did not say this debate. Therefore, you are wrong anyways.
Posted by Pushpesh 2 years ago
You could not understand the trick. I did not mean to say that con ALWAYS wins the debate.
Posted by brianjustin1025 2 years ago
what is this?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.