The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The earth is hundreds of years old

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,014 times Debate No: 35757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

This will be a great, quick debate. Some history and info on debating:

See also: Discourse
For discussion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Talk page.
"Debates" redirects here. For the United States presidential election debates, see United States presidential election debates and United States presidential election debates, 2012.
For the American band, see Debate Team (band).
This page has some issues

A Debate among Scholars Razmnama illustration
Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.[1]

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. Round one in this debate is for acceptance only, anything other than "I accept" will result in forfeiture of this debate and will declare the proponent the winner. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. In particular, in parliamentary democracies a legislature debates and decides on new laws. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are sometimes held in democracies. Debating is also carried out for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease.

Although informal debate is common the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two.
-----------

I have evidence to assert my position for this debate and hope I get a worthy opponent :)
Mikal

Con

Sorry I posted this in the comments on accident as well by mistake

Accept. Remember as per the name of this debate "The earth is hundreds of years old", you are stating the earth can be no older than 999 years. Thousands would infer a different numerical value.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

"Round one in this debate is for acceptance only, anything other than "I accept" will result in forfeiture of this debate and will declare the proponent the winner."
Mikal

Con

Where as you never stated that Round was for acceptance only and that I was not allowed to inquire about clarification in your R1 stance, I was justified in establishing the terms of the debate.

Also now that this has somehow skipped to round 3, I will pose my argument.

(1) Logic

(1)

We are currently in the year 2013. As I clarified in my acceptance. Pro states that the earth is "hundreds" of years old, this means that for this argument we are debating that the earth is less than 1000 years old. Since we have countless historical documents and evidence that shows that people were alive for more than 1 thousand years, I conclude that there is no way to refute this. I am sure this would have been an interesting debate , and pro would have used semantics and tried to joust me with words. Since pro accused my R1 stance as a breach in conduct, when this was unjustifiable, and not shown within his R1 stance he has wasted his argument

In closing. I have show that the earth is more than 1 thousand years old and pro has offered no evidence to support this hypothesis. Therefore I have nothing to refute and my point stands. Vote Con!

http://www.infoplease.com...
http://www.euratlas.net...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
I am still getting us the proponents of the regulations within this site. As someone previously stated, it was quite clear he posted his requirements in the middle of a definition hoping to force his opponent to ask a question.

Where as I should have noticed this, It was a trick to bait me into clarifying what he intended. That in itself is poor conduct.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
Accept. Remember as per the name of this debate "The earth is hundreds of years old", you are stating the earth can be no older than 999 years. Thousands would infer a different numerical value.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
Accept. Remember as per the name of this debate "The earth is hundreds of years old", you are stating the earth can be no older than 999 years. Thousands would infer a different numerical value.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BenshapiroMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO was clear on the terms of this debate. However, I found his round #1 content to be in poor form and not supporting the resolution. Therefore, conduct and sources to CON (sources because round #1 arguments constitute the ultimate "source" of information), arguments PRO. Please adhere to the stipulations of the debate BEFORE you accept it.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
BenshapiroMikalTied
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 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: Seeing as it was just a clarification issue, it's really just poor conduct to just close the debate down.
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
BenshapiroMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO produced no arguments whatsoever, technically forfeiting the debate. And why did PRO copy-and-paste a Wikipedia article about debating in the first round?
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
BenshapiroMikalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "Round one in this debate is for acceptance only, anything other than "I accept" will result in forfeiture of this debate and will declare the proponent the winner." Hmm. It's true that it was there in round 1. However, Pro introduced it as "some history and info on debating:" rather than as rules of the debate. All the other sentences in that paragraph were about "a debate" or debating in general. When he said "the rules of this debate," it could have been interpreted as "this (hypothetical) debate that I've been talking about". He should have said "the current debate". And in any case, it was a trick. He was clearly trying to deceive. I give conduct to Con for this reason.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
BenshapiroMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 tried to accuse Con of presenting evidence, which was not the case. Con merely wished to make sure that Pro knew what he was arguing. I am not sure if I would award con a conduct point for being falsely accused, but if so please inform me for the future.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 4 years ago
Inductivelogic
BenshapiroMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even present an argument, he merely defined the word debate which is not even relevant to the topic. Con wins