The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

The instigator ought not always take Pro, especially not when the resolution does not include a DN.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,664 times Debate No: 27564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

DakotaKrafick

Con

The whole resolution (since the title's character limit would not fully allow it) is: "The instigator ought not always take Pro, especially not when the resolution does not include a double negative, in the best interest of not creating confusion."

I don't think any explanation of this fairly straightforward resolution is required. First round is acceptance only.
RationalMadman

Pro

I definitely think that the instigator has every right not to go pro and if given the option between creating a double negative and going con to avoid confusion or going pro on less negative that would create more confusion, it definitely is advisable to go con. In fact, the con on this debate is being hypocritical to his own beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Con

For the record, in no way did I not say taking con on a resolution not involving a double negative would (or at least could) avoid confusion. So the allegation that I'm not being hypocritical to my own beliefs is not at all untrue. This, though, I certainly wouldn't trust the audience to overlook.

The fact of the matter isn't that I would disadvise choosing con as the instigator, but that I would. And I especially would not disadvise doing so with a resolution that does not include a double negative. This is, after all, my position as stated in round one.

For some examples (including, but not limited to, "God does not exist" and "Gay marriage should not be legally recognized") it makes perfect sense to choose con in order to avoid confusion. This is really the only way to instigate a debate about a belief you don't agree with while keeping the burden of proof on the one affirming the resolution; otherwise, the best alternative may be to restate the resolutions as "There is no valid reason to believe God doesn't exist" or "There is no valid reason to believe gay marriage should be illegal" and take pro and then clarify in your first round that con will assume the burden of proof in providing that reason, since you couldn't possibly prove a negative (that there is no valid reason to believe these things). As you can plainly see, the former two aren't less confusing than the latter two. In fact, they are more.

Irregardless of all that, my opponent explicitly stated "I definitely think that the instigator has every right not to go pro". Not unfortunately for me, this is nothing short of a concession, an agreement to con's position in this debate. If rationalmadman wishes to not lose this debate, he mustn't make such statements. Please elucidate on this, Pro, for as it stands, I must ask the audience for an obvious Con vote.
RationalMadman

Pro

What the hell?

Why are you saying not to go con if you are against a resolution. Double negatives are often confusing so going con instead will help! ???????????
Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Con

It certainly wouldn't appear as though rationalmadman is not confused. He accuses me of saying you should not go con if you are against a resolution, but I clearly said just the opposite in my previous round. Seeing as I told him to elucidate on his previous comments which seemingly agreed with con in this debate else have the audience obviously vote for me, and he did no such thing, I urge the audience to obviously not vote for him.

The resolution has been clearly debunked by me and conceded by my opponent (though perhaps accidentally). Good show, old chap. Good show.

RationalMadman

Pro

I think you should vote pro because everyone has a right to go con and should do it if it makes more sense and avoids confusion. The con on this debate was just stupid and is not a good example of contender being con but usually going con on a topic that is commonly phrased as such or flipping it around for double negatives you should be able to go con not always pro. Going pro is good but is not a necessity to be contender.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pretty funny. Both sides arguing for the same thing. So, one ought perhaps to vote for Firstguy, since Secondguy didn't read the OP well enough to know which side he was supposed to argue. On the other hand, Firstguy was being deliberately obtuse, so it's hard to blame Secondguy for being confused.

All I voted is grammar. And I don't feel that great about doing that, since Firstguy was having a good time with style. His "errors" were not a matter of actual errors, but were rather an indulgence in the joy of words.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
ROY IS ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTOOD! yes!!!!!
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro affirms that the resolution should be adopted. The resolution is that the Instigator may take Pro or Con. Both sides affirm that the Instigator may take Pro or Con. Therefore Con concedes and Pro wins.

Con tripped on his own double negative.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Also, con irregardless is not a word."

I am aware. The theme here was unnecessary double negatives.
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
LOL,

I think this is why I avoided taking this debate...

I"t's like a retorical, double negative word game, but funny..."

WAIT! I mean:

"It isn't not unlike a antiretorical, quadruple positive negative word game, but not unfunny."
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Shouldn't it be 'The instigator ought not to always take Pro'?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Nice one.
Posted by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
After your comment below, I now cannot wait for your argument in our debate.

But I need some sleep. I might not be able to get it now...

I guess another negative... :p
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
Ok I think I get it here:

"The instigator"
The person doing a debate challenge on here

" ought not always take Pro,"
Should sometimes take CON (like the "instigator" here DakotaKraflick)

"especially not when the resolution does not include a double negative,"
(This itself is a double negative...) Double negative equals a positive lol. so:
Especially when the resolution (debate 'title') has a double negative.

" in the best interest of not creating confusion."
(now a triple negative hahahaha) So as not to create confusion for a fellow debator who wishes to take on the instigator.

(as this title has 'proven' what happens when you do it, save the instigator taking the con, but using several overlapping negatives)

"I don't think any explanation of this fairly straightforward resolution is required."

Is it designed as a weed out title? ;)

"First round is acceptance only."

Wouldn't know EXACTLY what I was getting into!!

But I will watch this one!
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
Me too!

I want to take this debate... but I don't know what I'm debating and want to know so I know if there's no hope
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Not true is it that the decision (reason for) may not be found amongs the commenty thingies. Verily.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright, so it seems the side that argued for not always taking pro was the most convincing. And ... that's what the resolution happens to state. That both debaters argued in favor of the resolution is irrelevant, and pro achieves their burden of proof for showing the resolution to be true. I'm giving con the conduct point though, because having an uncooperative opponent does not excuse you from making an argument yourself or allow you to insult your opponent. Con in particular should word his resolutions more carefully.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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: The resolution is that the instigator ought not always take Pro. Both sides agree with the resolution, so therefore the resolution is affirmed and Pro wins. Con made a mistake in setting up the debate and should have taken the Pro side.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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: icwatudidthere.jpg Seriously Instigator, you used style to prove your point, congrats. Being pro or con as the instigator doesn't matter as long as you are clear and concise, something you failed to do. The Contender didn't answer you well, but how could he when you are purposefully making a mess of the debate? Oh, and both debaters were rude, so although Pro resorted to name-calling, Con acted rude as well
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
DakotaKrafickRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious trolling by RationalMadman is obvious. Also, con irregardless is not a word.