The Instigator
dvnnmrr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Connor.McElroy
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The road right-of-way prevails over rights concerning cultural heritage sites.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Connor.McElroy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 68057
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

dvnnmrr

Pro

Please comment on the topic. I need it for a paperwork.
Connor.McElroy

Con

I would first like to say that your title make absolutely no sense whatsoever. That being said, I think that it is more logical to conclude that this statement is false, than it is true.
According to http://www.merriam-webster.com..., the definition of true:

: agreeing with the facts : not false

: real or genuine

: having all the expected or necessary qualities of a specifed type of person or thing


I will now compare pro's statement to each of these three definitions of true and show that it is in no way any of them.
1) agreeing with the facts: not false
Does the statement "The road right-of-way prevails over rights concerning cultural heritage sites" agree with the facts?
What facts? Can it even be known from pro's statement what fact he is trying to state? I would say probably not. Therefore, if we cannot understand pro's statement to be something that can even begin to be compared to facts, then how can it agree with the facts? It would be a false statement to say that the facts contradict or even agree with a concept that cannot even be understood.

2) real or genuine
Pro's statement is all smoke and mirrors, to say that it has any real substance is more than a stretch.
3) having all the expected or necessary qualities of a specifed type of person or thing.
Since Pro's statement does not seem to clearly refer to any type of person or thing, it would be false to say that it has the expected or necessary qualities of any specifed type of person or thing.

Therefore I conclude that there is no truth to his null statement.
Debate Round No. 1
dvnnmrr

Pro

dvnnmrr forfeited this round.
Connor.McElroy

Con

Pro has forfeited this round, hopefully he will not forfeit the next. I would also like to say that the burden of proof is on Pro. Something should never be assumed to be true, unless it has been proved to be true, or at least has more reason to be believed to be true then not.
Debate Round No. 2
dvnnmrr

Pro

dvnnmrr forfeited this round.
Connor.McElroy

Con

I would also like to say that Pro has the burden of proof. He has failed to prove anything. Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Please elaborate. The title of this debate is unclear.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dvnnmrrConnor.McElroyTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
dvnnmrrConnor.McElroyTied
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: ff