The Instigator
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
70 Points

There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,658 times Debate No: 3196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (27)

 

Johnicle

Con

What I offer is a new way to debate. The challenge is for my opponent (Pro) to come up with five ways of dying while crossing the street. There is no limit to how many ways of dying pro offers, but voters MUST accept five of them. Before voting, voters should comment on the five logical ways of dying they accept on the bottom of the debate. But remember, they must be logical. It will be treated as a normal debate (refutation will be normal except Con argues why they are not logical or do not meet up with the topic of debate in any way.) Then Pro argues why they do meet up with the topic of debate.

Rules:

1. The first speech is the ONLY speech that Con can offer ways of dying.

2. There is no limit on how many ways of dying offered by Con. (but all in the first speech)

3. Pro's burden of proof is to convince voters of 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

4. Voters are encouraged to "comment" on which ways of dying they did/didn't accept. (not really a rule but still)

5. Con's burden of proof is convince voters that there are NOT 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

I hope this turns out to be fun. It is just a new way of debating that I came up with so I thought I would give it a try. Good luck to whomever accepts this debate and if you have any questions, just comment on the bottom.

Thank You
Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings.

I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him the best of luck. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed carefully:

In this debate, it is my job to support the position that there are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street whereas it is my opponents job to show why this isn't the case.

In my opponent's first round, he provides you with no reason as to why there are NOT 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street. In short, his round one reply is a rejection of his burden of proof. The contender immediately formulates a straw man argument by suggesting (see rule #3) that I'm obligated to show 5 logical ways as to how one can die while crossing the street. Noting how the resolution is worded, all I have to do is argue in favor of the mere notion that there are at least five logical ways at which one may die). However, to pacify my opponent, I will present specific means at which one can die while crossing the street.

Also, the resolution is not phrased in a way that requires it to be bounded to rules my opponent creates. Thus, I have the authority to dismiss any of my opponents rules at any time, provided he attempts to abuse them.

Now, onto the ways at which one can die while crossing the street.

1) While flying across street, an insect can easily collide with the incredible force of a vehicle. This typically results in the deaths of many insects as well as the annoyance of people who wish to keep the exterior of their vehicles clean.

2) While crossing a street, it is within the realm of possibility for a human to have a heart attack that can result in death.

3) One can get shot at with a fire arm (a gun) while crossing the street.

4) While crossing the street, one can easily be killed by an assassin from behind who possesses a knife or has good knowledge of lethal martial arts techniques.

5) While crossing the street, one can easily be killed due to falling debris from that could come about from an falling building.

So far, these are my only five, but I'll present more in round 2.

Your move. :D
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate, I'm first going to make a few general points and then continue to the specific "ways of dying!"

First of all I would like to point out how my opponent attempts to get out of my rules. He says that since (in my first speech) I don't prove how their are not five ways, than I get rid of my rules therefore he can too. This is RIDICULOUS. How am I supposed to say there aren't five ways until my opponent says any. The first speech was meant to set up the debate, no to begin arguing it. I made the rules to be as fair as possible and if you don't like them, you should not of accepted this debate. NOW that you have offered your (minimum) of five logical ways of dying, I can prove that YOUR five ways are not logical.

Second of all, at the bottom of his last speech, he says that, "So far, these are my only five, but I'll present more in round 2."--> I hate to be one of those people that are strict to these rules and everything, but there is a logical reason why I offered rule #1 of "The first speech is the ONLY speech that Con can offer ways of dying."... I did this because if he offered more than 5 ways after his first round, then I would only have one speech to argue this (which would be my last round). I'm sorry but I offered the rules along with the debate and I assumed that if you accepted this debate, you accepted these rules (even though they are really like guidelines except for rule #1). The rest of your speeches are meant to back up the "ways of dying" already presented from speech 1.

General arguments...

1. definition of logic
From www.dictionary.com; Unabridged Dictionary
"reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions"

2. In order to be logical, it must have a good chance of happening.
This argument if fairly obvious. If someone were to tell me that someone died while crossing the street, what would be the possible ways that I would start thinking of?... that is the type of logic that I am looking for in these five "logical ways of dying while crossing the street."

3. It can't be logical if it hasn't happened before.
If we were arguing other occurrences that you could die from and that way has never happened, than I would consider this as not logical... But since we are arguing based off of an action that actually may cause death, you have to see that it must have already have been an occurrence of this type of death.

4. There must be 5 proven ways of dying (while crossing the street) at the end of the round for Pro to win.
As the rules specify, you have to see that (since he only offered 5 ways of dying in his first speech) that all I have to do is prove that ONE of his ways is not logical in order to receive your vote (due to there not being 5 logical ways.)

5. My opponent offers no explanation to his points.
In other words, my opponent does not explain why these ways of dying are logical, he just says them. I will take them for what they are now but if this continues, I can only see a Con vote.

Now let's move to his five ways offered in his first speech...

Off of 1... (While flying across street, an insect can easily collide with the incredible force of a vehicle. This typically results in the deaths of many insects as well as the annoyance of people who wish to keep the exterior of their vehicles clean)--->

1. Only humans cross the street.
It is logical to consider that bugs do not cross the street to "get to the other side, they simply fly around. So... basically it is logical to say that bugs die from cars but when they die they simply are not crossing the street, they may be ON THE STREET, but NOT crossing it... Throw this argument out of the round.

Off of 2... (While crossing a street, it is within the realm of possibility for a human to have a heart attack that can result in death)---------->

1. Heart Attacks happen.
Sure, it is logical to see why heart attacks can happen anywhere, I can concur with a heart attack... HOWEVER...

2. Heart attacks do not equal death.
There is no fact brought up that if someone has a heart attack that they will die. When someone has a heart attack, that does not mean that they will die... FURTHERMORE...

3. If someone dies from a heart attack, they were not crossing the street anymore.
If someone WERE to have a heart attack in the middle of the street (as I allow to happen from argument one), you will see that they will logically go to the hospital and will not die WHILE crossing the street, but more logically while they are on their way to the hospital or merely in the hospital and as my opponent tags the argument as "can result in death"... what you have to see is that resulting in something is NOT while something is happening.

Off of 3... (One can get shot at with a fire arm (a gun) while crossing the street)--------->

1. Cross-Apply my arguments 1, 2, and 3 from before as these arguments are similar... (basically) people get shot, shot does not equal death, death will not (logically) occur on the street...

2. (Philosophically speaking) There is no logical reasoning as to why this person was shot.
When someone gets shot, there is incentive for it happening. (refer back to my "general" argument 5 of no explanation from my Pro) He has never explained why there is incentive to have someone be shot. If someone crosses the street, you could assume that there has been past life for that person, but if you look only to the topic of debate, you must assume that this person has no past life as we are only looking to the specific time of him crossing the street. We have no logical reasoning to explain the incentive of being shot.

Off of 4... (While crossing the street, one can easily be killed by an assassin from behind who possesses a knife or has good knowledge of lethal martial arts techniques)-------------------->

1. Once again, Cross-Apply my arguments 2, and 3 from the heart attack argument as these arguments apply to number 4 as well... (basically) people may not die from getting attacked from an assassin, and logically speaking, this death will not occur on the street...

2. An assassin attacking you on the street is not logical.

A. Assassin do not exist to kill random people.
Sure, there are hit men, but I don't consider them assassin. Assassin are people that kill famous people and it is not logical to consider these people that die from crossing the street as famous. AND if they are killed on the street, it would be logical to consider them not as crossing it, but possibly them driving/riding in a car.

B. If an assassin wanted to kill you, they wouldn't logically do this on the street.
Simply put, assassin are smarter than your average criminal. They aren't going to just kill you as you cross the street, they will do it in a much less populated area where there was a less chance for someone to see it happen. Let's just say that you just found out that your friend died, do you really think that there is ANY chance that whoever told you that this happened would actually tell you that he/she was attacked by an assassin. It simply is not logical.

Off of 5... (While crossing the street, one can easily be killed due to falling debris from that could come about from an falling building)--------->

1. Again, Cross-Apply Heart attack arguments.

2. This argument (unlogically) assumes that this person is in a big city. No where in this topic of debate does is say where the street is, it only says street. And logically speaking, most streets don't have any tall buildings capable of any falling debris. It doesn't make any sense why this street automatically is capable of having a building tall enough to kill a person IMMEDIATLY while crossing the street, which is what it takes to prove that this is a way to die WHILE crossing the street.

In the end- Logically speaking, Pro has offered NO logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

Please Vote Con, Thanks
Logical-Master

Pro

CON accuses me of attempting to get out of his rules by suggesting he did not attempt to prove his side of the resolution, but this is the straw man fallacy. In round one, this was my reason for why I insinuated that I didn't necessarily have to abide by CON's rules:

". . . the resolution is not phrased in a way that requires it to be bounded to rules my opponent creates."

Because the resolution is not phrased in a way that would require me to abide by any rules which CON creates, I do not have to abide by them in order to participate in this debate.

CON then suggest that there is no way he can prove there aren't five logical ways of dying. Whether or not I provide 5 logical ways of death is besides the point; it is his job to show that there are merely 0-4 logical ways of dying while crossing the street. In his opening argument, he could have easily listed a maximum of 4 logical ways of death while advocating that there cannot possibly be anymore. Either that, or he could have shown there are no logical means of dying while crossing the street. It is CON's job to have a case rather than merely rely on providing objections to mine.

Even if CON proves that my 5 ways of death are illogical, he will still not have fulfilled his burden which is to prove that there are not 5 logical ways of dying WCTS.

As for the other point, refer back to what I said concerning the rules. Furthermore, the rule which he is citing applies to the CON. As you can see, I'm the PRO in this debate; even by my opponent's rules, I'm still justified in presenting more reasons in this round. As for only having one speech to argue, I covered this above.

Re Gen. 1: I shall agree to accept the definitions which are provided here: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Re Gen. 2: First, CON doesn't even go by the definition in the source which he cites. CON must show how the definition even insinuates that logic merely relies on how likely a course of action is to occur. Second, going by his fallacious definition, one could suggest that it is illogical for CON to win the lottery after purchasing a lottery one lottery ticket. To be illogical, something must be proven impossible.

Re Gen. 3: First, this is yet again something which CON's citation does not address. Second, lets take a look at what is provided in the same source he upholds:

"Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."

Correct or reliable inference is based on valid evidence. Global warming on the scale which scientist predict has yet to occur, but we don't infer it to be an illogical occurrence. This is due to the fact that we have evidence to support the notion of its feasibility.

Re Gen. 4. I addressed this above.

Re Gen. 5. My reason behind this is completely justified. Ladies and gentleman, direct your attention to CON's opening argument:

"The challenge is for my opponent (Pro) to come up with five ways of dying while crossing the street."

- I did this.

". . . Con argues why they are not logical or do not meet up with the topic of debate in any way"

- The CON then did this.

"Then Pro argues why they do meet up with the topic of debate."

- Due to the word "then", I can only assume that the CON had wanted me to argue why they are logical after he presented reasons as to why they aren't. If there is anyone to blame, it is CON.

Re Reason 1: The CON's rendering of "cross" is fallacious.

Observe the following definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com... The definitions imply nothing about being cemented to the pathway. Heck, going by CON's rendering, you could say that humans only cross a fraction of the street while walking.

If an insect were to fly around a street, the insect would have to avoid intersecting the streets pathway. When an insect collides with a car that is moving in a perpendicular direction, the insect is intersecting the pathway of cars, and is therefore intersecting the street. However, if I were to go one step further, I could use a situation in which an insect such as a cricket or grasshopper decides to land on a street, observe the area, and then continuing flying or hopping, only to collide with a car moving in a perpendicular path.

2) The CON contends that when someone has a heart attack, it does not mean they will die. This is the red herring fallacy at work; whether or not a heart attack will always cause death is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that heart attacks CAN result in death.

Second, the CON's explanation for why a heart attack cannot occur while crossing the street is completely erroneous as it relies purely on assumptions.

He suggest that someone will simply go to the hospital if they are having a heart attack. 1) This is an assumption on the victim‘s mental capabilities. 2) Suppose a guy is eating in a diner and realizes that he is having a heart attack. While attempting to get to a hospital, the man could very well end up crossing a street in the process. By the time the he is in the process of crossing the street, it could very well be too late for him and death can feasibly occur.

Re Reason 3-1: My refutations make cross applying pointless. Like before, being a victim in this situation can result in death.

If the victim is shot (at close range) in the brain or heart via shotgun, the victim will die instantaneously.

Re Reason 3-2: Red herring fallacy. Why the victim gets shot is about as relevant as what kind of shoes the victim is wearing . As long as it is a way of dying, it is applicable to this debate; we're talking about how deaths occur rather than why.

Re Reason 4-1:See 3-1.

Re Reason 4-2-A: CON is upholding the red herring fallacy. Why the death occurs (as in why the assassin takes someone down) has nothing to do with HOW the death can occur. Furthermore, an assassin can kill a normal individual. Sure, you could argue that it wasn't an assassination, but then I never said that the assassin in reason 4 was assassinating anyone, did I? In fact, I used the term kill. The CON doesn't explain his reasoning as to why being killed on the street would lead us to conclude that the killing had to occur inside a vehicle, so you can dismiss this notion entirely.

Re Reason 4-2-B: The CON assumes that there cannot be a low chance of someone else witnessing a killing if the killing occurs in the street. This assumption may sound reasonable if we were to apply it to a society such as the US (which is yet again another assumption which the CON makes), but in a third world country where a police force is virtually corrupt or virtually non existent? No way! Not to mention that an assassin could kill at a time of the day in which he/she has little chance at being seen.

Re Reason 5-1: See 3-1.

Re Reason 5-2: Since the topic of debate doesn't specify any particular street, I am free to apply my reasons to any street whatsoever. The topic also doesn't specify on me having to provide scenarios that apply to all streets. Most importantly, the fact that my opponent didn't attempt to define the resolution in round 1 makes my course of action well justified. Furthermore, to pacify my opponent, death from falling debris doesn't merely need to apply to tall buildings in big cities. For instance, in my home town, there are plenty of tall buildings with structures that overlook the streets. In fact, one of the local KFCs has an enormous chicken bucket model on the top of it. If this chicken bucket model were to fall in the direction of the street, it could instantly kill anyone who was crossing the street.

Finally, here is a sixth means at which one CAN feasibly die while crossing the street:

CON has yet to prove how my reasons cannot logically occur. Furthermore, he has yet to even address as to why there aren't 5 ways of dying while crossing the street period. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Con

This round of debate has been foggy for a while now. Pro insists on finding ways around the debate rather than taking it head on. I figured that people wouldn't take it (100%) word for word and would more or less go for what it was intended. Right now I would like voters to take 1 of 2 paths, the path of the resolution word for word (and I will show how I win there), or taking it for what it was intended (and I will show how I also win there). I will begin with word for word but if you want to see the "intended" arguments, simply go down to below the dotted lines...

"word for word":

My opponent seems to be looking at the topic of debate and the topic of debate alone. He insists on abiding to only that and not to the rules applied. Since you have decided to look at the word for word, you will see that I still win. The topic of debate says that "There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street"... but my opponent has shown 6. My job as con is to prove the topic of debate false in any sort of way. So, if you have chosen to take this debate word for word, see his 6 ways of dying and see that there are not 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street, but instead, there are 6.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"intended debate":

The debate was intended to be an opportunity for Pro to present multiple ways of dying and having the voters at least accept 5 of them. There were only 5 ways of dying presented in the first round and as the rules say, there can no longer be any after that. He try's to show a sixth way by having a site posted on his last speech, unfortunately, I can not get to it as I am on my school laptop and it is blocked. But to be honest, it does not matter as it was after the first speech which goes against the intended debate.

Onto the specific 5 reasons presented.

1. --> Again, INSECTS DON'T "CROSS THE STREET"... if you see an insect flying while happening to be over a street, a logical person would not say that the insect is "crossing the street." There isn't any logical incentive for the insect to know what a "street" even is.

2. --> Look to the original opening of the Pro on point 2... He said, "While crossing a street, it is within the realm of possibility for a human to have a heart attack that can result in death."... There is a major difference between dying WHILE crossing the street, and something that RESULTS in death. A heart attack logically does not result in immediate death (if death ever even happens). If this is so logical, I urge my opponent to bring up precise evidence that shows that heart attacks cause immediate death. Also my opponent talks about the person being able to have a heart attack then cross the street, but if you look to the situation, you will see that it gives no before/after scenario (it isn't eating then crossing the street) it simply is crossing the street and what could happen from point A to B (logically).

-At this point, I would just like to urge my voters to examine what points stand in their head, if at this time, you do not see Pro convincing you of ANY of the 5 point (especially the two I just covered) I urge you to vote Con right now (after reading his direct responses to at least be fair) but remember, you must buy 5 of his points in order to vote Pro, otherwise, you vote Con.

3. --> If your Grandpa died while crossing the street, do you honestly think that it would be because he was shot? The only logical answer (which by the way was NOT ever argued by Pro so should be thrown out) is that he got hit by a car, not shot. There is no logical proof that there was incentive for him to be shot OR that he died WHILE crossing the street. I urge you to remember Spider-man and Uncle Ben. Would you say that he "died" while driving, NO… He died while bleeding from the wound he RECEIVED from driving. This is why these heart attacks, and gun shot wounds, and assassin attacks are simply not logical, IF they logically could happen (which I personally couldn't buy if they could or not) he has no proof that it would mean that they would die immediately. Uncle Ben was shot WHILE driving; however, he did not DIE while he was driving… a clear difference.

4. --> I'm sorry, but as cool as it would be to see an assassin killing a guy while crossing the street, it is simply not logical. If this person WAS an assassin, why would he (or she which would be even cooler :P) do it in the MIDDLE OF THE STREET. What would be logical is if it was in some alley or in some room, not in the middle of the street when someone could see it happen. The difference between an assassin and a common criminal is that a criminal would be dumb enough to do that while an assassin is a lot smarter than that. You could say an assassin is (or is capable of becoming) a professional at what he/she does, a professional simply does not kill someone in the middle of the street.

(and as far as it being in another country, I have never heard of assassins in a "third world country"… and in third world countries, the threat of being seen is even greater as if they are seen by the government, THEY DIE… (not to mention nobody necessarily having homes which means a lot of wondering around))

5. --> Sure, this crossing of a street could technically be any street. HOWEVER, logically speaking, all streets are secure. I live in the middle of no where, there isn't any possible debris whatsoever. In New York City, ALL the buildings are checked for possible danger INCLUDING possible people throwing things off the edge, which is assuming that what they can throw could actually kill someone. Again, I'll bring up the grandpa example, if someone told you your grandpa died while crossing the street (I'm sorry if I have offended anyone for previous occurrences)… but anyway, do you think the occurrence for death is a big chunk of building falling on them. It simply is not logical. Even in 9/11 (again, I apologize) people weren't crossing the street when they died. Their intentions were not to cross the street but simply to get away.

6. --> Although I have already addressed this, you have to see that me seeing this is impossible and that whatever it is does not pass the rules (that you accepted) and since I am presently arguing the intended debate, you will see that you broke it, therefore this "sixth" way of "logically" dying can not be accepted.

"CON has yet to prove how my reasons cannot logically occur. Furthermore, he has yet to even address as to why there aren't 5 ways of dying while crossing the street period."-->

This statement is not true, I have LOGICALLY proven how these 5 ways of death do not meet the topic of debate in one way or another. After all of this, within this debate, you have to see that there are NOT 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.
Logical-Master

Pro

Re Word for Word:

CON is incorrect. For instance, lets say a boy tells his father that there are 3 tires on his automobile. The father would point out that not only are there 3 tires, but there is 1 extra tire as well. Telling the boy that the car didn't possess 3 tires would be erroneous on the father's part. In the context of this debate, I would say that not only are there 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street (as in I agree with the resolution), but there are even more means than that (which actually strengthens the notion that there cannot be any less than five). Now if the resolution were phrased as "There are ONLY 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street", the PRO would be correct.

If you don't buy the above argument, you're free to dismiss my 6th reason (assuming your going to vote in favor of the word for word approach). Advising this is not abusive on my part. As the CON states in R1, " . . . but voters MUST accept five of them." You can pick any five of the ways I suggested. You're not coerced to consider more.

Re Intended debate:

In the previous rounds, I explained why I do not have to abide by the rules (outside of the resolution) set up by my opponent. Furthermore, as you can see, the first two rules concern what CON can/can't do (my position is clearly PRO). My opponent ignores this argument, thus extend it to this round and dismiss this issue which is once again brought up by the CON.

CON ignored my argument which concerned the necessity of him presenting arguments against the resolution rather than merely relying on objecting to my 5 reasons, so you may extend it to this round.

CON ignored my rebuttals to his general arguments presented in R2, so you may extend them to this round. His concession to these rebuttals is reason enough to vote against his case as they concern what logic actually is and how it is to be used; it would make no sense for him to criticize my 5 reasons for being illogical when my arguments against his arguments for what is to be considered logical remain conceded to.

Specific reasons:

Re #1: I explained the problem with my opponent's definition of "crossing" in the previous round. My opponent does not address this and is therefore merely repeating himself. Thus, you're obligated to dismiss his rebuttal for the same reasons I had presented in R2. Furthermore, incentive to know what is considered a street is completely irrelevant. There's no reason as to why one cannot cross a pathway without actually comprehending the pathway. Heck, I can accidentally cross a street without knowing that I'm crossing a street while wearing a blindfold.

Re #2: I agree that there is a major difference between dying WHILE crossing the street, and something that RESULTS in death, but as you can see, all of my ways of death occur WHILE CROSSING THE STREET. Also, there's no reason as to why something cannot result in death while crossing the street.
As for immediate death, this is rare but possible. My opponent suggests that I should present precise evidence in this round and so I shall. Observe the following article:http://ezinearticles.com...

As for my example, I clearly insinuated that the heart attack was a continuous process which ended in death while crossing the street. To illustrate it's possibility, you can refer to the massive heart attack segment above. Essentially, this successfully counters the CON's assumption.

Re #3: If my grandfather died while crossing the street, I would agree that the typical idea would be that he must have been hit by a car. However, what one's initial assumptions are has no relevance here. CON does nothing to address my accusations concerning his red herrings, and therefore concedes to them.

Logically, there is no reason as to why one CANNOT be fired at while crossing the street. CON does nothing to show how this is illogical. Rather, he continues to introduce irrelevant ideas that concern incentive (which concerns WHY rather than how).

Uncle Ben died after he was driving. However, as I suggest in R2, death from a fire arm can occur instantly. Observe what I had stated (which should also address the accusation of me having not argued in favor of a logical answer): "If the victim is shot (at close range) in the brain or heart via shotgun, the victim will die instantaneously."

Re #4: The CON yet again favors WHY by demanding to know WHY an assassin would kill someone in the middle of a street. To this, I will repeat what I've been suggesting: Whether or not we know WHY the death occurs has no effect on HOW the death occurs. However, to pacify the CON, I'll create a scenario: One could say that the assassin was slightly inebriated and didn't possess the mental abilities to see the error in his/her ways during the killing. Take this factor (or the one which I presented in the previous round) into consideration and the assassin could have complete confidence in executing the homicide.

As for professionalism, the CON illogically concludes that professionalism is the equivalent to perfection. Just because you're considered a professional (as in you do something for a profession), it does not mean you're impervious to mistakes in your profession. If this were the case, the issue of malpractice wouldn't even exist when it came to lawyers and doctors.

As for the 3rd world country issue, the fact that OBJECTIVE surveillance (film recording) is rare as well as the fact that CON doesn't address my previous claim concerning the typical police forces found in 3rd world countries makes his response on this issue dismissible.

CON provides no reason as to why an assassin couldn't possibly kill someone who was crossing the street, hence it remains to be considered a logical reason.

Re #5: CON directly concedes that we could be referring to ANY street in this debate. Thus, his previous notion concerning how this debate cannot apply to a street in a big city is dismissible even according to him. In other words, me claiming that someone can die due to falling debris from multistory buildings (while crossing a street) can be upheld.

I never actually presented an argument concerning 911, but I will quickly point out that CON's reasoning on it is baseless conjecture. If he intends to insist that no one died while crossing the street on that day, he will need evidence. Since he doesn't present any, you have no reason to consider it.

Not all streets are secured as my opponent insist. Since my opponent brought up New York, it's only fair that I prove him wrong through bringing up an example involving New York: http://query.nytimes.com...

This proves the CON's argument false and further supports my argument on death in this manner being possible

Re #6: CON ignored my arguments concerning the rules (which is all the more reason to make my introduction of this reason justified). Furthermore, CON not only had sufficient time to get access to the link but also could have asked for clarification via comment section.

Voters: CON ignored the general arguments which concerned what logic was and how it is to be used. As I've explained above, this is absolutely CRUCIAL to his case. CON also failed to provide reasons as to why the resolution is false. Keep in mind that he was arguing as if the resolution were phrased "My opponent will not be able to present 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street." Whether or not I can personally present 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street does not conclusively disprove the resolution, hence the reason independent arguments from CON were required. As you'll note, he does not even attempt to address how I've explained this in all 3 of my rounds. Finally, each of my reasons were not proven to be impossible and were merely countered with fallacies. Vote PRO.

Thanks for the debate! :D
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dmoore 9 years ago
dmoore
Korezaan there are no rules outside the resolution.

to the debaters thanks for another amusingly hilarious debate on debate.org
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"I do not have to abide by the rules (outside of the resolution)"

Oh, okay.

I go PRO.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Oh the loops holes. The first one I saw was the fact that the resolution didn't mandate a following of any rules.

The second would be the fact that the rule concerning creating new ways said "Con" instead of "Pro". I see that you posted that in the comment section but I didn't see that anywhere in the debate. =(

The third one is the resolution saying, "The street" which would insinuate a specific place. I personally would have designated that street as being liberty street, New York city. From there my 5 logical ways would have been:

1. Falling debris, empirically proven.
2. Falling people falling on other people, empirically proven.
3. Injured people stumbling away from falling buildings bleeding to death, empirically proven.
4. Being run over by a car.
5. Being run over by a bus.
and then some of the insect ones probably.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
If you'll do me the honor of explaining how my rounds made no sense, I'll be more than happy to clarify here in the comment section to the best of my ability. :)

As for voting in the 1st round, I must insist that you consider John's responses (assuming you haven't) before doing so.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
However, he technically won in the first round, as far as I am concerned. He showed 5 logical ways to die while crossing the street. Maybe a better way to put it would have been "5 ways to die as a result of crossing the street"
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Pro didn't make any sense. It looks like he tried to sound intelligent, but I must say he failed.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
What were the three glaring loopholes which you were referring to earlier? I'm curious. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I always get the idea that someone is yelling when they do all-caps.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Talk about instantaneous voting. Astounding! ;)
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah, the easiest ways to vote for Pro in this case are the facts that Con not only dropped the definition argument but also the "Con needs reasons" argument. Which means the Con concedes to both these arguments but doesn't actually do anything about them.

However I also end up buying Logical-Masters "not only 5" argument and I buy his ways of crossing the street.

Which leads to me unanimously vote for Pro. Nice round for the both of you though, it was pretty cool. Though con, you should look at my debates titled, "Under the below listed rules...."
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
JohnicleLogical-MasterTied
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