This Debate's Vote Points Shall End With a Tie!
Debate Rounds (4)
Welcome, welcome my friends. Today we will see my power in debating within this debate. I say that this debate will end in a tie. Go ahead, accept.
A tie: with the same score on both sides. Or rather, with the voting style being the "select winner" option, both debaters will have equal amount of votes at the very end of this debate.
Voting period: 6 months
Who can vote: Every registered DDO user
Good luck and have fun.
1. Equal Rounds
My opponent has the equal rounds such as I. We both have rounds 2, 3, and 4 to debate. Thus, this debate will end in a tie.
2. Equal Footing
According to my opponent's profile, he's a 19 year old male. http://www.debate.org...
Although he has not yet done a single debate with this single exception, doubtless, his age brings more experience since I am currently only 16. We are on an equal footing so to speak.
3. Equal burden of Proof
We have equal burden of proof. I have to try to prove that we will each earn the same amount of votes, while my opponent will try to argue that we will not. We both have to prove something equally, and try to defeat the other with only the amount of information we know of each other and within the debate. Because of the equal BoP, if he fulfills his BoP as well as mine, this debate will end in a tie.
I will see and adjust to my opponent's response. I will try to make this debate a tie. I will now turn the floor to my opponent.
By affirming the resolution, Pro wins the debate, thus definitively negating the resolution (because the debate didn't end in a tie). He cannot fulfill his burden of proof because any attempt at doing so results in a logical dead-end. Meanwhile, I have already fulfilled my burden of proof with my argument from the previous paragraph. Therefore, the debate will *not* end in a tie -- it will end in a win for me.
Interestingly enough, even though I never said my opponent could not refute my points within round 2, he remained in his stand of position, and my points still stand.
My opponent tries to show that this debate has a paradox, because if I convince the others that the debate will be a tie, they will as a result vote for me, and "for the sake of simplicity and logical soundness" people should vote con. However, this is also illogical and filled with assumption. First and foremost, if people agree with me, they will then vote for nobody--they will tie the debate and say "yes, indeed, pro has convinced us we should tie the debate, and neither he nor con shall win, and if anybody thinks otherwise, I will vote the opposite of what he has voted." In addition, merely because I affirm the resolution does NOT mean the voters have to vote for me. If my opponent can spot out any fallacies within my arguments, why, surely then my affirmation has fallen to pieces. And as I have stated before, if I am very convincing nobody will vote for any particular debater--they will vote for a tie because that is the position I have advocated for.
I shall convince you all further that this debate shall end with a tie. You see, why did I make the voting period six months? So that many people could vote on it. Sure, if I made it very short, technically speaking a tie would be more likely--however, maybe only one vote is accounted for. Six months allow the most amount of voters to vote on this debate. I will have plenty of time to keep watch and convince others to change their votes so that this debate will be a tie.
Thank you for your round and now it is your round again.
Pro misunderstands the mechanics of debate. It is quite simple - there is a proposition known as the "resolution", and Pro's job is to affirm it, while Con's job is to negate it. Voters must vote for the side which they believed did their "job" better (i.e. fulfilled their burden of proof). In this particular resolution, an absolute claim is being made about what the future holds - Pro has to demonstrate with 100% certainty that the debate will end in a tie. As I explained last round, this is paradoxical: if he does that, he will have affirmed the resolution and the voters will be obligated to vote him up, thus making him win the debate, but that's impossible because he would have already shown with no room for error that the debate will end in a tie... In other words, there IS a paradox. It is impossible for him to affirm the resolution without simultaneously negating it. Since he cannot fulfill his BoP, as long as I make some attempt at fulfilling mine (as I already have), I automatically win.
His arguments are irrelevant due to the aforementioned paradox making his BoP impossible to fulfill, but I will go ahead and address them anyways.
1. Equal Rounds -- The vast majority of (non-forfeited) debates on this site have equal rounds for both debaters, yet most of them do not end in a tie. Why should equal rounds indicate that this particular debate will end in a tie? Pro fails to explain... this is a blatant non-sequitur.
2. Equal Footing -- It doesn't matter if we're on "equal footing". There are plenty of instances on this site where someone with less experience has beaten someone with more experience. For example:
Just because we are evenly-matched does not mean that one of us cannot out-do the other in this debate.
3. Equal BoP -- Again, many debates on this site have a split burden of proof, e.g. the global warming debate I cited above. Yet obviously, most of them do not end in ties. Another glaring non-sequitur.
4. Voting Period -- Pro claims that because a 6-month voting period is ideal for ending a debate in a tie, this debate will end in one. However, just because it could potentially facilitate the occurrence tie doesn't mean it *will* result in a tie. This argument does nothing to support the resolution.
It's the final round and my opponent sticks to his point. I can see where he is going with his logic:
The conclusion: If pro demonstrates that the debate will end in a tie, voters will be obliged to vote pro, which defeats his arguments. Therefore he cannot possibly demonstrate his BoP, and as long as con demonstrates his BoP, he wins....
However, I already said so, and I will say this again. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the debate, instead of forcing me to tie the debate, had forced me to argue for "Con will gain more points than pro at the end of the voting period". If I advocate for con, and I advocate it better than Con advocates for myself, then obviously people will vote for con, because I outright said, "go ahead, you should vote for my opponent", while con did not manage to convince the others to vote for me. Similarly, when I advocate for pro and con having equal amount of votes, I expect the voters to adjust as such and tie the debate if I uphold my burden of proof better than my opponent.
My opponent also attempts to foil my arguments by stating the fallacies within them. He seems to argue that most debates, even with equal rounds, even with "equal footing", even with "equal burden of proof", and even with "a long voting period", do not end with a tie. Is this really "most debates" though? There aren't many debates similar to this one, and this is not really serious compared to most controvercial issues which have many many different experts and sources talking about it. We cannot truly judge this debate based on other serious debates--there is really no other debate like this one (I know a debate with the same resolution but that was during the time when voting periods could NOT end and thus pro was doomed to lose)--and thus con's case falls apart as well. My opponent also shows that he sufficiently used his rounds as mine. He didn't attempt to foil that 4 years of maturity equals over 150 debates on this site. He didn't really try to convince us that I couldn't try to ask more people to vote for whoever is losing until the debate is tied. He has failed to foil my argument.
In conclusion, this debate will end with a tie point. If you agree with me, please tie the debate. But if you don't, go ahead--vote for anyone you want just to prove con.
Pro's only counter-rebuttal is, once again, that this is a "special" debate and that his arguments somehow become sound once put in that context. Firstly, I already explained why it isn't "special" - it may be about an uncommon topic, but it is still very much a contest of rhetorical skill, knowledge, and logical reasoning (as all debates are), so there is no reason to grant it any sort of "special" status. Secondly, even if it is "special", Pro fails to show why that has any bearing on the soundness of the 4 arguments he put forth. He just asserts that I didn't refute his arguments, when in fact I did. Pro's arguments do not even come close to affirming the resolution.
In conclusion, there is no possible world in which Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof. Meanwhile, I have put forth the paradox argument, which has basically been conceded and is more than enough to fulfill my own BoP. This debate is a clear win for me, and I implore the voters to vote Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by logical-master123 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Tie.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con presents a clever argument for why we must vote for him. If Pro successfully demonstrates his conclusion, then I must vote for him. But if I vote for him, I must vote for Con, because voting for Pro is contrary to what he's trying to prove. If I were to vote a tie, then I must agree that Pro won. But then we're back at the problem above. Pro tries to evade this by twisting what a debate is. Con points out a debate should be voted by who made the best arguments. Pro simply states the voters should adjust, because it's a meta-debate. Con shows there is nothing in R1 which changes normal voting parameters. None of Pro's arguments definitively prove this debate will end in a tie. The title is an absolute one in the tense of "Shall End". The only way to prove this, is with a time machine. At best, his arguments prove it's likely the debate will end in a tie, and even those are with flaws, to which is only defense is that the debate is different. Which is discussed above.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.