The Instigator
Macroscope
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aldric_Winterblade
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

This is not a real argument format

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 18177
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Macroscope

Pro

I'm new here and... Wait a second!

This isnt a proper debating system!? Its goddamn democratic!? Since when is truth democratic? Since when is reality whatever the most people think it is? Since when are those people right?!?
What is the ulterior motive for this? Political statistical analysis?
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Accepted.

This is going to be funny. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Macroscope

Pro

Argument 1: Teams
Debaters usually work by teams or factions.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument 2: Voting
Voting may be used to work out what political candidate you like best, or what ice cream is most popular. But it can't be used to decide matters of fact. When somthing is a fact its in a binary state, it either is so, or it isnt so. The most that voting and statistics can inform you is what most people appreciate to be the fact of the matter.

But as this graph shows; most peoples IQs are in the 85-115 area of the bell curve. Making it a statistical fact that most people are wrong, most likly, about EVERYTHING.

http://giftedkids.about.com...

The argument made by James Surowiecki's wisdom of crowds is essentially that a diverse group of opinions and ideas, when working in cooperation in a de-centralised laisser-faire system, can narrow the possibilities quickly to produce a correct answer, or an answer that is more accurate than the previous one. However as noticed by Jaron Linier, they are merely optimising the fact and are reliant on experience rather than research.

"In his manifesto You Are Not a Gadget, Jaron Lanier argues that crowd wisdom is best suited for problems that involve optimization, but ill suited for problems that require creativity or innovation"
- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Surowiecki has stated Homogeneity, Centralization, Division, Imitation and Emotionality are all barriers to the system working, and these are exactly the things which society encourages in people, what's more this website encourages its users to identify with factions and provide identities which further enhance this assumptive and post rationalisation effect.

Most debates are chaired by an experienced debater, who simply, dispassionately totals up the amount of fallacies on both sides of the argument in hopes that verisimilitude will derive a winner.

The only conclusion we can derive from this is that no one here knows how to debate properly, or is deliberately prevented from doing so.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Aldric_Winterblade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Macroscope

Pro

Macroscope forfeited this round.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Aldric_Winterblade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Macroscope

Pro

Macroscope forfeited this round.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Sorry... I was without internet for days. In any case... I agree that the voting doesn't decide the truth, it's not supposed to... it just shows ho was more persuasive to the general membership. I don't want to post anything more than that, since this is the last round. :( Sorry!

Vote Con because it's obvious voting doesn't decide the truth.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
MacroscopeAldric_WinterbladeTied
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: Internet went out so the forfeited was not Con's fault. Con had a more convincing arguement, since debating is not about truth, it's about who is better at convincing others they are right. Pro lost from the start; because his arguement was wrong.