The Instigator
Josh_b
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
msheahan99
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Voters should vote for Pro (Fallacy Debate)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Josh_b
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 43185
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Josh_b

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance.

http://www.debate.org...

This is a debate using all Fallacies.

Rounds are limited to 3 seperate seperate statements of 50 words or less identified by a space betweeen each statement. Each statement must be a full sentence and only be one sentence.

Rules are based on the rules set forth in the linked forum.

Votes should be delivered based on number of fallacies used correctly and readability of the statements.

Round 2 is why Pro should and shouldn't win
Round 3 is why Con should and shouldn't win.
Round 4 is why Voters should Vote for Pro/Con over Con/Pro
msheahan99

Con

I accept your challenge and hope for a good debate round, good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Josh_b

Pro

My mom told me that I would win this debate, and then go on to winning thousands of debates, and eventually become the president of DDO because I'm really good at arguing with her and I sometimes get my way.

I have won other debates where lots of people voted for me 90% of time with 100% accuracy and now I will win this debate.

My first debate warrented the attention of long term debate.org user Ore_ele, and I am friends with Janet Sanders, and the current president of DDO, Tuf that started a tournament that I am participating in that will cause me to win this debate.
msheahan99

Con

The pro side has never won a debate round in his life, he doesn't even know what debate means, anyone who doesn't know what debate is is a Nazi, thus my oponent is a Nazi and should not win this debate round because Nazi's are lame.

Many years ago my opponent was laying in his bed thinking he would die, he didn't die, so he can't make up his mind and you as the voter shouldn't make up your mind because he can't make up his mind, nothing is real.

My opponent doesn't deserve to ever win a debate round, because he is a pro, which stands for professional, and this debate round is for amateurs, thus my opponent is a cheater and we shouldn't vote for cheaters.
Debate Round No. 2
Josh_b

Pro

Con should not win because he has a unnaturally biased opinion towards cat videos and we all know what happens to debaters that have an unnatural bias when they are attacked by angry arm chairs in their living rooms when no one else is around to see it.

Con thinks he should not win this debate because no one has already voted for him in this debate, although he knows that winning this debate would cause him to lose future debates in which he does not complete all of the rounds.

Con winning this debate would be like a rabid baby chipmunk eating a baby cake; He will either lose this debate or he will be attacked by ninjas in his sleep.

msheahan99

Con

I'm sexy, and thus I should win the debate round with my seductive skills.

I like winning debate rounds, and because I'm sexy people want to do things for me, and they see that I like winning debate rounds and thus I should win the debate round.

Pro is not sexy.
Debate Round No. 3
Josh_b

Pro

Every one else has already voted for pro, and no one has voted for con, so new voters should vote for pro too because JoshB likes people who vote for him.

The people who have voted for this debate are great DDO users who have completed three debates and are fantastic voters who vote for Pro because it is clear that pro provided the best inclusion of most fallacies.

People who vote for con are confused by the voting system and the voting system should be changed to make it easier and more encouraging for voters to choose pro.
msheahan99

Con

There are many carrots out there, but I am the chosen carrot!

I once killed a worm, which proves that I am superior to this worm, and thus voters should vote for me.

Pro did not kill this worm because I killed the worm, thus pro is not superior to this worm and I am, so voters shouldn't vote for him.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
i don't know much of this stuff, but the best fallacy is the Love Fallacy
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
TUF thanks for doing that. I didn't realize how much work it would actually take to vote on a debate like this.
Because almost every statement contains some sort of questionable cause, I won't mention it further.

In my first argument of round 1, I use Appeal to authority, slippery slope, false attribution, misleading vividness, historical fallacy, and irrelevance.
I'll explain: Who is my mom? is she some sort of psychic DDO guru who knows information based on my past behavior which has nothing to do with this debate at all?

I think my overall favorite single statement of this debate was con's first argument in round 1.
"The pro side has never won a debate round in his life, he doesn't even know what debate means, anyone who doesn't know what debate is is a Nazi, thus my opponent is a Nazi and should not win this debate round because Nazi's are lame."
Questionable statistics, ad hominem, ad populum, any true scotsman, etymological fallacy, equivocation, bias, and circular cause(that I can see). Did he do it on purpose? Let him say. Did he know that he was that good? Let him say that too.

My reply to that statement was "Con should not win because he has a unnaturally biased opinion towards cat videos and we all know what happens to debaters that have an unnatural bias when they are attacked by angry arm chairs in their living rooms when no one else is around to see it."
See how I change 'unnatural bias opinion toward cat videos' to simply 'unnatural bias'? When it's the whole phrase, it's a straw man argument, and begging the question because I don't actually say whether his opinion is either for, or against cat videos. That's called hedging, false attribution, and contextomy. I continue with another begging the question as part of group think, and ad populum. What does happen to a person when no one else in around to see it? Giving an inanimate object abilities is called reification, and that is quite nice in the phrase.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
These were all the fallacies I noticed in the debate, granted I could be wrong.

R2

Josh

-False attribution (informal fallacy)
-Appeal to accomplishment (red herring fallacy)
-Appeal to flattery (red herring fallacy)

msheahan

-slippery slope (conditional fallacy) x3

R3

Josh

-Ad populum (Red herring)/ Chronological snobbery (Red Herring)
-Appeal to motive (informal fallacy)
-Circular reasoning (informal fallacy)

msheahan

-Appeal to flattery? (Red herring) x3

R4

Josh

- Ad populum (Red Herring)
-Red herring (Informal fallacy)
-Argument from Silence (informal Fallacy)
-Bulverism (Red Herring Fallacy)

msheahan

-Denying the antecedent (prepositional fallacy)
-Appeal to accomplishment (Red Herring fallacy)
-Slippery slope (conditional fallacy)
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
One idea for this style of debate, would be during the rounds if people used in text citations to their own fallacies... I probably found this one hard to award, since there was not much of a resolution to support or beat down; ones on larger issues can probably get some great satire.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
I agree that a summary could be an option, even if it isn't part of the debate. This is new territory and it is probably naive of me to automatically believe that Voters have the background to recognize the fallacies without a big red arrow pointing to each one. There may be a limited number of debaters who actually have a concept of what a Fallacy Debate entails but in this case my opponent has a firm grasp on the concept and provides clever responses containing impeccable fallacies. For the first debate in this category, I am exceptionally pleased with the results of the debate itself.

I plan on having debates in the future where Ad populum, or Straw man, et al. is the focus of the fallacious arguments. Keeping the first ones initially vague seemed to be appropriate. Adding in some fallacy specific debates may help people who are uneducated in Logical Fallacy understand the concept more, and entice them to participate in other debates and vote.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
For these a summary round may be important. Knowing which fallacies you're using, would give credit to their cleverness.
Posted by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
Absolutely, thanks for the original idea. It's a strange debate but it is enjoyable, nice job.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
msheahan99 Thanks for a great debate. I really like your equivocation in round 2, but I think ultimately my irrelevance and questionable cause will win.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Josh_bmsheahan99Tied
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: I think pro best fulfilled the purpose of this debate by using a wider range of fallacies. Con was repetitive with a lot of his fallacies, some of them were unclear, and some of them I think he may have just made up, or made variations of original fallacies with. In researching fallacies for voting on this debate, I think I was able to see more clear, direct fallacies from Pro, where as Con's were very unclear or just repetitive.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Josh_bmsheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Great job to both sides, sadly it's too close on arguments for me to call it. I could nitpick grammar errors, but that point is for Jar Jar speak level bad, not a shortage on commas.