The Instigator
Mhykiel
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
james1014
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Wet Grass is Evidence

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 4 votes the winner is...
Mhykiel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 77710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Mhykiel

Pro

Evidence is defined as: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

OR as: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The observable fact that the grass is wet is evidence that it rained last night.
james1014

Con

Wet grass is not evidence at all you can't get a finger print on it. It's not gonna tell which way the criminal went. That is pretty much all I have to stay because this just plain damn stupid.
Debate Round No. 1
Mhykiel

Pro

If I were a claimant stating, "It rained last night" I might be challenged to support this claim.

In presenting my justification for thinking so, I would utilize a logical argument. A logical argument would present the facts or observations we both accept as true, and my reasoning or inference from the premises.

One of those observations would be that the grass is wet.

While there are other explanations for the grass being wet, that fact supports one conjecture that it rained.

Whether someone is convinced or unconvinced that it rained last night, the observation is still evidence for it rained.

Because "it rained" directly effects or logically follows the grass will be wet.
james1014

Con

Wet grass would not get you any closer to finding the suspect.
Debate Round No. 2
Mhykiel

Pro

Evidence is information that supports a conclusion.

Facts and observations can be explained by multiple different conclusions.

Which is why evidence is not defined as support one unique conclusion.

The ambiguity of the evidence has now bearing on it's valid support of a particular conclusion.
james1014

Con

You are getting off topic wet grass can not help you in anyways to find a culprit. This all need to write because this is so stupid.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
Mhykhel I am a mature young woman and I do not appreciate your little comment there. You are right - the comment sections should be filtered from your rude insults to the young people on this site. Stop discriminating against the young age group! Many of us are probably more intelligent debaters than you think.
Posted by james1014 2 years ago
james1014
so can you please vote
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: sara_ann_dee// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct) and 1 point to Pro (S&G). While PRO was describing his arguments accurately, he failed to make a counter argument against his opponent's side. Thus, I grant this debate to CON.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Both conduct and S&G remain unexplained by this voter despite allocating those points. (2) The evaluation of the arguments point is not specific to any arguments made in this debate, and is so vague that it could be used as justification for practically any argument vote on any debate. (3) The voter seems to justify this vote on the basis of a lapse in Pro's responses, yet never points to an argument made by Con that is so substantial as to warrant this vote. A lack of response on the part of one debater to another's point does not justify a vote unless that point was potent enough to begin with to warrant a vote.
******************************************************************************
Posted by TyroneShelton 2 years ago
TyroneShelton
Since when was this philosophy?
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
What is ridiculous about them? A simple illustration is being used to demonstrate what evidence is and where it is relevant to a logical discussion.
Posted by Gking19 2 years ago
Gking19
Both arguments are pretty ridiculous at the moment.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
I should have filtered the comment section for serious opponents. You children are cute, but not ready for the big kid table.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
PRO - you are making a disgrace to the debate community. USE YOUR BRAINNNNN omg
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Mhykieljames1014Tied
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: Con just completely misunderstood the topic, and presented a weak case with no links whatsoever. Con begins by going completely off-topic, saying wet grass, in no manner, offers evidence for a criminal suspect. First, Con *ignores* the full resolution, which states that wet grass is evidence of *rain,* not of a "criminal suspect." Second, Con fails to justify that wet grass doesn't offer grounds for belief, and uses no logically valid argument. Pro argues that wet grass *does* offer some grounds for belief in the probability of rain -- he offers an observation, saying *some* grounds as being offered is sufficient to affirm. And the resolution is adequately affirmed in this manner, since wet grass is one of the observations you expect to find after rain, thus acts as some grounds for belief that it did rain the previous night. Pro could have spent more time in preparing their impacts, but apparently they didn't need to, with Con's weak arguments. Ergo, I award arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Mhykieljames1014Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to be off topic here. He argues that wet grass isn't evidence of a criminal having committed a certain crime, but in doing so, he simply ignores Pro's definition of evidence provided in R1. It's ground for belief or proof. It doesn't have to be proof of the guilt of an individual in a crime - evidence isn't solely used in a courtroom. Scientists use evidence as well to determine many things about natural phenomena. Pro didn't do much to prove that wet grass is evidence of rain, but he didn't need to do much of anything when Con's not addressing his reasoning. Next time, focus on the topic at hand as presented, and don't just focus on your own biases of what evidence entails. Con did also demean both the debate and his opponent's arguments by calling them stupid twice, so I have to also award conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
Mhykieljames1014Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: As a previous voted explained, CON repeatedly called the debate "stupid." CON should now have joined the argument if he was not willing to discuss both ends of the argument. Both sides used good spelling and grammar - there were no errors on either side. Neither side proved to me why I should support their side or not - neither side persuaded me to lean towards their views at all. They could have done a whole lot better of a job on this debate and their arguments. Neither side used evidence to support their claim - so I cannot grant points to either side for this section.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Mhykieljames1014Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's behavior was substandard as he cursed once (damn) and called the debate "stupid" twice. If he didn't like the resolution, he should have let someone else debate it.