The Instigator
sweatycreases2
Pro (for)
Losing
47 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,966 times Debate No: 3404
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (33)

 

sweatycreases2

Pro

I BELIEVE THAT THE OPPONENT OF THIS DEBATE HAS HOLES IN THEIR SOCKS, AND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THE ONES THEY HAVE.
Logical-Master

Con

I strongly negate the resolution for three reasons:

1) The resolution assumes I own socks. For all my opponent knows, I could possible not be financially secure enough to own a pair of socks. Either that, or maybe I don't wear socks. Maybe I find the climate in my area to be warm enough to the point that I don't need socks. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to purchase a pair of socks.

2) Maybe my legs have been amputated.

3) Most importantly, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. I challenge him to prove that I live up to condition provided in the previous reasons as well as prove that these socks possess holes.

In this debate, I will urge that it's merely within the realm of possibility that I have socks with holes, but that my opponent won't be able to provide decisive evidence which is needed to prove the resolution.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
sweatycreases2

Pro

OK, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT MY OPPONENT HAS LEGS, OWNS SOCKS AND WEARS THEM, AND THAT THE SOCKS HE OWNS HAVE HOLES IN THEM. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK ON HIM. I WILL NEED HIS MEDICAL RECORDS, BANK / FINANCIAL RECORDS, SEVERAL REFERENCES, HIS CONTACT INFORMATION INCLUDING NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE NUMBERS / EMPLOYER INFORMATION / ETC AND THAT OF HIS CLOSEST FAMILY AND FRIENDS FOR INTERVIEW PURPOSES, POLICE / CRIMINAL / PERMANENT RECORDS, DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER / BMV RECORDS, MOST RECENT PICTURES, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND SCHOOL RECORDS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THESE REQUESTS ON MY OPPONENTS BEHALF IS BASICALLY A FORFEIT DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL IMPEDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS DEBATE.

ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT MY OPPONENT INDEED OWNS SOCKS, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT THERE ARE HOLES IN THEM. ASSUMING THAT WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE, THAT IS THAT THEY ARE MADE OF A MATERIAL AND INTENDED TO COVER HUMAN FEET, ALL SOCKS HAVE HOLES WHICH ALLOW A PERSON TO INSERT HIS OR HER FOOT. IF MY OPPONENT OWNS SOCKS THEN HIS SOCKS HAVE HOLES IN THEM FOR HIS FEET. IF WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN AN UNCONVENTIONAL SENSE WHICH MY OPPONENT OWNS SUCH AS SOCKS WITHOUT FOOT HOLES, DECORATIVE SOCKS, A DRAIN PIPE SOCK, ETC, THEN MY OPPONENTS SOCKS STILL HAVE HOLES IN THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE MOLECULARLY AND / OR CELLULARLY PERMEABLE. IF MY OPPONENT CLAIMS TO HAVE AN IMPERMEABLE SOCK, IT WILL HAVE TO BE SHIPPED TO ME SO THAT I MAY VERIFY THAT IT IS INDEED IMPERMEABLE.

YOUR WELCOME
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent starts his round by insisting that I provide him with my personal information. In response, I'm going to have to decline his request for it is his job to do his own research for his own arguments. Since he initiated the topic, the burden of proof is his. Demanding that his opponent do so is inappropriate in the context of a debate. Furthermore, none of that information which he requested could be used to confirm whether or not I owned a pair of socks.

Even if I were willing to provide that information, I certainly couldn't fit all of it into this 8,000 character limit. I would need some contact information from my opponent. As you can clearly see, he has provided none, so helping him with his research is completely out of the question.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent is taking a gamble; he is unsure of the outcome of my personal information. The fact that he doesn't KNOW whether or not I even own a pair of socks should be a clear indication that he cannot support his arguments independently. As I predicted, my opponent failed to provide decisive evidence for his claim (or any evidence whatsoever for that matter).

Since this is the Internet, you can't honestly take my word or his word on the matter of whether or not I actually own socks as I could very well lie about the issue. Thus, while still negating the resolution (and as I've suggested in the previous round), I will take the position that it's merely possible that I own socks with holes; contrary to what my opponent insist, it is not certain.

Of course, if you are willing to take my word, then I will say that I don't own a pair of socks at the moment.

In any case, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
How do I have "quite an ego?" :D
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
EVAN: WHATS SO BAD ABOUT MY PROFILE PIC?
Posted by crunchbate 8 years ago
crunchbate
That Logic has quite an ego..............and he's right, I highly doubt that he does not own a pair of socks. Even if he did not....as soon as he did, he would lose his own argument.
Posted by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
change your profile pic i like cheez its taco dance party time suxy unce unce unce unce unce unce unce
Posted by Evan_MacIan 8 years ago
Evan_MacIan
I was completely undecided after reading the debate. I was even more undecided after reading the comments (logical impossibility aside).

I then looked at the profile pictures. Vote Con.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Oh.... and yes it does mean that Pro is wrong if Con has no socks. The resolution is a statement, "YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS", it is the Pro's duty in round to prove this statement true. If the Con however does not have socks then the statement has no possible way of being true.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I agree that Pro could have made the argument, but as Pro didn't and accepted the conditioning which Con put on the debate I do not believe it ethical to vote on such a premise.

I enjoyed the Pro's point stating that all socks 1 hole in them but if you are simply going to vote on the idea that Con must have socks (an idea the pro did not argue) then you might as well give the Con the benefit of having socks with no applicable use. A.K.A decorational socks without holes.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Yes, I recognize that. However, if the case is that Pro has no socks, that does not mean Con is automatically wrong. Consider the statements "Your spheres are round." and "Your godonkers have scrinnies in them." In order to evaluate the statements, which are both directly analogous to the debate, one must have godonkers or spheres. Pro has put forth a definitional truth that is independent of whether or not Con has the object the definition references.

The terrible opening statement aside, I think that Pro could have pulled this out...
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hmm, you beat me to it again, Yraelz. I've gotta stop taking my time in comments.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I'd have to disagree with you. In order for there to be the condition which you're talking about, the topic would have had to been phrased along the lines of "Assuming you own socks, you have holes in them." Without that assumption being condoned by the topic, me arguing that I don't own socks is completely acceptable.

Furthermore, even the PRO disagrees with their being such an automatic condition in this debate. After all, in his second round, he demanded that I provide him with my personal information so that he could prove that I owned a pair of socks in the first place.

Finally, the topic is exactly another way of saying "You own socks with holes." To respond by claiming "I don't own socks in the first place" is a valid means of disproving/disagreeing.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 8 months ago
KingDebater
sweatycreases2Logical-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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
sweatycreases2Logical-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 marin24 7 years ago
marin24
sweatycreases2Logical-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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sweatycreases2Logical-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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
sweatycreases2Logical-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
sweatycreases2Logical-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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
sweatycreases2Logical-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 Jenova 8 years ago
Jenova
sweatycreases2Logical-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 8 years ago
jiffy
sweatycreases2Logical-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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sweatycreases2Logical-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