The Instigator
anonynomous
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
No-this-is-patrick
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

anything you want

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 4 votes the winner is...
No-this-is-patrick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,164 times Debate No: 29477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (4)

 

anonynomous

Con

So whoever accepts this can come up with any resolution they want no matter how ridiculous. Only 1 catch logical fallacies and semantic arguments are totally acceptable this is essentially going to be a debate about making some ridiculous claim seem reasonable to a layman.

EDIT:
ok so it's been pointed out to me that I have not been very clear on the general rules so here's a more specific list.
Fallacies your allowed to use(fallacies your opponent can't simply negate by pointing out their fallacies)
appeal to probability
bandwagon
argument from ignorance
correlation proves causation
ludic fallacy
fallacy of single cause
false attribution- you are NOT allowed to use a fabricated source but you can use a heavily biased source. For example Alex Jones or a Young earth scientist would be acceptable but no some random youtube comment or blog
false cause fallacy
hasty generalization
fallacy of misplaced concreteness
anything not on this list is not acceptable
lastly semantics are heavily encouraged

format:
round 1) acceptance and resolution
round 2-3) anything you want
No-this-is-patrick

Pro

I accept your challenge, and i hope you can debate it because it is a fact of nature.

My third debate, good luck :D.
Debate Round No. 1
anonynomous

Con

ok so the resolution is in general hermit crabs live more than 1 year.

contention 1) the sum of the parts equals the whole.

Pretty simple concept for example if their are 4 bad band members I'm going to get a bad band. If I have four talented band members I'm going to get a good band. We can apply this same logic to hermit crabs which means that are hermit crab must be a combination of a hermit and a crab. The problem with this is that this creature is not biologically feasible as hermits and crabs are not genetically similar enough to reproduce. Therefore since a non-existent creature cannot exist it also cannot live for more than 1 year.

contention 2) I am always right

P1) I am always right

P2) I say hermit crabs don't live for more than 1 year

C) therefore from P1 and P2 hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year

premise one:
we know this premise to be true since I am always right. Since I am always right it must be true that I am always right.

premise 2: I think this is self explanatory

conclusion: If I am always right and I claim hermit crabs don't generally live more than 1 year than it must be true.

In conclusion:

I have provided a foolproof logically sound case so vote con
No-this-is-patrick

Pro

Con Stated: "ok so the resolution is in general hermit crabs live more than 1 year.

contention 1) the sum of the parts equals the whole.

Pretty simple concept for example if their are 4 bad band members I'm going to get a bad band. If I have four talented band members I'm going to get a good band. We can apply this same logic to hermit crabs which means that are hermit crab must be a combination of a hermit and a crab. The problem with this is that this creature is not biologically feasible as hermits and crabs are not genetically similar enough to reproduce. Therefore since a non-existent creature cannot exist it also cannot live for more than 1 year.

contention 2) I am always right

P1) I am always right

P2) I say hermit crabs don't live for more than 1 year

C) therefore from P1 and P2 hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year

premise one:
we know this premise to be true since I am always right. Since I am always right it must be true that I am always right.

premise 2: I think this is self explanatory

conclusion: If I am always right and I claim hermit crabs don't generally live more than 1 year than it must be true.

In conclusion:

I have provided a foolproof logically sound case so vote con"

This doesn't make sense at all. i will provide some REAL "logical" support to my refute of your argument. RE: Contention 1: Not true at all. The reason that this species is called "Hermit Crab" is because back in the 1800's explorer's found these animals snd noticed the shell they could pop in and out of and live in. This is why they gave them the name"Hermit Crab" because they live alone in one shell. The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY socialble, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". So your "Foolproof" contention is actually Follish.

RE: contention 2 : "im always right" Because i disprooved your contention that Hermit crabs cannot reproduce and contention 1, your second contention is wrong. The definition of disproove in my webstter's dictionary means to "proove something wrong", i disprooved your first contention so you are not "Right", you are wrong ,eliminating your second contention. Re: "I say hermit crabs cannot live for more than 1 year" Just because you say something dosen't mean it is true. So if you say "Water is a solid" or "The sun is not a star" it is true? i Already disprooved your statement saying "i am always right", so that is ALSO wrong. According to HERMIT-CRABS.COM, Wikipedia, and a hell bunch of other sites i do not have enough time to list down, hermit crabs live for more than one year. It is a FACT of nature and science, so you can't alter that. So that disprooves you once AGAIN.

I disprooved all of your argument leaving nothing from your argument that sounds "logical" like you said. So that must mean that you have lost the debate. In that case i WON the debate. So vote "Pro".
Debate Round No. 2
anonynomous

Con

Ok so my opponent seems to fail to understand that this is not meant to be a logical debate but despite this I will do my best to respond to his logical rebuttal with non-sensical and misconstrued nonsense lets begin.

contention 1: My opponent claims that my clearly logical assertion about hermit crabs is false because really hermit crabs are not a combination of hermits and crabs but rather "The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY sociable, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". However we can see but the law of non-contradiction that this cannot be true". However IF Hermit crabs are extremely sociable than they should be called "social crabs" but since hermits are by definition not social then by the law of non-contradiction they cannot be both hermits and social. This tells us one of two things either A) my opponent is talking about a totally different "social crab", in such a case my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that hermit crabs live longer than a year as needed by his BOP, OR, B) my initial observation about this non-existent creature stands in which case again my opponent would have failed to fufiled his BOP.

contention 2: My opponents two arguments are that since he has disprove my first contention it must stand that I am not always right and other sources say I am wrong. Lets first examine his first objection:

"Because I disproved your contention that Hermit crabs cannot reproduce and contention 1, your second contention is wrong"

As I pointed out in my rebuttal you have failed to disprove my first contention and as such my second contention still stands.

Now lets focus on his second objection
"Just because you say something doesn't mean it is true. So if you say "Water is a solid" or "The sun is not a star" it is true? I Already disproved your statement saying "I am always right", so that is ALSO wrong. According to HERMIT-CRABS.COM, Wikipedia, and a hell bunch of other sites I do not have enough time to list down, hermit crabs live for more than one year."

First of all if I say something then it is true as I have clearly shown in my second contention and I would never say water is solid since that would be wrong. Since I am always right it must stand to reason that I would never make a false statement such as "water is solid". Now my opponent also goes on to mention that "a bunch of sources say so" now my fellow DOD members I ask you who would you believe "a bunch of sources" OR "one who is always right" I think the awnser is rather straightforward.

In conclusion:

I have upheld all of my contentions and refuted all of my opponents in a logically sound matter therefore you will clearly be voting con in today's debate( I know this to be true as I am always right)
No-this-is-patrick

Pro

Once again con falsely stated that : "My opponent claims that my clearly logical assertion about hermit crabs is false because really hermit crabs are not a combination of hermits and crabs but rather "The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY sociable, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". However we can see but the law of non-contradiction that this cannot be true". However IF Hermit crabs are extremely sociable than they should be called "social crabs" but since hermits are by definition not social then by the law of non-contradiction they cannot be both hermits and social. This tells us one of two things either A) my opponent is talking about a totally different "social crab", in such a case my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that hermit crabs live longer than a year as needed by his BOP, OR, B) my initial observation about this non-existent creature stands in which case again my opponent would have failed to fufiled his BOP". I think Con is trying to avoid the fact that i prooved his first and second contention WRONG. As i explained before (and will have to explain again because of Con's failure to read and comprehend my argument correctly), The reosons that hermit crabs are called "Hermit Crabs" is because they live in ONE shell. Not because they are not sociable. Con says that this debate is about using "Logic" to support your arguments, but what is the point if Con doesen't use "Logic" well enough to comprehend the name of the species. I AGAIN have prooved his first contention wrong, So because he IS wrong, His second contention : "I am always right" is ALSO wrong. He also said that because he knows better he wouldn't say "Water is a solid". Well if Con was truly ALWAYS right like he said he was, he wouldn't say this. So basically Con just disprooved himself and saved me the burdon of prooving him wrong once AGAIN. Also Con said that My sources were just "a hell lot of sites" well, if Con REALLY read my debate clearly, i REALLY said "Acoording to HERMIT-CRABS.COM and Wikapedia, and a hell lot of other sites i didn't have time to write down, hermit crabs live for more than one year. That is a fact of nature and science and you can't alter it." Con MIS-quoted my speech wich Angered me ALOT. I listed two sites that are valid, and Con (probably to brush of the weight of the evidence off his shoulders) misquoted me so that The people reading this debate would get my argument wrong. I said that "a hell of other sites" because i REALLY didn't have time to write them them down. So Con (intentianolly or not) cheated by mis-quoting me. So i will post video and photo evidence of the "hermit crab" to further disproove con. This video link wil disproove ALL of con's contention's FOR me. Here is another one just incase con ends up Mis comprehending the other one like he did my argument: and So i DISPROOVED Con multiple times throughout this debate, wich makes me the CLEAR winner. Not only is there video evidence of the species : disprooves first contention, that evidence eliminates his second contention AND his wholea rgument. So i clearly Won. Vote Pro. ON the first video if you start watching at 2:00 it prooves they are social
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Here are good, recent examples of using silly arguments to win debates--

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "I admit that if you are completly clueless.."

I propose that, as the person who misinterpreted the wording of their own resolution, this is an absurd charge to leverage against your opponent and/or voters, and rudeness won't win you points either. You said this was about, "making some ridiculous claim seem reasonable to a layman." Your opponent chose a very reasonable resolution giving you a perfect opportunity to do so.

In round three you said, "my opponent seems to fail to understand that this is not meant to be a logical debate." The only terms your opponent is obligated to comply with is the ones he accepted, your round one terms. The final round of the debate is too late to change the goalposts.
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
I totaly understand that i was not clear enough and that he clearly followed all the rules. However my implied meaning was very clear and he should have picked up on that. What frustrates me is that he completly undermined the entire purpose of this debate.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
While I understand your position, you really weren't clear enough. You didn't state that the opponent, for example, was required to argue for something absurd. I agree that the voter did not understand that absurd arguments were allowed, but I would say that you should have been absolutely clear and would direct you to the DDO tutorial thread. Clarity in the opening statement is an absolute necessity. Tbh I wouldn't know who to vote for as you didn't make the requirements for winning very clear. I can't vote anyway though. :P
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
I admit that if you are completly clueless you may have somehow managed to misinterpret the point of this debate but since i make absurd arguements and stated "my opponent seems to fail to understand that this is not meant to be a logical debate" im not sure how you could still maintain that illusion. Furthemore i hope you understand that one cannot misinterpret there own resolution as they created it to follow thier interpretation. Also you should be the last one question my grammar as you commited an extrodinarly large number of gramatical errors. Lastly even if you want to pretend this was a real debate you just negate my two contentions and don't provide any justification for hermit crabs living more than a year beyond an appeal to authority in your last two sentences so technicly you even failed to fufil your BOP.
Posted by No-this-is-patrick 4 years ago
No-this-is-patrick
I am not angry at you lit., i agree that my resolution was not clear. You didn'ti nsult me anyway AT ALL. And i agree with anomynus bieng angry. I jusyt posted my previous comment to explain for you :D.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
I didn't mean to be offensive about the English thing, but you do make a lot of mistakes. I already know what trolling is. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't win the debate. You came up with a resolution, and that resolution is perfectly valid as he did say it could be anything you want, but he is clearly unhappy with what you've chosen xD It's his fault for not being more specific. I don't know if it was your intent to make him angry, but he clearly is xD
Posted by No-this-is-patrick 4 years ago
No-this-is-patrick
Not true. And thankyou for my name.:D . If you have read all my comments, One of them said, "
OKAY my resolution is that hermit crabs live longer than one year in general" and that was posted 5 seconds after "very funny". So you are wrong. First, look up trolling's definition, if you know it, understand it more. Second, IF I DON'T speak and read english well, why am i replying to you amd how could i have argued my debate IN ENGLISH? again you are wrong. Thankyou for my name again :D. I did clearly understood the debate,
"Con's terms were, "fallacies your opponent can't simply negate by pointing out their fallacies" so i am wright. Look at the vvote comment, that will explain it :D
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
"this is essentially going to be a debate about making some ridiculous claim seem reasonable to a layman." You clearly did not take the direction he had in mind. And you didn't even originally provide a resolution. "Troll" may be the wrong word, but the fact alone that you said "very funny
^_^ can you please debate" shows that you either originally misunderstood the debate or you were trolling.

You don't speak English very well sir. Or at least you don't type it well. But your name is perfect.
Posted by No-this-is-patrick 4 years ago
No-this-is-patrick
"Con's terms were, "fallacies your opponent can't simply negate by pointing out their fallacies". Pro followed the rules by not simply naming those fallacies, but actually explaining them. Con's points were downright silly and didn't succeed in making his claim seem "reasonable" to me." that is what one of the voters said, so i am correct. Stop trying to make me look like i am oblivious.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
anonynomousNo-this-is-patrickTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had no convincing arguments or sources, pro had some.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
anonynomousNo-this-is-patrickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This is absurd.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
anonynomousNo-this-is-patrickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am confused.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
anonynomousNo-this-is-patrickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's terms were, "fallacies your opponent can't simply negate by pointing out their fallacies". Pro followed the rules by not simply naming those fallacies, but actually explaining them. Con's points were downright silly and didn't succeed in making his claim seem "reasonable" to me.