The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

deseptive flaw in debateing system

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 17850
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

This debate is somewhat paradoxical, as I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. Despite this handicap I hope to have an enlightening debate.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this debate.

Its my understanding that Pro is claiming that due to the sole fact that the contender gets the last word in, this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. I will seek to show this is false.

Let me be clear on what I seek to argue for, I am not claiming that the instigator is never at a disadvantage, just the more modest claim that just because your the instigator does not necessarily mean you are at an overall disadvantage compared to the contender.

1) The instigator gets to form the resolution

Most debates have a resolution, a proposition, a claim that the pro has to justify. This in its self gives an advantage to the instigator as the creator of the resolution consider these examples of resolutions "God exists" & "God can't be proven to not exist"

You will notice that the second resolution would be alot easier to defend, thus the instigator can go pro, form that resolution and thus have an advantage.

2) The instigator gets to make the first argument

The instigator from the first round is on the offensive as the instigator gets to fire the first shots. The contender from the very start is at an disadvantage and now will probably try to argue against the argument while maybe also making their own argument.

Pro them self proves this point in this debate where they make their argument in the first round, and I as the contender am forced to address it.

3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttal

If the instigator knows the subject matter well enough, and if they don't, they can always google it, the instigator can already make arguements against possible counter arguments and rebuttals against their own position and their own arguements. This will force the contender to either not use those counter arguments, or use the counter arguments which have already had an attack made against them thus make it more difficult to use.

I think these reasons show that it is false to claim or imply that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

"this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage."

I believe my opponent is exaggerating and over generalizing a modest statement. All I said was that "the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word." My opponent added words "automatically" and "always", blowing my simple statement out of proportion.

My opponents 1st point that the instigator forms the resolution as an advantage to counter the disadvantage is invalid, the resolution is what the debate is about, the contender agreed to debate this resolution. It is not an advantage in the debate. My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. I hope I have made this point clear I will probably have to clarify it in following rounds as my opponent responds.
A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word.

My opponents second point is also invalid as he has not shown that this causes an advantage. furthermore I don't follow the logic, clarification and explanation on this would be appreciated.

To my opponents 3rd point my reply is the same as the previous.

Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposite side as instigator in 9 0f the past 9 debates. The results show, bec. of this (or I should say in spite of it) he has a winning percentile of 58% significantly lower than the 1st debater who has a winning percent of over 90.

#3 an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender.

#4 a moderate 80% and likewise has been contender 3 of last 5.

#5 (in my opinion the best debater on ddo) has an impressive 94% win rate and 4 of past 5 he was contender.

#6 similar to #4.

#7 88.4 contender 4 of 5.

#8 similar to #2, 53% win rate and majority of past 5 have been instigator.

#9 88.9 majority contender.

finally #10 like #4 and #6.

wow. Even I didn't expect the #'s to match my theory so well but they clearly do. I know this isn't the most perfect data proof but hey, I'm just starting. I shall attempt to compute more sound statistical proof. As my theory goes save the best for last.

I might add the impetus for this craze/ crusade of mine. losing the past 5 debates I instigated which I think I should have won.

Here are some personal experiences, the content of the debate is irrelevant to this debate what is relevant is the points I make regarding them.

http://www.debate.org...
I am focusing on the better argument section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo,
cliff. stamp and Roy lanthem who is one of the best debaters on this site. both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word".

http://www.debate.org...
my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) till the final round after which I could not respond.

http://www.debate.org.... see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word.

http://www.debate.org... .
Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word".

enough examples I'll get back to the states then turn it over to my opponent for now:

in analysis of the section of debates entitled "recently ended":
of the 19 debates that were voted on, in a whopping 15 of them contender was winning.
or looking at the score discrepancy instigator totaled 50 while contender totaled 181.
I find these #'s quite significant.

finally in analysis of my opponents record I have surveyed his recent debates and have the following states:
of my opponents recent loses 8 of them were as instigator while only 4 were as contender.
of my opponents taking the instigator seat 8 losses and only 3 wins.
The #'s speak for themselves. vote pro.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Interpretation of what is being argued here

Pro has said..."I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word."

When Pro says "the instigator is at a disadvantage" what is being implied here is that the instigator when compared to the contender is ALWAYS at an OVERALL disadvantage.

I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage.

1) The instigator gets to form the resolution

Pro objects to my argument here saying..."My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage."

Allow me to be a bit more specific here, what I am saying is that the instigator gets to form the resolution, this provides the instigator with a possible advantage as the resolution sets the stage of what the instigator will have to argue for and against. Clearly the instigator can use this forming to their advantage. Just because the contender agree's to debate the formed resolution doesn't change this.

Pro says..."A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word."

I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that this point in of its self means that the instigator is now even, rather I make this point and other points to make a cumulative case against the implied claim that the instigator is always at a disadvantage.

2) The instigator gets to make the first argument

The instigator makes the first argument, and thus is immediately on the offensive against the contender, surely this is obvious ?

By making the first argument, you force your opponent to respond to YOUR argument, If Pro can't see the advantage that the instigator has there then I will merely make this point to the readers.

3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttal

As the instigator not only do you get to make the opening argument, but you can address a possible counter argument even before your opponent has a chance to respond. Once again, I think this is trivially obvious.

Pros statistical analysis

As the saying goes, there are lies, damm lies and then there are statistics. We should be carefully about how data is interpreted. In this example bobby henderson (may not be real name) shows the data between the number of pirates and the global average temperature. Bobby comes to the conclusion..."You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature." [1]

Pro says..."The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time."

That top debator has a name by the way, angry lesbian femminist, I mean Danielle. http://www.debate.org...

I started looking at Danielle most recent debates when she went instigator, in the last 14 debates as instigator danille won all of them and I got sick of counting up her wins. Suffice to say using Danielle stats hardly proves Pros claim here.

The point being here there are many other variables to be considerd here and Pros analysis doesn't take those into consideration. For example, how does Pros analysis filter out the fact that better debaters will often defeat worse debators ? How does Pros analysis take into account that sometimes a person will create a fun debate or a serious debate and thus not put in as much effort ? How does Pro take into account that a contender gets to choose which debates they will take and thus take debates on subject they know more about and thus have a better chance of winning ?

Take that last point for example, what if you could overall show in stats the contenders having a better winning percentage, would this be enough to prove Pros theory here ? I don't think so as Roy Latham one of top debators on DDO explains..."The instigator has the advantage of picking the topic, one he is familiar with. But presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning. If anyone takes the debate at all, it's likely a noob who ends up forfeiting. If no one accepts, the time spent preparing is wasted. I'm using the "first round is for acceptance only" scheme more frequently these days." [2]

How does Pros interpretation of the data take this into consideration when looking at why contenders will have a higher winning percentage ? It doesn't.

Take yours truly for example, I have an overall winning percentage of 34.25% [3], yet in my past 10 debates where I was instigator I have winning percentage of 60%. Should I interpret this as meaning that being instigator means having an advantage ? as my last 10 debates as instigator is almost double of my overall winning percentage ?of course not, cause there are too many other variables going on here which have not being accounted for, just likes pros interpretation.

I look foward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.venganza.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

( It seems my opponent did not realise that those case examples I provided were meant as evidence. I would like to point out that was intended to be so.)

Interpretation of what's being argued:

Overall yes, always not necessarily.

Responses:

1) Regarding my opponents point that the benefit of making up the resolution to some extent counters the last word advantage. My response is 2 fold, a) statistical, b) reason:

a)clear statistical data showing that there is a last word advantage. (these stats were not provided previously bec. I didn't have them.) The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%."

b)I understand where my opponent s coming from but I still maintain my position. My opponents point would be true if you agree to debate then made the resolution, but the way it works is that the resolution is made and the contender chooses to debate that resolution. There is a statement that 2 people chose/ agreed to debate what difference does it make who made the statement.

2) I am not shore I clearly understand this point but I can hear something might be in it I ask my opponent to clarify in the next round for my benefit as well as any reader who is unclear on the point being made. Regardless of exactly what the point being made is the previously mentioned state takes care of it.

3)To my opponents final argument in the reason section, my response is 2 fold: a)reason, b)statistical.

a)What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round. In fact it seems to be the opposite pre-emtive strikes are disadvantageous, The following is a quote from Roy lathem among the most experienced debaters on ddo:" ...presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning...".
Another quote: "Incidentally, a big problem I have with instigating is that when my opening case is revealed, often good debaters won't take it and the challenge expires. That means the work in preparing a case is wasted. That's true even when the person agrees to debate the subject ahead of time. I got J.Kenyon to agree to debate the border fence, but once he saw my case he let the challenge expire. My new approach is make the first round for acceptance only in order to conceal the case."

b)There previous mentioned state quoted from Ore_Ele.

statistical evidence:

My opponent makes good points with regard to statistics. which is why I attempted to bring many different statistical analysis.
Any problem with statistical analysis has been taken care of by, my now mantra from Ore_ele, "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%."

My opponents final point in which he quotes Roy, is in my opinion his most valid argument. My responses are as follows:

1)With such a large gap of nearly twice as many contenders to instigators winning can hardly be blamed on BoP alone.

2) BoP is often shared (or sole the contenders).

3) I ironically point to my opponents point that there are reasons why instigator would have advantage, and despite these reasons there is such a large gap in the winning rates can hardly be blamed on BoP alone.

4)Lastly since I have countered on the reason front, that there is a last word factor, and my opponent even seems to agree to the reasoning on some level, and the statistical evidence points to a contender advantage, it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Interpretation of the argument

Pro in the last round says..."it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason."

This is moving the goal posts by Pro and I reject it. I am not going to let them change what they are claiming mid way through the debate. Pro had always implied that the instigator was at an OVERALL disadvantage BECAUSE the contender has the last word.

I agreed that the instigator had a disadvantage in not having the last word. What I clearly said I was gong to argue was.. "I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage. "

1) The instigator gets to form the resolution

2) The instigator gets to make the first argument

I am not going to repeat myself on this point, I am confident most if not all readers will get the point here.

3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttal

Pro asks "What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round."

The difference it makes by making it in the first round by the instigator is that you already weaken if not refute the counter argument before the contender can even bring it up. It also makes a difference because if the contender wants to use that argument they have to make the argument while also defending it against your pre-emptive strike. Plus if the defender also has their own argument they want to use as well now they have to split their first round resources between trying to rescue their already attacked counter argument and their own argument as they try to establish their case.

Pros Statistical analysis

Previously I argued some data about Danielle and myself which actually "proved" the opposite of what Pro was trying to argue. I think this shows that we are not going to get anyway by arguing over the stats of a particular individual.

Pros Statistical analysis: Interpretation

But what about the overall stats from DDO ? as Pro says..." The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%.""

I am not going to challenge the numbers here, but what I am challenging is Pros interpretation. The numbers do not speak for themselves as this article from UNC says..."If the author gives you her statistics, it is always wise to interpret them yourself. That is, while it is useful to read and understand the author's interpretation, it is merely that—an interpretation. It is not the final word on the matter. Furthermore, sometimes authors (including you, so be careful) can use perfectly good statistics and come up with perfectly bad interpretations" [1]

This is why in the last round I gave that example of the pirates vs global average temperature. Its not that the data is in doubt, it just that it is wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that based on this data that the rise in global temperature is caused by the loss in the numbers of pirates.

Like wise, I am arguing that although the data shows a higher winning percentage for the contenders overall on DDO its wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that this due to the "last word" factor, as there are plenty of other factors going on and unaccounted for, just like in the pirates and temperature example.

Pros statistic analysis: Correlation is not proof of causation

As part of Pros argument they use two variables, the contenders winning percentage as variable 1 and the contender having the last word as variable 2. Pro tries to suggest a causation between these two variables. But this can't be taken as a given as wikipedia says..."The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate the potential existence of causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown, and high correlations also overlap with identity relations (tautologies), where no causal process exists. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction)." [2]

Pros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted for

I don't think Pro realizes the full ramifications of Roys comments. Remember on DDO the instigator most of the time creates the debate then waits for some one to accept the debate, and that person who accepts the debate becomes the contender.

What Roy was saying is that people, especially experienced debaters who care about winning debates, are cherry picking which debates they take. This is why Roy talks about how debaters are scared off from seeing an instigator with a strong round 1 argument.

In other words these potential contenders are going after an easy or easier win. This would explain why contenders have a higher winning percentage, as they are only accepting debates that gives them a good chance, and a higher chance of winning. Now how does Pros analysis take this into consideration ? it doesn't.

As such I think we have good grounds for not accepting Pros interpretation of the data that says the contender has a higher winning percentage due the the "last word" factor.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.unc.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

Response:

I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. My opponent responded that while it is an advantage it is evened out by other advantages that the instigator has. I responded that, no, it has not, and evidence of that is the overwhelming nearly 2:1 difference in in winnings of contender verse instigator.

My opponent then In many words and examples quite correctly show that numbers don't necessarily prove any conclusion that fit the #'s.

This is true #'s don't necessarily prove any conclusion that fits with the data, it some times does, and one must use logic to determine when the statistical evidence is valid, otherwise we could never use statistical data to draw conclusions.

As my opponent himself stated my reason is a valid reason, but it is equaled by other factors. My statistical analysis shows that not to be true by a very large margin. This clearly shows that his other factors do not out way my reason.

The difference between my use of statistical data, to the example my opponent gave, is that in my opponents example there is no logical reason to believe that there is a correlation between weather patterns and piracy. As opposed to in my case there is a clear reason to believe that last word could give contender an advantage, as my opponent agreed. The only question is does it in fact do so, or do other factors even it out. My statistical evidence clearly shows that the other factors do not out way the last word factor, and indeed tends to give the contender an overall advantage.

My opponents final point is that there are other factors that could explain contenders higher win rate. My response is as follows:

1) So what? So what if there are also other factors. It was agreed that my reason is a valid one, my opponent argued however that other factors out way it. my statistics show that not to be the case. So what if there are additional factors that explain contenders higher win rate. That does not negate my reason which my opponent agreed was a valid reason.

2) The gap is too large to be explained by these other factors alone. In addition to my opponents reasons that instigator should win there are other reasons such as unlimited preparation time. Despite all this There is such a tremendous 2:1 gap in the winning rate. It is unlikely that this is on account of my opponents other possible reasons alone.
It was agreed that my reason is a valid one, but other factors out way it. my statistics show that not to be the case.
There is a clear higher rate of contender winning this is clearly (at least in part) to my accepted reason.

Point Drooped:
My argument was composed of 3 parts. 1)reason, 2)data, 3)case examples.

My 3rd point, case examples, which was included in my 1st round of arguments, round 2, was not at all mentioned by my opponent. I pointed this out at the beginning of round 3, after which he still did not say a word, not addressing them neither on the whole or even one individually. This is a repeat of what happened in the final case I gave case # 4. I point this out to the reader so a repeat of the unfair voting does not happen again. My opponent will probably now want to respond, and I will be powerless to respond to his response. Is this fair? If this were to happen it would itself be evidence of unfair advantage of having the last word.

Summary:

My resolution was that having the last word gives the contender an overall advantage.

My opponent agreed that this is a factor, However, overall due to factors in favor of instigator it is canceled out.

I brought a statistic showing a near 2:1 ratio in wins, of contender to instigator.

My opponent argued statistics don't prove all conclusion, and that there may be other factors contributing.

I explained why in this case the conclusion is supported by the statistics as there is a reasonable association.

I argued so what if there may be other reasons. This is clearly a reason contributing to contenders advantage.

One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win.

If my opponent would like a redo he should challenge me and I will accept. (We will have to find a time as I am extremely busy now.)

I thank my opponent for the debate and the reader for reading. Vote pro.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Pro says..."One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win."

Well Pro is entitled their opinion, I am also entitled to my opinion that I should win cause I have a squirell with coffee in my avatar. Never the less I think readers and voters will judge the debate in its entirety and can make judgement on what are the important points and what are not so important.

Interpretation of the argument

I was happy to hear Pro at the start of the last round say..."I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage."

So was Pro able to carry this burden through out this debate ?

The instigators advantages

I presented 3 advantages that the instigator has that can negate the advantage of the last word advantage of the contender.

1) The instigator gets to form the resolution
2) The instigator gets to make the first argument
3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttal

Pro didn't dis agree that these were advantages available to the Instigator, at best Pro tried to down play those advantages. If Pro can assert that the last word advantage trumps these advantages, then I can merely assert that these advantages trump the last word advantage.

Pro statistical Analysis

Pros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted for

You will recall I bought up the problem of how experienced debators as potential contenders are cherry picking the easier debates thus we would expect that the contenders overall on DDO to have a higher winning percentage. Pro didn't argue against this.

So I asked, how did Pro account for this in their analysis ? Pros reply is merely so what. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Pros interpretation of the data. Pro hasn't been able to isolate the variable of last word advantage with the variable of contender winning percentage, as such causation has not be proven and their data is open to more than one interpretation and thus is equivocal.

I can merely retort that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is due to the cherry picking of potential contenders and the same data that Pro uses will support my claim as well, cause the data is equivocal. As such its unjustified to make the claim based on this data that is has been proven that or that its beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is the last word factor.

Pro has not been able to establish causation between the contenders winning percentage and the last word factor.

As such I submit Pro has not be able to prove that the contender is at an overall advantage because of the last word factor, as Pro had sought to show..."I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage.""

Vote Con

I thank Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
same as prev.

My opponents second point is also invalid as he has not shown that this causes an advantage. furthermore I don't follow the logic, clarification and explanation on this would be appreciated.

To my opponents 3rd point my reply is the same as the previous.

Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposite side as instigator in 9 0f the past 9 debates. The results show, bec. of this (or I should say in spite of it) he has a winning percentile of 58% significantly lower than the 1st debater who has a winning percent of over 90.
Next #3 an impressive 94% win rate, 4 out of the past 5 debates was contender.
Next #4 a moderate 80% and likewise has been contender 3 of last 5.
#5 (in my opinion the best debater on ddo) has an impressive 94% win rate and 4 of past 5 he was contender.
#6 similar to #4.
#7 88.4 contender 4 of 5.
#8 similar to #2, 53% win rate and majority of past 5 have been instigator.
#9 88.9 majority contender.
finally #10 like #4 and #6.
wow. Even I didn't expect the #'s to match my theory so well but they clearly do. I know this isn't the most perfect data proof but hey, I'm just starting. I don't have any specific proofs yet but I shall attempt to compute more sound statistical proof. As my theory goes save the best for last.
I might add the impetus for this craze/ crusade of mine. losing the past 5 debates I instigated which I think I should have won. I may get into specifics of those debates in future rounds.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
This can and should be ignored .I just wanted to save what i've written so far.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
"this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage."
I believe my opponent is exaggerating and over generalizing a modest statement. All I said was that "the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word." My opponent added words "automatically" and "always"
blowing my simple statement out of proportion.

My opponents 1st point that the instigator forms the resolution as an advantage to counter the disadvantage is invalid, the resolution is what the debate is about, the contender agreed to debate this resolution. It is not an advantage in the debate. My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. I hope I have made this point clear I will probably have to clarify it in following rounds as my opponent responds.
A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word.

My opponents second point is also invalid as he has not shown that this causes an advantage. furthermore I don't follow the logic, clarification and explanation on this would be appreciated.

To my opponents 3rd point my reply is the same as the previous.

Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposit
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
This can and should be ignored .I just wanted to save what i've written so far.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
"this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage."
I believe my opponent is exaggerating and over generalizing a modest statement. All I said was that "the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word." My opponent added words "automatically" and "always"
blowing my simple statement out of proportion.

My opponents 1st point that the instigator forms the resolution as an advantage to counter the disadvantage is invalid, the resolution is what the debate is about, the contender agreed to debate this resolution. It is not an advantage in the debate. My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. I hope I have made this point clear I will probably have to clarify it in following rounds as my opponent responds.
A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word.

My opponents second point is also invalid as he has not shown that this causes an advantage. furthermore I don't follow the logic, clarification and explanation on this would be appreciated.

To my opponents 3rd point my reply is the same as the previous.

Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters".

The "top" debater on ddo (i.e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time.
To contrast the debater in 2nd place bravely chooses the opposit
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
truthseeker613IllegalcombatantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the last word.