The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheResistance
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

stupidity=doubting myself

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheResistance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 214 times Debate No: 84741
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

seeing all, i only run into a fence on purpose
TheResistance

Con

I negate the resolution resolved,
stupidty=doubting myself

C1: Definitions
Subpoint A: Definition of stupidity
Merriam Webster defines this as:
"a stupid idea or act"
Thus, stupidy cannot mean doubting myself, as explained
Subpoint B: Definition of Doubting
Merriam Webster defines this as,
"to lack confidence in"

These two definitions do not match, so it is incorrect and it is why you should vote for the Con side. My opponent is trying to say that a stupid idea is equal to lacking in confidence. This is obviously incorrect because sometimes you cannot say that people doubt stupid ideas, as explained:

C2: People do not doubt stupid ideas
Berkun, 2015
"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they"re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent"s friends) they"ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it"s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable."

People are comfortable of defending stupidity, and even though they will defend stupid actions, it does not mean they are doubting their selves; in fact they are confident to defend them. Thus, stupidity does not mean people are doubting themselves.

SO with these reasons and the following to come, I urge a ballot in the Con side. Thank you.

http://scottberkun.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

the definitions are one and the same

maybe its stupid to drink alcohol in the first place
TheResistance

Con

Let's look at my opponent's arguments.
"seeing all, i only run into a fence on purpose"
This rebuttal has NOTHING to do with this resolution due to the fact that it is stupidity, but however, it has nothing to do with doubting oneself. My opponent is trying to say that, just because you run into a fence on purpose, that someone doubted his/her self? Of course not. One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless.

Next rebuttal
"the definitions are one and the same"
Ok. Since I have reliably sourced my definitions, and my opponents haven't, my definitions still stand today, which I will repost:
Subpoint A: Definition of stupidity
Merriam Webster defines this as:
"a stupid idea or act"
Thus, stupidity cannot mean doubting myself, as explained
Subpoint B: Definition of Doubting
Merriam Webster defines this as,
"to lack confidence in"
and thus stupidity does not equal to doubting myself because a stupid idea or act does not equal to lacking confidence

Next point
"maybe it's stupid to drink alcohol in the first place"
Again, not relevant. Just because someone is stupid to drink alcohol in the first place, does it mean the person is doubting his/herself? Of course not.One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless.

My opponents haven't hit my second contention, so flow that on to the negative.

Today, their rebuttals and contentions have been refuted, thus they have no ground. However, they have never hit a single contention at all of mine, thus my case stands, thus I win.

I urge a ballot in the Con side in today's debate.

`TheResistance
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 11 months ago
Balacafa
vi_spexTheResistanceTied
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 provided rebuttal and arguments relevant to the resolution. Pro made arguments that were almost completely irrelevant to the resolution due to the lack of explanation of their significance. Since pro held the BOP and he failed to refute cons arguments,rebuttals and counter rebuttals. I cannot see that pro has demonstrated anything since cons arguments stand and pros are irrelevant to the resolution and are refuted despite their irrelevancy.