the Are You Dumb Challenge
Debate Rounds (5)
"lacking the power of speech."
I am able to speak.
Now, the definition of stupid is "lacking intelligence or common sense". Therefore the fact that my opponent lacked the intelligence to know which definition to use for "dumb" proves he/she is stupid. And since the definition of dumb is "stupid", therefore my opponent is dumb.
The second way is through reverse physiology. I asked are you dumb? The real question is are you smart? But my opponent fell into the trap as soon as he accepted this challenge. To accept the challenge was to accept the fact that you are dumb and are trying to prove that you are not. Since my opponent has not proven that he is smart, he therefore is still dumb.
The third way that I will prove that my opponent is dumb is through the definition of stupidity.
Stupid-"lacking intelligence or common sense."
My opponent lacked common sense when he accepted this challenge. The truth is, everyone is dumb. Now my opponent lacked common sense in failing to realize that. We all lack intelligence otherwise there would be no point in going to school. Being dumb is not a bad thing unless you're obnoxiously dumb.
My fourth way in proving that my opponent is dumb is through ranking. Through my opponents profile I have found that he is a 46 year old American who is an artist. Being an artist is not really an intelligent (as in mathematics, science, etc.) field but a very skillful one. Unfortunately dumb is measured by intelligence and common sense. He is a 46 year old who probably does not remember much about fields in science or math. A 46 year olds brain is not as quick as a child's brain and since intelligence is the factor being measure, therefore every student in any university or college taking maths or sciences is therefore smarter than my opponent. Also those in the fields of maths, sciences, languages, etc, are smarter than him too. That is a lot of people in the world that are smarter than you. At least one person is smarter than my opponent, therefore when compared, my opponent is more dumb.
I proven four ways that my opponent is dumb. Now I will let my opponent prove why he's not.
"This is a challenge to prove that you are not dumb. I am here to prove you are dumb and you are trying to prove you're not dumb."
I proved I am not dumb. I can speak. Pro did not define terms. Nevertheless, I'm game.
I played the piano at age 3.
I was born in Libya. I came to America at age 13, and I graduated from the Massachusettes Institute of Technology. At age 16 I was recruited by the U.S. government for certain disclosed employment because of certain "abnormal abilities". I worked for the government, fulfilled my duties and became self employed. I became a multi millionaire at age 32. I retired, and now I travel the world.
Playing the piano at the age of three does not have anything to do with your intelligence. Neither does boasting about being in a secret government agency and becoming a multi-millionaire. None of the evidence you have could be supported.
It's extremely far fetched that a government agent who is a multi-millionaire who travels the world is debating whether or not he is dumb on debate.org. And since we include dumb in all aspects, he has still not proven whether he's dumb or not.
Also technically my opponent has still not proven whether he can speak or not. So he actually may as well be dumb in both aspects.
Therefore my opponent has not refute any of my points nor has he proved that he is not dumb in both aspects.
"Playing the piano at the age of three does not have anything to do with your intelligence."
Playing the piano at a young age makes you more successful in life.
Playing piano at a young age is a sign of high intelligence.
Maybe this should be a "Pro is dumb" debate. Ahem... I digress...
"It's extremely far fetched that a government agent who is a multi-millionaire who travels the world is debating whether or not he is dumb on debate.org."
Why not? It's fun. Pro is on here. Is Pro dumb?
I never said I was any type of agent. High intelligence is used in diffrrent ways such as mathematics, science, etc etc.
Legal burden of proof
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to that party's own position.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
Philosophical Burden of proof-
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
Pro bares the burden of proof to prove that I am dumb. Sure, I could be, but Pro has not proven so. Maybe I cannot speak. Prove it. Maybe I have the brains of a chimpanzee. Prove it. Maybe I'm a unicorn. Maybe I'm a treasure troll. Probably not. Prove me to be a unicorn Pro.
I have proved that con is dumb in round three. Therefore the conclusion has stayed as it is. Con is dumb in both "stupidity" and "deafness" unless con proves otherwise in his last round.
Con claims that he plays the piano but has no evidence to back the claim up. Therefore, bringing up the fact that piano is linked to intelligence is useless. Con claims that he worked for the government but has nothing to back that up. Con also claims he can speak but has no proof of it. Therefore all cons points are useless and he is still dumb in terms of "stupidity" and "deafness".
In this debate we have what is called a presumption of innocence. This is based off of the legal term "innocent until proven guilty".
-The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
Pro has the burden of proof. Pro did not prove me to be anything. Besides, Pro is a panda, and pandas cannot type, thus Pro's character is in question now.
(Bronto scampers off into the weeds)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.