Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

kingcripple is a Cheater

Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2014 8:56:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

So, a bit of the backstory: he started a debate entitled "Abortion" with no additional information about the debate topic other than some information in his first post: "I believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this."

Following from this is that the question of the debate is "should abortion be legal?" with Pro arguing in favor, Con against. I accepted, only to find out--in his Round 2 argument--that the question was quite different. He claimed as his excuse that it was "2 a.m." and he hadn't made himself clear as a result. Obviously this was past the point of acceptance, so changing the topic to "Is abortion a viable choice"--especially when my first post indicated that I oppose abortion (and would be, for the most part, taking a position that I feel has some holes in it)--was not only malicious, but worked directly in his favor. I made my case nevertheless, because failure to do so was forfeiting. Who wants to do that?

Then, he sneaks a line in his second argument with an asterisk, which can be ready in full as "And that is why Abortion is not a viable choice considering that the mother and baby both would be perfectly healthy through the pregnancy and birth." Now, I noticed this before my first argument, but knew that the game of semantics (and of legality) was on my side. Not only is a statement in the form of "This is so considering this" not providing a limitation on his position, but it's making an assumption. If he said, "This is so provided that [insert condition here]," he would be making clear that he supports exceptions for the health and life of the mother.

But even if I accepted that he had made this position clear, how is this fair? The question went from legality, to whether abortion is a viable choice, to whether abortion is a viable choice in cases except for health and life--which I never agreed to debate. He commented that, because I posted my argument after him, I accepted his terms. That is simply not how it works, because he knew as well as I did that not posting an argument thereafter was forfeiting. Is that what he wanted? Well, he asked me to concede at least twice in his second argument, so I presume that was his intention.

What's most stunning is that the one individual who voted claimed that I "ran away from the debate topic." Clearly this person did not read the contents therein. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a friend of kingcripple.

The bottom line is that this guy is a cheater. If he cares so much about an online debate with prizes, give him the win. I hope people will read this, though, and take precautions before debating with him to ensure that he doesn't do this to you.