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

Reality of the Moon - RFD

Posts: 6,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
== Intro ==

This is an RFD for the debate titled "[t]he moon isn't real," between Randy0rt0n and Balacafa. The link to the debate is given here []. My RFD is in a forum thread, as it has now virtually replaced the "RFD in comments" version of external link RFDs.

== RFD ==

(1) Conduct. Con wins conduct, as Pro forfeited a round, and frequently insulted Con.

(2) Arguments. Con clearly wins arguments. Pro had absolutely no offense. Their arguments were entirely semantic, and picked out from Con's offense, e.g. picking out phrases that might be in Pro's favor. But that doesn't help Pro. Con manages to demonstrate -- using observational evidence -- that the moon exists. Pro drops most of Con's evidence. Pro's arguments are mainly "how do you know that the moon isn't (something)," which don't constitute proper offense, merely acknowledging possibility. In an impact calculus, Con clearly wins on probability, and, due to Pro lacking proper offense, magnitude. Pro frequently asserts things without evidence, and there are multiple ipse dixit fallacies from Pro, which severely dampen the effect of what little offense Pro has.

(3) Sources. Con uses multiple sources to sufficiently back up their claims, and effectively utilizes them. He has multiple sources that show observational -- inductive -- evidence for the existence of the moon. Pro drops all of Con's evidence, and has no sources of their own, which isn't enough to warrant multiple bare assertions. Pro argues from conspiracy theories and other hypotheses, none of which are supported by any citations. Con manages to effectively use citations to support all of their offense.

So that's why I voted Con.

[Sidenote: if I have any add-ons, I will add them later in this thread, though I sincerely doubt that any such add-ons are required.]
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.