The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

I will lose this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Entertainment Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 2,034 times Debate No: 24096
Debate Rounds (3)

 Pro I will lose this debate. First round is for acceptance.Report this Argument Con Before my opponent can prove they lost this debate they first must 1) prove their existence (they must prove their actually is an "I") and then, 2) prove this debate exists (their must be a debate to lost). Only then can they prove that they lost the debate :PReport this Argument Pro The Descartes argument:I think, therefore I am. Therefore I exist. The ontological argument for the existence of this debate:You can imagine this debate, therefore this debate exists.I will not prove either of these, because that would mean winning the debate, which I am not going to do.Report this Argument Con Descartes: You may have proven to yourself that you exist. But, how do I know you think? I do not. Furthermore, you could just be a butterfly dreaming of being human. Solipsism holds there is only one person in existence, everyone else is just a product of their mind. So until you can prove you are not just a product of my mind, this debate is fallacious because you can neither win nor lose this debate, only I can win or lose this debate and as such, I must win because voting for "my opponent" would be voting for a non-existent entity. Ontological argument: Now let's spin things around, what if my opponent believes in solipsism? Then there is no "you" (me) present in this debate. Therefore, my opponent is simply imagining me, imagine this debate. And they are the only one imagining this debate. The ontological argument, thus, fails. If that is so, this debate does not exist, and neither I nor my opponent can win or lose this debate. Therefore, the voter's have one of two choices (at the present time) voting Con, off of the Descartes argument, or voting Tie, off of the Ontological argument.Report this Argument Pro Ah, but if I refuted your arguments, I'd be winning the debate, wouldn't I. Nope, I'm definitely going to lose.Report this Argument Con Descartes: There is no "I" to lose this debate. "I" does not exist. Therefore, "I" [my opponent] cannot lose because they do not exist. Therefore, I [THEBOMB] must win. Ontological argument: Well seeing how my opponent never contested the Descartes arguments...Report this Argument
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anachronist 6 years ago
Yeah, he's right, I don't exist, and therefore lose the debate automatically.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
Posted by pngwn56 6 years ago
But if pro is in a constant state of winning and losing... then he has lost, and therefore has won.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
nope, the entity "Pro" is the same as the entity "con" (as established by the debate) therefore, Pro losing is the same as Con losing :D So basically, Con is in a constant state of winning and losing :P
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 6 years ago
philosophically the pro can loose the debate even if you win.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
You don't exist :P

Posted by anachronist 6 years ago
Haha, I am losing the debate, therefore winning, therefore losing?
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
ummm...VB?
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
Zaradi, it's a perfectly valid philosophy :P

and Pro doesn't exist dairygirl :P
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 6 years ago
if con loses the debate... then that means he really won the debate, his affirmation was affirmed. and all the voters who voted against him were wrong.

but then, if he won the debate, then he'd have really lost the debate. and all the voters who voted against him were right.

i think im going cross eyed...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.