Instigator / Pro
Points: 25

Should we be allowed to instigate as Con?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
User_2006
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
7,500
Contender / Con
Points: 18
Description
My opponent has posted a comment that we should, not ever, instigate as CON. I am here to oppose her idea.
Round 1
Published:

If you see clearly, you should see a choice of instigator's position:
Pro
or 
Con. 

The reason the website put in this choice is that this should be allowed.
Published:
Pro thinks we should be allowed to instigate as con, based solely on the fact that we are allowed to instigate as con. This is terrible logic, by the same logic we should be able to rape 13 year olds, if that is legal.

What pro fails to realize is that what should happen is far different from the reality of what does happen. 

So the word "should" is really a statement on what is superior. Instigating as con or pro, or are they of equal value. 

When instigating a debate you are making a statement about the belief system you wish to defend. If you are going to start off defending it, it seems silly to start with the con side. Look there is a reason why websites have  pro and con lists and not con and pro lists, when we make a tough decision, we use pros and cons list not visa versa. It's dumb.

When you instigate as con, it implies that you aren't really looking to defend your belief but attack another person's belief. If you are pro choice it is easy to instigate a debate that says 

"This house believes abortion should be legal" If you are pro life you should easily be able to instigate by saying "This house believes that abortion should be illegal". 

There is also the subtle distinction between a positive statement and a negative one. Creating a debate and defending your belief should be done with a positive statement so you assume a fair amount of the burden of proof.  For example if you believe aliens have never visited the Earth, by wording it so you are con you take the easy route and eschew any burden of proof and put it on your opponent. 

Here is how a coward would word the debate "Aliens have visited the Earth" and then take the con position, putting a perceived extra burden of proof on the person accepting the debate. However if they were to word the debate "It is unlikely aliens have visited Earth" than they would be making a positive assertion and have a fair amount of the burden and they can begin making talking points such as how difficult light speed travel is, instead of taking the con possition and cowardly shooting down pros arguments and never making a case themselves.

In reality debates should mostly have both sides with some burden of proof, but given the fact judges are not sophisticated enough to know the appropriate burdens to place on debaters, than they can gain an extra advantage by instigating as con and merely shooting down arguments. 

You can honestly see this cowardice with most instigated debates in one form or another, if the debater is not trying to game the system by taking a topic where they are arguing more of a truism like in every one of oromagi's debates than they game the system by instigating as con so they can be percieved as having a lower burden of proof by unsophisticated judges
Round 2
Published:
This is terrible logic, by the same logic we should be able to rape 13 year olds, if that is legal.
That is why it is illegal. And BTW, this is the definition of "legal". If it is legal for you it means you should be able to do. You might not want to do this, but you are able to do it. If the site owner(Who, unlike DDO's, is still active) has put the choice of "Instigate as Con", There are reasons present. Your argument can be easily exploited. 

So the word "should" is really a statement on what is superior. Instigating as con or pro, or are they of equal value. 
They are of equal value. In fact, "should be able to" sometimes allows something inferior. According to this logic, PS2 controllers should not be allowed, knowing that PS4 is already of public. 

"This house believes abortion should be legal" If you are pro life you should easily be able to instigate by saying "This house believes that abortion should be illegal". 
You could easily put pro on "Donald Trump isn't a great president". The words you are looking for are of such: "Is", "does", "should", "can", these would mean that the topic is Pro and that means the person is defending the argument; "isn't", "doesn't", shouldn't", and "can't" would mean that this topic is Con and that the person disagrees with Pro's position and attacks. 

In simple words, Instigating as Pro for a topic that assures a negative perspective still counts as Con in the overall topic, and "Donald Trump is not a great president" in terms of instigating as Pro would be the same as "Donald Trump is a great president" instigating as Con. Ce n’est rien.

That is all I have to prove. 

Conclusion: It makes no difference for instigating as Con or Pro because this system can be easily exploited by the instigator by stating Con's claim on a topic under Pro's claim. 

Forfeited
Added:
I'm just going to say this here, and not make it part of my vote verbiage, but I've come to believe a debate posed by using an interrogative is not the best form. I've done it myself, so I'm not throwing stones, other than at me. For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1805/are-democrats-tired-of-losing-against-trump
So, avoiding that bad form, I'll vote...
#3
Added:
--> @K_Michael
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:K_Michael // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro.
>Reason for Decision:
"The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action: While the voter did cast his vote for the side that forfeited, he has met the requirements of the Voting Policy. Therefore, this vote does not merit removal.
************************************************************************
#2
Added:
Going to have to step it up pro. Con is right, "we are currently able to therefore we ought to be able to" is pretty weak...
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Over all, I find this a useless debate. Arguing a format of a site that allows flexibility is restricting in a very real sense that I find unnecessary and ill-advised. So, one does not like a broader spectrum of what is and is not allowed, either deal with it, or make your own debate site, and good luck.
Argument: Con had a good first round, and Pro had a good, and unopposed second round, and both suffered the reverse in the relative rounds. On the basis of argument, alone, on merit, and not considering the forfeit factor, which must be considered, this feature of the debate is a tie.
Sources: Pro offered the only source of the debate, but I call foul relative to the circular reference; a new debate form. That is not a supporting feature of Pro's argument, it is merely evidence everyone who opens a debate can see, and it does not favor either Pro or Con. If I could withdraw, rather than merely assign points, I would. Unfortunately, I can only call a tie. Not to mention the forfeit factor, except I just did.
S&G: tie
Conduct. Con had the bad form to forfeit half the debate. Therefore, a foregone conclusion: point to Pro
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Technically under this site's rules, this is a full forfeit.
"Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"
Singularity only argued one round.
----------------------------------
PRO: Rules allow it, and the site expressly gives this a viable option. Effectively pushes the burden to Con to prove the rules are wrong. I will say this is a very weak opening for a two-round debate. It does not survive on its own.
CON: Starts by stating the fact that you are able to do something does not make it right. This is not even logic. This is disturbing. Pro stated that the site gave the choice as an option. Society goes not give people an express option to rape 13 year olds.
CON then tries to argue that debate can only be initiated from a Pro position because the common vernacular is pro vs con, not con vs pro. This argument is very weak. Con then says that people who instigate as a Con are cowards. I will remind the house that Con in this debate has instigated debate as Con. Con then tries to justify their position by stating that the issue is with the judges and their level of sophistication. However, Con never supports that position.
PRO then does a good job addressing the points made by Con. However PRO really nailed it at the end. Linguistically it is all semantics, and forcing the instigation to be only Pro does nothing more than modifying the way the resolution is drafted and has no other value. A fantastic final piece of logic and statement.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The argument made by Con is pretty simple. That X is allowed does not make it follow that X should be allowed. The justification in the second round is flimsy. Even if you presume that everything is allowed for a well thought out reason doesn't mean that the reason is good. Hitler had thought-out reasons for every law passed that persecuted Jews, gays, etc. This doesn't make it right. This is essentially the point that Con made in R1, and it preempted the R2 rebuttal by Pro. Arguments to Con.
Although I think 2 rounds is ridiculous, Con did forfeit half the rounds. Conduct to Pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I really worry about con's obsession with pedophilia, as his mind apparently jumps to comparing a weak weak case to "rape 13 year olds."
Pro came around in R2 with a strong argument that resolutions can equally employ negative statements anyway (if those should not be allowed from a con instigator, could be an interesting debate); to which con could come up with no reply.
Anyway with con choosing to drop all arguments after the first round, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.