Instigator / Pro
0
1526
rating
28
debates
57.14%
won
Topic

"I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1692
rating
76
debates
69.74%
won
Description
~ 134 / 5,000

Intended for fauxlaw but anyone who agrees with him may accept.
Almost everything is up for change: word count, number of rounds, etc.

Added:
Contender

What good does "bumping do? I'd really like to know. I am lobbying for an end to debates that end with no votes. Why bother doing the research in a debate if no one is willing to review it?
- call me disillusioned.

Added:

Bump to encourage voting.

Added:
Instigator

bump for votes

Added:
Instigator

daily bump

Added:
Instigator

bump

Added:
Contender
--> @K_Michael

You: "I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before."

But you ignore that this second debate proposal is a virtual quote from our previous debate. My quote. So, take your claim from your #4, #6, let alone your reference in your round 2 argument and strike them because your claim is not true. You, you, you, and no one but you made the reference to our previous debate before anybody else in this debate. Period.
Drop it.

Added:
Instigator
--> @fauxlaw

We are not friends. I do not use that word lightly. I've had too many bad experiences to toss around words with that kind of emotional baggage.

You said something. I disagreed with it. The rules say "Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible." I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before. If you'd like, we could pretend that a mysterious oracle told me what you said and THAT started an argument between the two of us, virtual strangers.

Added:
Contender
--> @K_Michael

Are you really going to contend that your debate proposal is NOT cross-thread contamination, being nearly a direct quote from our previous debate??? Motes and beams, my friend. Sticks and stones.

Added:
Instigator
--> @fauxlaw

I'm contending a single point you made in another debate. The fact that you posited this belief in another debate has nothing to do with my contention. I would have contended it even if you said it on your profile bio, a forum post, or on Facebook. Anything I said in another debate is not relevant to the current debate and should not be considered by voters. If you continue to violate the rules about cross-thread contamination, I will request that this debate be deleted by mods.

Added:
Contender
--> @K_Michael

My opponent said, to begin round 2: "My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this." Yes, I brought up our previous debate, still in debate mode https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021/there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
in my round 1.

I will remind my opponent that he is the initiator of this debate, and that his debate proposal, "I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude," is a virtual direct quote of my round 3, argument I.d in the above referenced debate: "'I can’t' is a defeatist’s attitude," but changed to its negative counterpart.
"...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7: 3
Let the readers take note.

Added:
Instigator

I forgot to link my source, it will be included in my next round.

Added:
--> @K_Michael

You are completely winning. Using the terms "I can't yet" is still containing "I can't".