It is Impossible For 100% of People in a group to be Above That Group Average at Anything
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
BoP on pro.
lucky for me there is a rogue agent voting like a 'madman' on debates.
somehow he is able to justify giving 5-6 points to one side. I'll just avoid wiki links and stay on his good side LMAO
I hope you both enjoyed the debate, as well as the limited feedback. I do regret not getting around to casting a vote. I hate to say it, but I honestly don't know which final outcome I would have assigned for the argument point...
In fact if Ragnar voted against me I would kinda prefer that in a way, at least then I would know I deserved the loss rather than losing to a blatant spite vote.
You can't in this case, and I don't disapprove of you doing so. Whether it is enough to give you the win is up to the voters and if Ragnar votes in your favor that's fine by me.
How can I win as Con wothout semantic trickery?
I think he is just making a general observation about how you point out that certain measurement statements cannot be used due to being nonsense but then go on to make an argument that has no specified measurements whatsoever yet supposedly measures an average and has all be above average.
No. I said that the height of people aren't people, see?
I have a lot going on in the next couple days, but here is the unfinished start to an analysis. Like Fauxlaw, I do agree with con on this, however I do not know for whom I would end up voting arguments (I might end up giving this another read to refine and cast a vote, but I make no promises).
---RFD like feedback---
Before reading this, I generally advise against using the word impossible in a resolution. As I describe in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt): The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
Of course to be able to judge this, I must accept that there's a possibility that it's impossible, and likewise a possibility that it's not impossible. For this not to be a mere truism (which would turn it into a non-moderated debate), the anything cannot be a single fixed metric.
Mean, Median or Mode:
Pro is correct that on any one measurement there will by necessity be those at or below the average.
Con's three things:
1. Correct, any one thing would disprove the resolution.
2. Dubious relevance, but this may be my bias from being trained at survey and research methodologies. As even con points out, it's "nitpicking at technicalities."
3. Correct, qualitative metrics are possible.
Con shows something where the measurements are "dynamic, analogue and thus ambiguous." He uses this to argue well in favor of his time factor, as different time intervals in the judging will have different winners. Which misses the easy path to victory, that sexiness separated by judges could allow each person to be not just above average but the maximal at different related metrics.
He did miss the easy path to victory here, or ratings to each judge.
This is too deep into semantics.
Pro defends via using the new numbers as needed inputs, which leaves them still at the average for their now older group.
"average of milliletres cellulose in a plant" "above the temperature, in Celcius, of the Arctic?"
This resolution is about people. Plants and terrain are not people. Con is trying to say if you count non-people as part of a related group with people, the people will be above average.
I have a preference for pro's organizational style, and suggest more section headings from con, but legibility was not harmed.
Forfeited round, and no conduct violations from the other side.
I consider not pressing the advantage because if I inherently know the proposition is false, I'd prefer to not engage the debate. There's no risk, and therefore not much fun in such a scenario. Pro simply made a claim I know holds no water, and proving it is too damn easy. Never the less, RM did a superb job at it, and I don't often find an opportunity where he and I agree. I think I prefer the scenario where we do, because at least, even when we disagree, I find his arguments well reasoned from his perspective.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider not pressing an advantage to be a conduct violation of similar magnitude to forfeiting a round?
Now y'all know why I declined to engage the debate. Being a Six Sigma Black Belt, retired, I know the proposition as presented is NOT impossible. I did not want to take unfair advantage by the knowledge, and Con skillfully represented my own thinking. Well done, RM. I have no hesitation, however, in voting on the debate.
If you mean to post any debate arguments then yes. This debate was originally intended for Fauxlaw, who claimed to disagree with this statement in a forum conversation but declined to debate it. RM accepting the debate after I made it an open challenge is actually nice. He [RM] will likely at least say something worth reading so stay tuned.
Do you anticipate RM to post anything at all?
I was preparing my round one ahead of time to post right away but didn't expect someone to accept so fast, I should have it posted tomorrow sometime.
"This is truism"
That's just how I roll bro. Still, arguing a truism is only a guaranteed win if I actually make a logical argument.
This is truism. Logically it is impossible for Con to win.