Instigator / Pro
12
1421
rating
127
debates
31.89%
won
Topic

I can predict my opponent's future arguments in this debate.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
3
6
Sources points
4
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
2
3

With 3 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

PressF4Respect
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
18
1535
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description
~ 237 / 5,000

"I": the user known as seldiora.

predict: say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

In order for pro to win he has to successfully predict one of his opponent's arguments.

Round 1
Pro
I can predict my opponent's arguments because there are only three types of arguments: ethos, pathos, logos. The great philosopher Aristotle's came up with this idea (http://www.bookofthrees.com/ethos-pathos-logos-a-general-summary-of-aristotles-appeals/#:~:text=The%20Greek%20philosopher%20Aristotle%20divided%20the%20means%20of,We%20tend%20to%20believe%20people%20whom%20we%20respect.). It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to build an argument without using any of these three.

Firstly, ethos, credibility. My opponent will want others to trust him. As such he will try to undermine my authority, or even Aristotles. He will likely try to come up with some crucial hole in Aristotle's theory, especially since his philosophy is very old and we have advanced from ages. I will not concede that Aristotle's idea is flawed merely due to age, unless my opponent provides evidence to the contrary, but I am predicting my opponent will try to attack this idea since it is the core idea of my argument.

Second, pathos, emotion. In any debate there is at least some type of feeling involved because humans are motivated by their stimulus in their brain. As a book that introduces Psychology states, " Because they involve arousal, emotions and motivations are “hot” — they “charge,” “drive,” or “move” our behaviour." (https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/chapter-10-emotions-and-motivations/#:~:text=Because%20they%20involve%20arousal%2C%20emotions%20and%20motivations%20are,us%20with%20energy%20to%20respond%20to%20our%20environment.). As such, my opponent will likely tackle some aspect of what makes people want to feel like I haven't predicted his arguments. I think putting doubt in the voters is the most likely approach, and trying to allude to voters' confidence within his ethos (working together), he will craft his argument as such.

Thirdly, logos -- logic or reason. This is the make or break of the argument, but he only has two ways to go about this. He can try putting everything into ethos and pathos, using fun wit to prove that he did not need logos to make his argument. But the lack of logos is in fact a way of arguing in itself. Secondly, he can try further solidifying his stance by perhaps alluding to the fact that humans may be wrong sometimes, and that people are generally unpredictable. However, I counter that philosophy is meant to summarize human behavior. If my opponent tries to get out of this by not debating at all or sending nonsensical arguments, they would be weak and he would still have four more rounds to go to prove I still can't predict his arguments despite the groundwork laid by his way of arguing in round 1.

Con
Nice try. According to the description, Pro must predict what specific argument I will make in order to win, not just which mode(s) of persuasion my argument uses.

Round 2
Pro
well done, opponent. However, my proposition still works even with specified argument vs mode of argument. You see, argument itself is "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.". My opponent has already tried asserting his case on my burden of proof, this is an excellent argument I have not thought of, however, as this is the only argument he has right now, I predict that he will try further asserting that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof. Therein lies the trap of this debate: I don't have to get it right on the first try. This debate is devious but my opponent accepted knowing that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to further prove his point. He will try to keep using this same argument against me. 

Even within his short statement, he has already appealed to arguments related to two of the three modes:

He undermines my credibility by pointing out my need to fulfill the burden. He appeals to logic and reason, the fact that I made a debate topic and I must have concrete evidence or proof of my stance. In a way, I have already predicted his arguments correctly. I said he would point out the critical flaw in Aristotle's philosophy, that it was a generalization rather than a true argument. He is confident in his argument, even with his mere "nice try" remark, letting arguers further believe that his simple statement defeated my argument.

I believe that I have won. Vote for pro.
Con
The Cambrian Explosion (CE)
Before I go into this point, I would like to point out that both PragerU (at least in this video) and I agree that CE occurred sometime around 530 million years ago. This means that the Young Earth Creationist model is out of the question entirely.

In the first point, PragerU argues that the rapid diversification of life forms during CE, and the lack of precedent "transitional" life forms (at least the ones that exhibit similar levels of complexity) in the fossil record, refutes (or at least makes very unlikely) the contemporary scientific model of evolution. I will assume that this is the case, that we have little (or no) evidence of life forms (at all, or ones that exhibit similar levels of complexity) in the fossil record before CE. I have not researched the validity of this, and am just assuming that it is the case. 

Just because we don’t have fossil evidence of these “transitional” life forms, doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist. Very few organisms gets fossilized in the first place, and not every one of those fossils survived up to the present day. This is especially true for soft-bodied creatures, as soft tissue is much less likely (though not impossible) to be fossilized and preserved for hundreds of millions of years. You therefore cannot conclude that there were no complex life forms before CE.

Even if we take for granted that there are in fact no precedent “transitional” life forms with similar complexities to the ones seen during CE, the argument still wouldn’t stand. The claim that complex life forms coming out of relatively simple ones in a short timespan cannot happen assumes that the rate of evolution is constant (or at least slower than the supposed rate seen during CE). This is not the case. The rate of evolution is highly variable, and can be influenced by a variety of factors. For example, a sudden increase in oxygen levels (like the one that happened just before CE) would put additional pressure on the organisms to adapt to the new environment, thus quickening the rate of evolution and making the changes more pronounced. 

Vote Con.

Round 3
Pro
my opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and gone forth to talk about something completely irrelevant to the topic. Extend all arguments from round two, vote pro.
Con
Pro never stated that the arguments of a certain round needed to be connected to the arguments made in the other rounds. Since the topic is about Pro predicting Con's future arguments, any argument I make is related to this topic. With that said, I will now proceed to my R3 argument:

Wetness describes the state of something being wet. “Wet” is a conditional adjective [1], meaning that it is “subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition” [2]. The condition of an object being “wet” is dependent upon being, as defined by Pro in the first round, “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” Likewise, as all conditional adjectives are based upon a condition, the state of the condition being removed would result in the antonym (the state that the object is not in), applying. In this case, as wetness is described as the characteristic of being covered or saturated with water or another liquid, the removal of the water (or other liquid) which caused the object to be wet in the first place would render the object “unwet”. This state of being “unwet” is what we call dryness. 

As conditional adjectives describe an object subject to, implying, or dependant upon a condition, and the fact that all conditional states can be made into their respective antonyms by the removal of said condition, the presence of the condition can also be described as the absence of its antonym. This is known as a double negative. In this case, the adjective “wet” can also be described as “not dry”. With this said, it can be observed that all conditionals are relative, that is, they only make sense with regard to the antonym which they are compared to. In short, you cannot have one without the concept of the other. Nothing can be “wet” without the idea of it being able to be “dry”. 

The process of the object becoming “dry” involves the removal of water from the object. This makes sense for everything that can be made “wet”. Spill water on the counter, it becomes “wet”. You can then wipe away the water, and it would become “dry”. After your wash your clothes they are “wet”. Put them in the dryer or hang them and they will become “dry”. Step out of the shower, and you are “wet”. Wipe yourself with a towel, and you will become “dry”. However, if you claim that water is “wet”, then by the very definition of “wetness”, it must also be able to be made “dry”. Here, we run into a problem. The process of making something dry involves the removal of water. However, since the object in question IS water, by removing the water, we are left with nothing. Since the water no longer exists, there is no way of describing it. Hence, there is no “dry water”. Since wet things must be able to be dried, and since water cannot be dried (it no longer exists if it is dried), the only logical conclusion is that water cannot be wet. 

Vote Con!
Round 4
Pro
though my opponent is free to go crazy with his arguments, he has not refuted the idea that I already managed to predict his arguments within round one, as analyzed within round two. All arguments extended.
Con
he has not refuted the idea that I already managed to predict his arguments within round one, as analyzed within round two.
What idea? What arguments that I made have you predicted?

Round 5
Pro
He acts ignorant but I have stated it clearly.  He pointed out a flaw in aristotles philosophy. Please vote pro.

Con
Final Rebuttal
Pro claims that:
[Con] pointed out a flaw in aristotles philosophy.
However, this is not the case. Nowhere in this debate have I mentioned a flaw in Aristotle's philosophy. In my R1 statement:
According to the description, Pro must predict what specific argument I will make in order to win, not just which mode(s) of persuasion my argument uses.
I stated how the modes of persuasion were inapplicable to this debate. I never directly addressed Aristotle's Philosophy, let alone point out any flaws within it. 

Pro repeatedly claims to cite this as the reason for winning, thus showing it to be deliberate. Pro has blatantly strawmanned my argument, thus dropping the point entirely. As that was the only argument I made which Pro addressed, this amounts to Pro dropping the entire debate, regardless of whether he met his BOP or not.

VOTE CON!!!

Yours truly,
F ;)