Instigator / Pro
12
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2134

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

PressF4Respect
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1523
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description

"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.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@fauxlaw
@Intelligence_06

Thank you all for voting!

-->
@blamonkey

Thank you, Bla.

-->
@blamonkey

No problem.

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 3 to Con

>Reason for Decision: Pro may as well have argued that con would use English. The only way he could be considered to have won, is if someone did not read con's case and bought that it was con who pulled Aristotle into the debate... Which while I do understand to be a tactic to try to make con attack his credibility, he does a much better job at that himself. I do not notice con making any emotional appeals. Con of course does use logic, but con defends this as a mode of argument rather than a specific argument utilizing it.
I write this as someone who regularly predicts arguments within debates, to pre-refute them. This is a fun idea for a debate, but con showed a clear path through it (and I don't notice pro arguing that con would use off topic arguments).

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote doesn't really include weighing as defined in the Voting Policy. I apologize for the inconvenience, but i just need one sentence explaining why the ethos pathos and logos arguments win it for Con. I get that it does, it's just not explained in the RFD.
************************************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points Con

>Reason for Decision: Argument: The flaw in Pro's argument comes out of the r1 first referenced source, the first sentence of which states: "Within the Trivium the goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else’s." The trivium being, in this case, "Credibility, Emotion, Logic." The key phrase that Pro misses is that, as Con argued, the trivium are not, in themselves, arguments, but as the title of the article suggests, are modes of appeal: used to convince an audience "...that your ideas are valid..." The appeals are the tone of argumentative writing, but not the content. Pro's debate proposal that "I can predict my opponents future arguments in this debate" clearly announces his ability ["I can"] to predict not the mode of argument, but the argument content. But Pro does not predict the argument content of Con's in r2 or in r3. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered two sources, both in r1; the first, as noted above in "arguments" was misread as a supporting source. The second source was also misread. It dealt with how emotion motivates, but it is the action one is motivated to do that is the key to the story, and not what the young hero felt about it. The article is clear in this distinction, and Pro overlooked it. Whereas, Con is true to his sources. They are relevant to his arguments related to the Cambrian Explosion [r2] and wetness [r3]. Points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's insistence on having won the debate in r2, a preliminary round, plus wasting effort to rebut and defend through r3 and r4 shows arrogance and overt-confidence. Point to Con

>Reason for Mod Action:

While brief, the voter meets the requirements under the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************

-->
@Barney

defer to me for all your moderating decisions and I will make our team a force to be reckoned with.

-->
@Barney

Gotcha

-->
@blamonkey
@MisterChris

If either of you get time, votes #1 and #3 have been reported. Obviously I can't be impartial on #1, and would rather defer to someone who did not vote on this for #3.

I rrad your RFD and disagree with the first sentence. I think a better analogy would be "I predict my opponent will use a language". After all, after listing the three modes of persuasion they didn't even say which of the three pressF would use (if they had done that I think your analogy would be better than mine).

-->
@User_2006

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:3; 2 points to Pro, and 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************

User_2006
4 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Argument: PRO has failed to prove his BoP, because he did not expect argument regarding the Cambrian explosion and something like that. CON has not made any purposeful argument, but he has proved that PRO did not expect his argument.
Sources: PRO's sources help him and the case, CON's sources are of another debate topic and is irrelevant here.

-->
@RationalMadman

I stand corrected that there are indeed other ways pro can be considered to have won.

You are treating this debate as a truism, and I am not. Both are valid.

-->
@Barney

your vote is incorrect, see my vote to understand why Pro objectively won and why this debate was autowin for Pro.

If one believes one round has sufficiently argued his point, and can conclude in round 2 that victory is his, why is the debate five rounds? Prediction of victory in an early round is a sure sign of lack of credibility, let alone a runaway emotion and a dizzy logic.

K_Michael has offered one true fallacy in this debate: Pro's three "arguments" have no subject of argument; the necessity of any argument.
One has credibility due to possession of...
One has emotion due to feeling of...
One has logic due to learning of... something exterior to each of these appeals, and not of the nature of any of them, alone.

Moreover, Pro has stumbled in the proposal and the description on two points:
1. Definition of prediction: as offered, it is meaningless in the secondary phrase, "...or will be a consequence of something;" the 'something' implying that an exterior force to credibility, emotion, or logic is in play, not the appeals themselves. That 'something' is the subject of an argument, such as offered by Con's r2.
2. Pro's debate proposal is: I can predict my opponent's future arguments," yet the description states he will win on prediction of just one of them. Pro cannot have it both ways, and has already lost by failing to predict Con's first argument - an argument Pro acknowledged he did not see coming. Yet, Pro's r2 declares he has already won. I will be interested in seeing Pro's explanation for Con's r2.

OK, if I used ImaBench's definition for Trolling, then Press trolled by not trolling.

That was a very fun R2.

At this point Press is just copy pasting whatever he feels like to as long as it is irrelevant to the debate topic itself.

-->
@PressF4Respect

lol

-->
@seldiora

Technically, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, not arguments. There is also a fourth appeal, known as kairos. The difference between an argument and a rhetorical appeal is fairly simple. Ethos, pathos, and kairos are often convincing to people but are also often fallacious as arguments, such as appeal to authority, the bandwagon fallacy, ad hominem argument, and the halo effect. Logos, or logic, if done properly, is never fallacious.
The appeals are APPEALS, not arguments. They aren't designed to be true or accurate, only to persuade people. That's why you see them in commercials and politics. A robot is not convinced by a rhetorical appeal, it is convinced by the application of facts to PROVE a point, not just make it look good.

-->
@seldiora

How about stating that Press's argument will contain at least 3 characters? Your argument is a little too vague.

I wonder if con realized this is grueling 5 rounds and it would be really hard to come up with so much unique arguments that don't match my predictions... lol

Neato!

-->
@seldiora

Is it possible to learn this power?

-->
@seldiora

Alrighty then