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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro was too open ended, and may as well have argued that con would use language in general.

By the content inside the debate rounds (as opposed to treating the resolution as a truism), pro bet the farm the con would use three certain modes of argument, which was proven by con to not be true arguments in themselves, so besides the point on this debate. Con opted to use off topic arguments, which were outside the prediction (thus weirdly on topic for this debate).

Pro tried to argue that con followed his prediction by bringing Aristotle into the debate along with con making claims of BoP, which were both patently untrue (even in the final round, con called pro's BoP besides the point in the win/loss conditions). I assume this to be a tactic to try to make con attack his credibility (one of the three modes he insisted con would use), but he does a much better job at that himself on this.

I do not notice con making any emotional appeals. Which had he done, would push this closer to pro's favor for some degree of accuracy.

Con of course does use logic, but con defends this as an unavoidable mode of argument rather than a specific argument utilizing it. Pro tried to defend this as if they are the same, but such is stretching the goalposts it too far. The description is clear that there must be "a specified thing" not any general type of thing.

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).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

If you look at the definition of predict (and the entire reason I didn't accept this debate as Con despite seeing it before Con accepted it), Pro need only to say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something. This means even if what he says or estimates is incorrect, he still has predicted it. On top of that, it indeed is completley vague how specific the prediction must be if it's to be deemed correct or incorrect but the correctness of the prediction is irrelevant to the debate's resolution.

Pro predicted several things about Con's arguments and even went into specifics of what Con will say. This is, by definition, predicting. In fact the only way Pro could lose this debate (in my eyes) is if Pro never attempted to say or estimate what Con would argue. Con kept trying to prove that Pro had failed to correctly predict, but incorrect prediction is still prediction according to the definition in the debate description that both parties agreed to. Con could not win and has not won, unless enough voters incorrectly interpret the definition of 'predict' and ignore the debate's description.

On top of this, Con did do what Pro said he'd do, quite a few times. Con indeed did push to prove that Pro had not met his BoP, for instance.