Instigator / Pro
12
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic

My opponent will lose the debate

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
15
Sources points
6
10
Spelling and grammar points
3
5
Conduct points
3
4

With 5 votes and 22 points ahead, the winner is ...

BearMan
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
34
1626
rating
14
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 199 / 5,000

1. PRO waives r1 and CON goes first. this is the rules and the instigator shall make and keep the rules unless outrages appear in the comments.
2. I am PRO and my opponent is CON.
3. BoP is shared.

Round 1
Pro
I waive as per format. I look forward to a discussion with Bearman. 
Con

Statistically, I have a higher chance of not losing this debate.

Let's go by three options voters are tasked with:

  • Make Pro Win and Con Lose
  • Tie Pro and Con
  • Make Con Win and Pro Lose

Out of these three scenarios, only one is where you win and I lose.

Of course, this is a basic random scenario where our are arguments are the same and the voters are randomizing the results. But I will prove in fact, that your argument is inferior to mine:

You can not accurately prove the outcome of this debate, because you can not predict the future.



Round 2
Pro
You can not accurately prove the outcome of this debate, because you can not predict the future.
I can prove that, upon inspection, I am more experienced than my opponent. Since, without the need for sources, everyone knows that someone that is more experienced and skilled has a better tendency of winning the match. 

I have 12 wins while my opponent has zero. 


I can use semantics to kritik and even win a debate, while CON has shown no trace of this skill.


CON, with only one debate that shows his true potential, did something that, pretty much everyone on the site can do, including me and a plethora of others on the site.

Bearman refutes ideas like every other. The only "Win" he has is against a troll, while I have won against serious debaters. 
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2070/the-elo-ranking-system-is-an-inadequate-method-of-surveying-ones-skill-level-on-dart (I lost this one, and I believe Jeff Goldblum trumps my skill, while my skill is nowhere inferior to Bearman's)

CON have not yet won a single debate with an actual serious debater, On the contrary, I have.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1975/god-hates-homosexuality(This one is against Wylted, which is a serious debater.)

Because of these reasons that demonstrate that PRO is more experienced than CON, and it goes without saying that more experienced/skilled persons have a better tendency compared to less experienced/skilled ones, I declare that it is very probable that I will win the debate, and Bearman will lose. 



Con

These 12 wins come with many losses too. Out of your 37 debates, 25 of them have shown to be losses. This shows that you, though more experienced at this site, lack skill of my ability. You claim you are good at debating, yet more than 50% of your debates are losses while all my debates are obvious wins. It is still more probable that with your inferior level of skill, you will not beat me.

Let me provide some logic at hand. There are two lawyers at hand. The first, an elderly lawyer loses most of his cases and has lousy argumentation. The second, a young lawyer, who has gone undefeated, and his true talent not exposed yet. It is clear the young lawyer is better than the elderly, though far less inexperienced. Using this point, you have shot yourself in the foot.


CON, with only one debate that shows his true potential, did something that, pretty much everyone on the site can do, including me and a plethora of others on the site.

Bearman refutes ideas like every other. The only "Win" he has is against a troll, while I have won against serious debaters. 
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2070/the-elo-ranking-system-is-an-inadequate-method-of-surveying-ones-skill-level-on-dart (I lost this one, and I believe Jeff Goldblum trumps my skill, while my skill is nowhere inferior to Bearman's)
Arguably, it's not my fault a troll has accepted my debate. This does not show my lack of skill, but the lack of conduct EricT has for being a troll in the first place. You also have not proved that you are better than me, and you can actually do what I did in the debate you referred, until you prove this, I drop this point.

CON have not yet won a single debate with an actual serious debater, On the contrary, I have.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1975/god-hates-homosexuality(This one is against Wylted, which is a serious debater.)

My opponent glorifies Singularity or Wylted as a good debater, yet when you look at Singularity's won debates, it becomes apparent that he is a troll. Let us just look at why his profile was banned. 

After reviewing their history, the moderation team has decided that Singularity, AKA Wylted, will be indefinitely banned from the site. This is an unusual course of action for the moderation team to take. A few key points that went in to our decision includes:
Repeatedly glorifying rape and sexual assault;
Repeatedly glorifying hate groups
Repeatedly glorifying sexual abuse towards minors, and most disturbingly,
Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy; and
Multi-accounting to circumvent his ban.
Let me make this clear: The moderation team will not tolerate any glorification of Nazis, rape, pedophilia, and sexual assault.
User_2006 is proud and claims he is better than me, because he beat a sexual harasser, rape and sexual assault supporter in a debate. Singularity also has lack of skill, winning only 2 out of 8 debates he has participating in.


CONCLUSION: Though User_2006 claims he is more experienced than me, this does not translate into skill. I have proved that he is in fact worse at debating than I am, and his claims were factually absurd. My opponent still has not proved the resolution, and is in fact only using his experience to back it up. He still is yet to prove that he is certain that I will lose the debate. 


Round 3
Pro
I concede. Bearman can have this one. Voters are free to vote for him. 
Con
Thanks User. I enjoyed this discussion.