Pro is able to have his arguments describe his own arguments
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
just for fun.
In order for pro to win, he must sufficiently describe his arguments (including the idea of describing the description)
- Claim A fails to say "Pro first states whether it is perceived possible for such a case in the first glance, then respond with stating what Pro's occupation field and what the English language is compared to programming languages". These appears in his argument but remain undescribed.
- Claim A describes incorrectly of that "Pro first states 'Let claim A be considered' (claim A)", in which in the assumption of that the last sentence directs to the last sentence of the R1 argument. If else, then the last sentence is being undescribed in Claim A, something generally expected.
- Claim A also fails to describe what the description of the debate is. It is only "Then I will describe the description" but he actually never "described" it structurally like everything else provided.
- Claim A does not fully describe itself.
- Due to that, there are remaining pieces existent in the argument but remain undescribed, thus PRO did not sufficiently describe his own argument with itself.
At first, it seems impossible for pro to describe his arguments, and describe his descriptions. However, I am a programmer, and English is just another type of language. Though not as purely mathematical or logical, let's have a try, shall we? To describe my argument, I will define my main claim as "Claim A". Easy enough, right? Now then, what follows is relatively simple: I describe my description ahead of time, within the definition of the claim, such that I am able to describe the description. What follows next, would just be Pro states 'Let Claim A be considered' Claim A, then states Claim A, which describes pro using Claim A and describing the description.