Instigator / Pro
19
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2233
Pro is able to have his arguments describe his own arguments
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
1
3
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
just for fun.
In order for pro to win, he must sufficiently describe his arguments (including the idea of describing the description)
Round 1
Pro
#1
Let claim A be considered "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."
Pro states 'Let Claim A be considered' Claim A, then states Claim A, which describes pro using Claim A and describing the description..
Con
#2
I am knotting my brain typing this. Truly big brain. Nevertheless, it is still possible for me to refute.
I will use my opponent's idea for "describe" since I don't feel like playing semantics today.
- 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.
Nice try. Sadly there are holes.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Well played. I shall try again. Firstly, I congratulate you on finding the holes in my first description of my argument, within my argument, but it will not happen again. Programmers are used to fixing bugs in their arguments, and I believe this new claim fulfills itself very well. I first compliment my opponent and state my desire to try again. I then congratulate my opponent, but provide the counter evidence that I am used to finding errors in my code, and with thorough testing I will hold up that I was able to describe my argument. I will now define Claim B as this entire definition, such that it is describing itself, and fulfilling the burden of proof and defeating my opponent. Then I will say that "Pro defines Claim B, uses Claim B to prove his case, that his argument describes itself, as well as describing its description". Keep in mind that even describing future actions in the argument is still describing it, and that "description of description" would only apply to the description of my argument, not describing the description of the debate itself. Finally, I counter my opponent's arguments by pointing out his flaws in his thinking.
Let Claim B be "Well played. I shall try again. Firstly, I congratulate you on finding the holes in my first description of my argument, within my argument, but it will not happen again. Programmers are used to fixing bugs in their arguments, and I believe this new claim fulfills itself very well. I first compliment my opponent and state my desire to try again. I then congratulate my opponent, but provide the counter evidence that I am used to finding errors in my code, and with thorough testing I will hold up that I was able to describe my argument. I will now define Claim B as this entire definition, such that it is describing itself, and fulfilling the burden of proof and defeating my opponent. Then I will say that 'Pro defines Claim B, uses Claim B to prove his case, that his argument describes itself, as well as describing its description', that his argument describes itself, as well as describing its description. Keep in mind that even describing future actions in the argument is still describing it.and that "description of description" would only apply to the description of my argument, not describing the description of the debate itself. Finally, I counter my opponent's arguments by pointing out his flaws in his thinking. "
Pro defines Claim B, uses Claim B to prove his case, that his argument describes itself, as well as describing its description.
Con
#4
The second example is flawless, forcing me to concede if I don't forfeit consider that after consideration, there is basically no way I could point anything out anymore.
Round 3
Pro
#5
GG (I only had to describe at least one argument describe itself, so I hope you will happily oblige me not going crazy in this round)
Con
#6
Pro has provided one example of an argument that describes itself. I cannot refute it. This debate has come to an end and I thank Seldiora for this debate. Voters can feel free to vote my opponent.
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:
Concession.
There's actually some fairly cool stuff you can do with this type of programming.
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:
Concession. I applaud both Pro and Con for being able to create, think through, and analyze such mind-numbing madness. Once I was able to unravel the logic in my head, it was quite entertaining to read. It was really easy to see how Pro's experience in programming helped him in this debate.
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:
降伏
降伏
降伏
降伏
You underestimated my power.
get rekt bro it's an English quine
wtf