Instigator / Pro

Con will most likely lose “Debate A” (this debate is named “Debate B”)


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 13 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
Contender / Con

In this debate, pros round one is considered round four (and vice versa), his round two considered round three and vice versa. Referring to Debate A is not a violation of DebateArt terms unless a mod says otherwise.

This debate is considered to be part of Debate A.

Debate A:

most likely: with greater than 50% probability

Round 1
Con will likely lose Debate A because here in Debate B I can continuously make additional arguments that Con cannot contend, and thus I would have unrefuted ideas that belong to Debate A (since Debate B is part of Debate A). Con here has very little motivation to help out Con in Debate A, since they are different people. They also have harder ability to understand exactly what con is up to in Debate A, causing potential conflict and problem with personality and way of solving the problem within Debate A. The arguments in Debate A also apply to Debate B: Because the debate structure is extremely confusing, con's refutation is very difficult to accomplish.

Also consider the timing constraint. While I can perfectly control whether I post my argument within these two days, the time difference will make it very hard for con to coordinate and try to point out my errors in time (in particular, he is nearly at round 4 and this debate is still round 1, while simultaneously being round 4 at the same time). Since I can safely in round 2 claim that con failed to refute my arguments, he would have lost Debate A as a result of this.
The crux of PRO's argument relies on his ability to furnish new arguments  unhindered to CON of Debate A, thus being to build his case unobstructed. The fallacy is obvious in the debate description PRO mentions 
This debate is considered to be part of Debate A.
He fails to mention in what way CON of this debate(Debate B) is to consider the statement. No where in the description that this Debate(B)is to be a continuation of Debate A. Being part of something and being a continuation of something are two very disparate situations. Being in continuation forces Debate B to be a successor of Debate A, but being a part of Debate A puts no such restriction of Debate B.  Debate B can be considered before, alingned or after Debate A in a chronological sequence. Thus the relative chronological sequence of Debate A with respect to Debate B will not play a part in this debate. 

Since Base argument is defeated, CON furnishes his own arguments: 

1. There are can be three different outcomes of Debate A,
P(p)= Pro wins, where P(p) is the probability of Pro winning Debate A 
P(d)= Draw
P(c)=Con wins 

The only outcome that can be drawn for certain, is that P(p)+P(d)+P(c)= 1 or 100% . There can be no other possible outcomes. 
Since we are talking about future tense, there can be only two ways to proceed with such a situation, 
a) Draw a forcast/ Extrapolate from the past results 
b)Qualitative analysis( Judge the debate on its merit) 

a) Lets consider weighted average instead of simple average of past wins of both CON and PRO of Debate A:
P(c)= ((number of times of CON of debate A has won in the past )+ (number of times PRO of Debate A has lost in the past))/ Total debates fought by both parties 
[Data used is from DebateArt's win record] 
= 23/29 or 0.7931 
Thus just P(c) =0.7931 or 79.31% 
we know, 
P(c)+P(d)+P(p)=1, thus P(p) cannot be greater than 0.5 or 50% 

b)Qualitative analysis cannot be determined as, the merit of debate cannot be determined when this debate began,since all arguments in their entirity were not available, thus there is no definite way to detemine who could have won. Even if the arguments were available Qualitative analysis are subjective, that is, there is quite a bit of vairiance involved, thus PRO will definitely fail to enhance his point using this route. 

Conclusion: With base argument defeated and one way favouring CON of Debate A, one way favouring None in case determination of who would win Debate A, CON of Debate B claims victory! Since PRO has definitely fail to substantiate his claim for victory. 

Round 2
Regardless of the chronological part of debate B, con still cannot refute my arguments. My opponent also hasn’t considered he needs to work together will to win. With his far lower win rate it become uncertain just what chances con has of winning Debate A. Extend all arguments
Base argument:

Regardless of the chronological part of debate B, con still cannot refute my arguments.
Chronological order does plays a part, here is how
A) If Debate B comes in chornologically before Debate A, then all arguments have been refuted after they were made. To elucidate, PRO made arguments in Debate  that were refuted by CON of debate A. Not to mention CON of Debate B which in this case is me is also refuting arguments. 

B) If it is Chronologically aligned, both CON of Debate A and B's rebattals are counted refuting PRO's arguments in both debates. 

C) If Debate A comes before Debate B, this case favours PRO the most out of the three, still just mentioning Debate B being part of Debate A puts no compulsion on either CON of Debate B or the viewers to consider arguments furnished in Debate B as valid for debate A. This is because there are many ways in which a debate can be a part of another debate. One of the notable ways is as reference, mostly in judicial and parliamentary circles, it is common practise to highlight or refer to previous decision made in similar cases as a reference, in no ways is the reference  contested as well( PRO wants to do that). 

In essence there is further no cumpulsion for Debate B's argument to be considered as valid for Debate A. Since in what context, Debate B is part of Debate A is not specified, within reasonable understanding there are two ways  as mentioned above a) as reference b) as part of arguments 
a) reference case cannot be contested thus favours CON of debate B
b) as part of arguments even if considered- out of the three sub-cases, two favours CON of debate B, only one partially favours PRO.

None of that substantiates PRO's claim of being able to secure victory more than 50% of the time, it is to be highlighted that PRO has conceded both known ways in which victory of PRO can be predicted: extrapolation and qualitative  analysis. It is to my understanding that PRO is also an engineer, he has not questioned the math and logic of weighted average method, thus Mathematics favours CON's chances and Qualitative analysis favours none. 

A conclusion can be drawn that PRO has failed to substantiate his claim of a winning probability of more than 50%.  CON claims victory! 
Round 3
I concede.
PRO concedes.
Round 4
Okay! But I was genuinely hoping for a battle on mathematics and probability, alas some othertime perhaps.