Con will most likely lose “Debate A” (this debate is named “Debate B”)
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 13 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2245-con-will-lose-this-debate-named-debate-a
most likely: with greater than 50% probability
Please don't post until after I am done with r4. The more you post, the more Seldiora refutes, the more burden I have.
I will be done with R4 in less than 3 hours, so don't post until then. You have more than a day left.
PRO can make bridges upon bridges of arguments , I will only use Probability theorams to make a convincing case.
I suggest you don't post before my R4 is done.
The reason why you lose is mostly by the resolution. You have to meticulously define the resolution, and word it so that no obvious flaws are there. Or else people like oromagi and Intelligence will ruthlessly kritik the resolution.
Don't break the Coc. Profiting for the self in any other way is fine.
you just gave me a malicious idea.
"Probably" would greatly lessen his BoP, and "certainly" would likewise increase it. As is, I would say there can still be some measure of doubt, but as the instigator he still needs a strong case.
seldiora always makes debates like this, but always loses. The problem lies in his resolution. Instead of putting probably lose, he put will lose. Which means seldiora must prove that you will CERTAINLY lose the debate.
This point remains relevant through all of these types of debates: Pro's Argument is that he is better, and Con's argument is that it is less probable to lose than it is to win or tie, and that you can not say for certain the outcome of any debates.
You know what’s up.
I'm confused, but have fun!