This Debate Will End in a Tie
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
"tie": pro and con have equal points.
this debate: this exact debate
- Pro still cannot predict the future
- Pro proved not why this debate WILL end in a tie
- This system is promoting equality, not equity. The better argument wins.
- The argument above disproved Pro's points, and thus, please vote Con.
- The Status Quo is tying
- The system promotes equality
- No one will vote because confusion
- Con isn't better than Pro
- Con cannot prove that this cannot end in a tie
Kinda nice to see these paradox debates making a comeback.
The resolution probably should have been 'most likely' instead of will (still, I would not put the BoP beyond the realm of doubt or anything crazy like that).
Still, con did a good job showing there are different skill levels to the debaters, which leaves it more likely than not that one of them will pull it out of the defaulty tied range. Pro of course argued that tied is the default, and it's a non-traditional topic, but this did not even strongly imply the likelihood.
Sources from pro could have greatly improved his case, by showing similar such debates which indeed ended in ties.
So the resolution is, this debate will end in a tie, and the question it asks is "Which particpant won the debate"?
I'll just dismiss the fact that this is a half-paradox.
Con used many sources to back up his argument which I consider essential in these type of "prediction" debates.
Just a side note--CON either has to prove seldiora will win or he will win, and seldiora has to prove it is a tie. However, if seldiora wins the argument, that cannot happen beacuse he proves it is a tie. Conversely, CON's position makes sense because he can prove that he will win-- and he will win vote-wise.
I really liked CON's third argument--It really gave it a boost in terms of argument quality.
In the first round CON says it is a paradox and at the end of the day, he has to win. Seldiora counters by saying it he knows it will tie with certanity which has no sources--whats the proof?
I would vote CON since his argument is very solid. Plus, he is the only person with a valid, reasonable stance that is not a paradox.
your argument undermines the contender advantage
https://ddo.fandom.com/wiki/Contender_Advantage
How
I could easily claim cherry pick fallacy and that 17 debate with 88% win is nothing compared to 350 debates with 60% winrate (https://www.debate.org/9spaceking/)
the way the question is phrased mainly guarantees 'this debate will end in a tie'. Based on your win percentages, seldiora cannot infer that "equal oppurtunities" are happening because of rating and win percentages lean towards Intelligence_06 winning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHC1230OpOg