Con made, or will make a mistake in this debate
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Mistake: a error, a fault, something not right, such as logical fallacy, spelling error so on and so forth
Argument: Pro states that Con might mess up for some reason, which is baseless. Then, he had pointed out a mistake that Con failed to correct when it is outside of the parameter for "mistakes". This argument is thus weak. Con justified that his final drafts are of no mistakes and thus proving his point with reliable base. Pro also failed to recognize any mistake Con made.
Sources and SG: Con. Con used various checking softwares to ensure his S&G is correct and readable. Pro justified not.
Probably a mistake of mine to read this one, much like how Mafia is a waste of time, debating is a waste of time, time itself is a waste of time (there was a classic debate on this topic, remind me if you want me to try to find it).
K:
Pro's opening is largely off topic to the contest, until he does a nice Epistemological Kritik at the end by questioning if it's a mistake to even accept the debate; which con successfully defends saying the rating shift is worth it to him.
Grammarly:
Con uses a website to double check for errors. Pro counters that the website is known to make mistakes, which sadly does not imply that con has made any mistake in using it to double check things. Con goes further by switching to another one in response to the credibility questions of that source.
Other people made mistakes:
Con literally asks my question to this, of how someone else making a mistake would equal con making a mistake
---
Con actually made mistakes, but echoing pro's complaints that humans are better than grammarly, it was his human job to identify them. I was left agreeing with pro, but voting con on arguments for a superior job upholding his BoP relative to the resolution.
1. Therefore, spelling and grammar points go to me.
This is a mistake in understanding how those points are gained. Everything except for argument is only for excessive victories within said categories.
2. All I understood from your argument is "I made a grammar mistake,"
That ended a paragraph, so the comma should have been converted into a period.
3.
At the start of R3, con messes up the spacing related to the quotation tool.
See formatting best practices: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4536-etiquette-expectations
Thanks for voting
And yes, I do think inside the debate that would be a good habit. Plus it's something you might reflect back to for a good example of how you did it before.
On a tougher debate I would be more inclined to delete it, but this one is too straight forward.
Again, in future just put that stuff inside the debate (possibly in the penultimate round, so that the person has a chance to respond).
oh ok did not know that.
Oh sorry I was just trying to provide a summary of the debate for those who did not want to read the whole argument. Can you please delete it?
I suggest not doing that type of summary in the comments. Inside a debate it is fine, but in the comments it risks trying to bias voters.
Here is a summary of the debate:
round 1:
Pro shows how accepting the debate was a mistake
I refute and say Bop as well as evidence
round 2:
Pro says he made a grammar mistake. He further says not noticing that was a mistake (does this mean he wants to give spelling and grammar to me?) Pro half conceded.
I remind Pro it is not my duty to correct your grammar mistakes but to argue against. I successfully argue my claim.
round 3:
Pro says I am doing great (which is one step from saying he concedes). He says Grammarly is unreliable.
Pro uses incorrect logic to show someone else lost the debate therefore I am going to lose.
I show even with another editor, Paperrater, that I made no mistakes. I correctly state that that is incorrect logic.
round 4:
Pro has nothing else to say other than repeating his round 3, which I successfully refuted.
I have nothing to say other than my argument still stands which has not swayed my opinion.
round 5:
Pro has nothing else to say other than repeating his round 1, which I have already refuted multiple times.
I conclude that I have made no mistakes proven by Grammarly and Paperrater and that Pro has not pointed out any mistakes.
Pro used off topic sources while I used sources that are coherent with the debate.
Pro even admitted he made a spelling/grammar mistake while I have made none.
round 4:
Please vote!!!
Our ratings are different.
That is not logically justified.
Is it not a fallacy to assume that one persons failure results in another persons failure? But what fallacy is this?
what do you mean "what is wrong with this argument"
Well you did day a mistake not multiple mistakes. If that isn't what you meant I might offer constructive criticism by saying in a formal debate setting l I'll e this it behooves you to be precise in your language. As it stands now you would lose on a technicality.
You could argue that, but intuitively the logic doesn't follow. Kinda like how two wrongs do not make a right, compounding it with more single instances of a mistake does not negate that a mistake occurred.
If I were to accept this challenge I would simply make two or more mistakes rendering pro's claim that con will make a mistake false.