Instigator / Con
4
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2435

I'm on trial/what is the problem you see with me?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 3 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Here you air your disputes involving the debates I been in with you or with anyone. The topics, the premises, debates that you've seen me in, let's discuss them. Hopefully everybody gets a chance, gets a turn at this as I plan to do several of these trials/confrontations.

Now this is still in the spirit of contest. As you try to prove your points valid, I will render my points to refute and or correct yours.

So in regards to the way I argue or why I made a particular point, said a particular thing, came up with a particular topic, even personal views, here's the opportunity to challenge it all in this challenge. You can question, challenge a challenge, etc.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

On top of several other points: "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else"
Pro further backed this up with an array of sources from con's debate history, whereas con had no sources showing him being better.
Conduct for con refusing to engage with the debate points.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

After saying that he is on trial, Con ends up calling Pro an effective user of techniques that lawyers and politicians use to win legal cases. That one line in the last Round encapsulates the self-defeating nature of this entire debate.

The debate is simply won by Pro sufficiently proving that he/she/they has/have an issue with Mall (the user who is against the debate's resolution/topic and who instigated the debate).

What I see is that there are two key contentions from Con:

1) Pro's issues are based on missing context and key agreements made in debate descriptions which are to be sacred.
2) Pro is intentionally deceiving the voters and pursuing a rampage of character assassination and word-twisting on Pro.

The mechanical issue with these contentions is that even if both are held true, we then can say 'so what? Pro still has an issue with you and you still are on trial."

The debate's resolution was proved true because Pro displays issue with Mall (Con) in the following contentions:

1) Mall has practically no clue how to define terms and sets up debate structure almost begging to lose as the opponent is always able to define terms and abuse Mall's incapacity to fight back. I am not sure where the 'high horse' comes in but this links into Mall shouting with allcaps as well because this contention can be summed up as 'might is right and Mall is incompetent as a debating warrior'.

2) Mall is not simply incompetent, he lazy and his attitude towards debating itself is belligerent as he's neither trying to win nor to explore any specific lines of disagreement in any debate.

Con tries to highlight to Pro that Mall actually does try and that the failure to understand Pro's definitions and debate resolutions comes down to incompetence and/or malice on the part of the contender in those debates.

It is left very vague what Con is combatting though, since this debate is about if he is on trial and if Pro has an issue with him... A truism if Pro makes it so.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

There's very little to say here. Pro levies a lot of points about the basic failings of logic and argumentation that pervade Con's points in other debates, and Con's responses largely double down on those strategies. Basically, Con's doubling down on the strategy that Pro is using against him, and his only arguments for why it is effective deal in the "but it works for discussion" and disengage from debate entirely. This is a debate, and much as Con dismisses the importance of that venue, debate includes certain elements that his arguments lack. Pro points that out at length, Con has no responses, Pro wins the debate. Pro's points are well sourced, and he presents better conduct by actually engaging on the points his opponent provides and not flipping over the table at the end because he's upset. I'll end with what I saw as the most effective analogy that Pro provided:

CON says "I feel terrible, what's the problem?"
PRO points that CON smokes 2 packs a day, eats only doritos and coke, never exercises, has stage4 cancer, advanced diabetes and a javelin in his eye.
CON replies, "Fancy words like diabetes confuse me. Don't you want to know what I think my problem is?"

This shows very well how Con's points, both in this debate and elsewhere, fail to engage with the analysis of his opponent. That failure has cost him this debate, as it has cost him so many others.