Pro will be Victorious in This Debate Despite Waiving Rounds 2~5
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Victorious: achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties
Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt he will be victorious despite waiving rounds 2~5.
Pro let himself get baited into not waiving. While the quotation later I could forgive, both the declaration of victory (a clear assertion instead of waiving) and "Is failing to present an argument same as refusing to present evidence for argument? My refusal here stands, self-evident." are not rounds wholly waived.
PRO did not actually waive, thus failing to fulfill his pre-determined win condition.
Argument: Pro begins an argument in R1 that s not. Inaction cannot be seen in any perspective as an action. The lack of action is not acting, but refusal to do so. The argument declines from there through the balance of rounds. Pro's resolution, successfully rebutted by Con in R1, R2, failed completely in R3 when, contrary to the resolution, pro did not waive, but offered argument. Con rightfully rebutted in R3 that Pro had thus failed to achieve a win. Plus, Con successfully argued in R2 that Pro's waivers met the condition of forfeiture. One might conclude that in R4, Pro actually offered an argument, relieving him of the Conduct charge levied by Con in R3. However, the sense of the quote, which Pro evidently believes, is that offering argument, by way of a question, is still a waiver." Unfortunately, an argument is not limited to declarative statements; questions do pose an argument. That Pro believes the quote, however, was evidence of believing to waive the Round. He must be given his due, as presenting a round of waiver. Therefore, Con's argument of conduct failure applies. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered a single source, but from an unrecognized and unverifiable source. Further, the quote presents a conundrum which is not true, but which Pro attempts, and fails, to demonstrate as true. which fails the notion of adequate sourcing. Cons' multiple sources firmly support his arguments. Points to Con.
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro loses conduct points for waivers. Points to Con
Pro fails the debate out of topicality - that their argument does not fit within the resolution or breaks the resolution. By not waiving every round after the first, they necessarily lost the debate.
While Con's arguments were more targeted, Pro would have had a very compelling case had he actually waived. Not only did Pro fail to waive, but his remarks in the rounds could be construed as bread crumbed arguments. Con necessarily wins. Con's sources were also more constructive to the debate and topic at hand.
This will be semantic, I won't help him win but I will let you and him know that he has to focus on semantics in order to even have a chance.
Seems like an easy win for con...
you can try this if you want.