Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2724

Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Description

Resolved: It is illogical and impractical to oppose that which does not exist.
That which does not exist has no features to oppose, that is, no element to negate, and no presence to ignore. It is both illogical and impractical to oppose such a non-entity/object.

Definitions:

Illogical: Ignorance or negligence of the principles of sound reasoning

Impractical: The lack of discipline in which ideas are not tested or applied in practice

Oppose: To confront with hard questions; to interrogate, question; occasionally to accuse

Non-existence: The lack of a state or property of having objective reality

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

Rounds 1 & 2 will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 3rd round rebuttal, defense, and/or conclusion, but no new argument in in R3. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. A last [third] round appeal to voters may be made to request a vote in favor of a participant.

-->
@gugigor

Well, one way is to challenge him on the basic premise of his arguments. I don't think they're so airtight that you can't hit at them.

On the other hand, I think you could have gone with the points you gave if you spent time linking them to the words in the resolution. Why is it logical to oppose flat earth theories? Because it reinforces existing science, bringing evidence of the structure of the world to a wider audience and ensuring that people understand what supports it. The logic is in creating an opposing force by understanding the arguments that flat earthers believe supports their case and providing a systematic set of experiments that show that they are wrong. Opposition pushes us to examine why something is wrong. There's not just value to that - there's logic and practicality.

-->
@whiteflame

was there any way to win? I just feel like accepting of fiction was true, but didn't make it illogical or impractical to oppose a nonexistent gun ban or flat earth.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting!

-->
@gugigor

Having the same value, though, doesn't really change anything about whether they're logical or practical to oppose. That's part of the problem here: you had a goal in mind, and while that goal could have been related to the resolution, you had to do the work to get it there. I will also say that I didn't really buy the waste of time point, but that's not the only argument that fauxlaw gave, nor is it the most important of his points, yet that's the only one you kind of challenged (though I will point out that the argument he made there wasn't totally based on utility in general, but rather utility towards the non-existent entity being debated, a point you didn't fully address).

-->
@whiteflame

Aww what, I wanted to show the nonexistent ideas being refuted had the same value as existing ideas. By this logic you shouldn’t say true things that are a waste of time since a parent saying “please tie your shoe” is equivalent to “I love you”, so you should say the latter anyways

I clearly lost track of this one. I will be flying for a bit here, should give me time to read through it. Hopefully get up an RFD sometime later.

-->
@MisterChris

I’ll see what I can do.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Great! On behalf of the debaters: it is much appreciated.

-->
@MisterChris

I should be able to

-->
@whiteflame
@SirAnonymous
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge

any of you willing and able to vote?

prolly can't vote on this one in time... sorry

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

only one day left! gahh!

-->
@gugigor

I’ll get to it when I can, got plenty of time, thankfully.

-->
@whiteflame

vote if u can. should be pretty easy

-->
@gugigor

seldiora!! OK. Now I can put a "face" to the name. Well, then, welcome aboard, gugigor; RIP, seldiora. This was inspired by discussion with Theweakeredge and 3RU7AL in Forum - I thought this would make a great debate. I look forward to your thoughts/arguments.

-->
@fauxlaw

yes. I'm also seldiora. I'm trying to close my account after I finish my current debates as the loss record looks very bad.

-->
@gugigor

Thank you for accepting the debate. Question, since your profile is virtually blank [I wish it wasn't - I like being acquainted with debate participants]. Might you be the same gugigor who does IMBd movie ratings? - in particular, Man on a Ledge? I watched about five minutes of it when it first released on Netflix [with some unlocking manipulation], and had a funny feeling there would not be a "shark reveal." Looks like you were spot on. Boring. Glad I wasted only 5 min.

Normally, I stop engaging comments once I engage a debate, so, don't expect a running dialog during the debate. Just my thing, not an absolute.