Instigator / Pro
17
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#2778

They Are Out To Get Me

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Puachu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Description

My burden of proof is to prove they are out to get me. Con's burden is to prove they are not out to get me. At no time shall the existence of they be called into question. They shall not be identified, otherwise they will get me. If they get me, that proves they were out to get me and Con will lose this debate. If I forfeit any round it must be assumed that they got me and I win this debate in absentia, unless proven otherwise. Con enjoys no such privilege.

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

RFD in comments

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

Arguments are to Con. I generally have an extremely difficult time of not only comprehending what Pro is currently saying, but also what Pro is trying to express as most of Pro’s arguments are just unrelated assumptions.

The BoP automatically falls on Pro as no further specifications were made, and as long as Con points out that Pro did not fulfill it, Con gets the args.

Pro starts the first argument by being vague and not specifying who “they” are, then Con captured the ambiguity and argued that Con could be “they” and could have already got Pro since “they were out to get me” would be past tense.

In R1, Pro did not ever prove that “they were out to get me” since all Pro used as sources are conspiracy theories or unrelated stuff.

Pro’s R2 isn’t strong either as Pro did not ever rebuke the possibility that Con already got Pro. Same goes with R3. All Pro did is appealing to conspiracy theories and things that may support them and may support the possibility that somehow, something is out to get them. However, the term “they ARE” would imply a 100% certainty, so even if everything Pro imagined was winning, it is still a possibility that Pro loses, meaning that there is no 100% certainty to them getting Pro.

Con rather claimed to be one of the conspiracy theory’s subjects, further supporting his claim that Con already got Pro by manipulating what Pro says. “They were out to get me” was wrong as they already got pro.

In R3, Pro just gave up on proving that “they were out to get me” and tried to prove everything Pro said wrong, which doesn’t fulfill his BoP as it is a fallacy. The big argument for Pro is that it is unproven that they weren’t out to get Pro.

Con furtherly describes that Con already got Pro, which disproves the BoP. In the end, Pro did not prove the BoP, Con pointed out.

Sources: everything Pro used are confusing and conspiracy-like and generally isn’t enough for me to give the Sources point.

S&G and Conduct: tie, both did good

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

Very fun setup. I occasionally made jokes along those lines when an opponent forfeited.

Seems like a comedy debate, but if I don't see some jokes, I'll need to be given some reason to believe there is a they.

Okay, a syllogism this bad (seemingly intentionally invalid) did make me chuckle:

"P1: They didn't get me yet.
P2: This implies they will get me in the future.
C: They are out to get me."

The inbreeding bit was good, particularly the source/footnote. The footnotes come up again in a great way a little later with the 14 impossible worlds bit.

Con offers an odd language Kritik about presence tense (pro does a good defense of this by saying they are trying to gaslight him), before joining in the fun of declaring himself to be one of they who have already gotten pro. Con does better in the followup, claiming they the presence tense is a conspiracy from they.

Pro makes fun of the words are violence crowd... Con gets properly invested in the comedy with talk of brain chips... The elephant point again made me laugh.

Con's final round actually did a good job with the claim of having then successfully gotten pro, thus at last falsifying the presence tense so validating the kritik.

As this is a comedy debate (currently considered a category of troll debate), it is unregulated. I am giving pro arguments chiefly for making me laugh more, and giving con S&G (which I would never do otherwise as it's supposed to be only if someone screws up) as a favorable callout to his efforts tied to the one metric he really tried to use.