Invincible argument challenge
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro waives round 1. Con chooses a debate topic and definitions. Pro can either argue for it or argue against it, declaring his stance and making his arguments. Con will argue the opposing stance.
Burden of proof is shared
There is a twist. Pro and con must make at least three arguments each. Pro and con are each allowed one “invincible argument” they label during their opening rounds , which the other side cannot contest besides outweighing with another invincible argument (they may also ask tricky or leading questions for clarification). This argument can not be the framework, semantics, trolling. It also cannot be a blatant lie.
Concession.
Truth be told, I oppose a debate set-up that includes a declared waiver, mainly because the Debate Policy declares there shall be an argument in every round, and the Voting Policy declares a waiver is not an argument. Further, I consider an R1 waiver to be a weakness against the opposing party just to see how they will argue. ?This debate set-up was a unique approach to a first-round waiver, but, my personal rule, supported by policy, stands. Therefore, I consider Pro's R1 the equivalent of a forfeiture.
Argument: Pro's waiver of R1, and forfeit of R2 seals the deal: Pro offered no argument whatsoever, whereas Con obviously went to great length and time to assemble an argument, as challenged by Pro, providing all the necessary elements as challenged. With a virtual concession in R3, No further argument from Con was necessary. Points to Con.
Sources: As Con provides the only sources in the debate, using them to bolster his requested debate subject, Con wins these points.
Legibiity: Tie, though leaning heavily to Con.
Conduct: Point to Con due to virtually no input from Pro, while making an effort to illicit response from Pro in all rounds.
I'm probably leaning Pro.
Are you pro or con on the topic?
oops. I forgot about this debate. You can take the win since it's unrated.
Fun setup!