Instigator / Pro
5
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Topic
#2829

Invincible argument challenge

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
1

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
13
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

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.

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:

Concession.

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:

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.