Instigator / Pro
8
1538
rating
19
debates
52.63%
won
Topic

There is 0% chance of CON winning this debate

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
995
Contender / Con
11
1526
rating
18
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 159 / 5,000

This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!

Round 1
Pro
Notice how the title refers to probability, not possibility. Many uncertainties, like divine intervention or alien invasions, are not taken into consideration by statistical analysis.
"There is no way that a test that is unreliable is valid...Statistical validity is threatened by the violation of statistical assumptions" [statisticssolutions].
This means that a statistical result is invalid unless the dataset conforms to statistical assumptions. Among those necessary assumptions, there are the dataset rules. If your dataset contains elements that violate the rules set up in the statistical analysis, then your claim about "chance" is invalid. I will provide an example. Though with cheating possible, rolling a seven with normal dice simply isn't a valid option. No valid statistical dataset can include a non-zero probability of rolling a seven.

Similarly; claims of CON having a chance to win are statistically invalid due to violating assumptions and relying on invalid uncertainties.


Conversely;

since the rules of this debate make CON's victory not a valid option; 

I am 100% justified in claiming that CON has a 0% chance of winning this debate. 



Con
There is little obligation for people to follow Pro's rules. The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience -- which Pro has no way of predicting. I argue that we must uphold moral imperative of freedom of speech and allowing differing opinions. Pro arbitrarily censors those who oppose him merely to boost his confidence. Yet the benefits of debating are critical thinking, ability of research, and organization. With his rule set-up, he clearly impedes the very purpose of debating. Imagine if he had said Con must murder an innocent to win this debate. The detriment to society would be immense as a human life is immeasurably precious. Similarly, Pro values his own "Debating rule" ideal, without any justification whatsoever. There are reasonable rules for setup, for example, debate structure, but Pro's rules are not within common sense. It does not make sense to force judges to be discredited, and therefore we must not follow Pro's description layout.
Round 2
Pro
CON has confused our current debate with this debate. They aren't synonymous. This debate refers to a rigged debate in which votes for CON are reported and removed.
Any debate in which votes for CON aren't reported and removed is not this debate.



I admit that in our current debate, votes for CON are not going to be reported or removed. All of CON's accusations against me fall flat in front of this fact. I am neither silencing him nor undermining the purpose of debating. I am merely outplaying him. Since our current debate and this debate aren't the same, the outcome of our current debate in no way dictates the outcome of this debateCON possibly winning our current debate doesn't disprove the resolution. At most, it would disprove that I instigated this debate



The probability of something which is impossible to happen is 0. [probability]


  • P1: If the rules are followed, then CON has a 0% chance of winning a rigged debate he can't win.
  • P2: The rules must be followed for a statistical claim to be valid [R1].
  • C: The only valid statistical claim is that CON has a 0% chance of winning this debate.

Logic and mathematics support my claim. VOTE PRO!
Con
Pro tries a suave maneuver where he says "this debate" is not our current debate. Even if I was not resisting Pro's ideals, the rules set out still fall under the same principle of censoring opposing viewpoints with zero justification whatsoever.

Remember: The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience. Therefore in the rigged debate, Pro would have to be incredibly persuasive and support the oppression of free speech, successfully forcing moderators to remove all votes that give a majority of points to Con. But Ben here has no way to prove that Pro is a strong debater with excellent anti-free-speech arguments or good knowledge of the social contract (or perhaps obligation to follow rules). For example, if the rigged debate had Pro so confident that he forfeited all rounds, yet I was con and I presented the argument in favor of free speech, surely the moderators would feel the moral obligation is stronger than the mere rule set out in the debate. 

Rules are meant to improve societal benefit. The moderators are the only ones in true control; they are the ultimate authority that Ben cannot predict. Vote for Con.