Instigator / Pro
8
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#3035

There is 0% chance of CON winning this debate

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

gugigor
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
995
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1502
rating
40
debates
36.25%
won
Description

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!

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:

Pro’s set-up contains an illegitimate argument that “PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed.” Yes, he adds “LOL,” but that is insufficient to remove from consideration that Pro declares victory, making a joke of it, by condemning voters in the process. Nope; unacceptable premise for a debate. See Voting Policy, "Absurd rules."

Argument: Pro’s R1 argues that “…a statistical result is invalid unless the dataset conforms to statistical assumptions,” but then adds: “No valid statistical dataset can include a non-zero probability of rolling a seven.” However, common knowledge of statistical probability affecting the toss of a pair of typical dice [numbered on each side, 1 – 6 accordingly] knows that in such a roll, there are 36 total possible outcomes by the addition of the exposed number on each die, and that to specifically roll a 7 as the sum of both die can occur in a total of 6 different combinations. Therefore, the probability of rolling a 7 is not 0%, but 6/36, or 1/6, or 16.66…%. Pro’s argument amounts to a non sequitur argument, as defined in the Voting Policy.
Con’s R1argument that “…the benefits of debating are critical thinking, ability of research, and organization.” This is a superb rebuttal of Pro’s R1 conclusion while presenting a perfectly valid argument of the process of debate employing sound principles. Con further argues, “It does not make sense to force judges to be discredited…” Agreed; see Voting Policy, "Absurd rules"
Pro’s R2 begins by citation of outside content rather than make argument, and further accusing Con of reference to that outside material. To anyone unfamiliar with that other content [me, for example], this voter sees no relation of Con’s R1 to anything that may have been included in outside content, and pro does not bother to prove his point; a failed argument on two matters. Firther, Pro's attempt at a link, apparently to the outside content, fails. Pro doubles down by saying “This debate refers to a rigged debate in which votes for CON are reported and removed.” “LOL” was thus disengaged. Being declarative argument by Pro, the claim in set-up that Pro’s rule is legitimate violates the Dart Voting Policy. Then, Pro denies the argument. To this voter, that is a null argument with self-cancelling statements. Pro’s argument, “CON possibly winning our current debate doesn't disprove the resolution” denies the Resolution as stated. Another non sequitur. Pro finishes R2 with a syllogism, which contains, and therefore is, itself, a “not even wrong fallacy” as defined in the Voting Policy.
Con’s R2 argument, “The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience” is adequate to the task, as long as such convincing is within the boundaries of proper debate. Con has sufficiently convinced this voter: Points to Con.

Sources: Although both participants had sourcing, Pro’s own R2 source, stipulates, “Expressing probability as fractions and percentages based on the ratio of the number ways an outcome can happen and the total number of outcomes is explained.” [speaking of a video embedded in the source]. Unfortunately, this statement opposes Pro’s R1 argument relative to the dice argument. Failure by Pro. Points to Con, whose sourcing supports Con arguments.

Legibility: Tie.

Conduct: According to the Voting Policy, under the Cheating heading, “People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on.” This is exactly descriptive of Pro’s Description, and the R2 syllogism, falling under the definition of “Absurd special rules.” It does not help that Pro indicates in Description, "This debate is rigged." I perceive the claim to amount to an attempt to cheat. Pro, therefore loses Conduct. Point to Con.

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:

Pro does something very interesting in Round 2 but in my opinion he would have won the debate much more efficiently if he didn't try to out-Kritik Con and instead stuck to 'this debate' meaning the debate being had.

I want to note that the debate that occurred is 100% semantic. Both sides were terrible are grasping that to severe degrees. The word 'This' and the word 'win' were absolutely essential for either side to define in order to objectively win the debate.

However, this autowin trap by Pro still succeeds.

Pro's case was barely won or developed in his Round 1. In fact, his Round 1 was absurd because 0% probability is literally the same thing as 'impossible' unless it's Rounded down to the nearest whole number percentage and is between 0 and 0.5%.

I don't think Pro's Round 1 at all wins him the debate, however Con's Round 1 is just as bad and I am left thinking WTF the debate is about. Con says that he will lose the debate but that he will lose it for all the wrong reasons and that this goes against debating's beneficial principles.

If Con had extended the Round 1 to include a definition of 'win' that implies that to truly win a debate, you need to garner the benefits of debating like critical thinking skills, Con may have formed an actual point of Contention there.

In Round 2, Pro rebukes Con's thesis on the basis of 'this debate' mentioned in the resolution and description being a theoretical vacuum which, in fact, isn't the debate being had.

That sums up the only rebuttal made. I don't consider brand new points in the final Round as valid to take into account so only rebuttals are measured by me. The only time this isn't true is in 1-Round debates.

Con then brings up brand new points of his/her/their own in Round 2. If Con had mentioned in their opening case that he's/she's/they're contending that the debate can be won if Con wins over the mods and audience, then I would have counted it as a solid point as then if Pro didn't rebuke it sufficiently in Round 2, it is fair to consider that a 'score' against Pro.

Pro didn't get an opportunity to prove that breaking the rules isn't viable for Con, there was no Round 3. Therefore, I disqualify the point because it was raised in a situation where Pro couldn't give a rebuttal.