Instigator / Pro
1776
rating
404
debates
67.45%
won
Topic

The user who votes first on this debate will most likely vote Con.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
23,000
Contender / Con
1681
rating
89
debates
73.6%
won
Description
~ 18 / 5,000

User = site member

Round 1
Pro
Take Barney, Ramshutu, Whiteflame, Oromagi, Rationmadman, Bones...

Look at their debate history.

Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse.

I will provide 0 proof this Round, that is my style and is adding to my doom of voters voting Con this debate being more likely.

In fact you will notice that Con performed weakest against me on both his old account (User_2006) and his current one when he was Pro and I was Con.

The first voter on a debate is also, in particular, more likely to vote Con. I will prove this later as well.
Con
1. Quick Maths

The DART voting system consists of 4 measures. 3pts on argument weight, 2pts on sources, 1pt on legibility and 1 pt for conduct behavior. This debate chooses the '4 points' voting system instead of the 'Winner selection' format. In that order, I will list all the voting possibilities that result in a tie vote. T=Tie, P=Pro, C=Con.
TTTT PCCT PCTC CPPT CPTP TPCC TCPP TTCP TTPC
That is 9 possible voting possibilities. The first letter represents 'arguments', the second 'sources', the third 'S&G' and the fourth 'conduct'.

Aside from the TTTT vote, which is symmetrical, all other votes are inherently asymetrical since one cannot vote Con and Pro simultaneously. All 8 other votes are mirrors of another vote in that list, for example, TTPC is a mirror of TTCP.

As a result, any vote in favor of Pro, when mirrored as it is possible, will be in favor of Con. Therefore, out of all 81 possibilities(3 per measure, there are 4 measures, so it is 3^4=81), there is a possibility of 36/81 of voting Pro, 36/81 for voting Con, and 9/81 for a tying vote. That would mean a 44% chance of voting Pro, 44% for Con, and 11% chance of a tie vote.

As a result, not only is the probability of voting in favor of Con less than 50%, but it is actually as likely as one voting for Pro. You can argue with me or RationalMadman the rational madman, but you can't argue with mathematics as they are a priori. Knowledge such as how good of a debater I am or RM is is a posteriori, not only that, this may be subjective and may vary throughout different times. For example, RM has went from less than 1500 to 2nd and 3rd on the leaderboard in a matter of months.

We shall include all possibilities, not just the ones that are predicted by my opponent. There is a nonzero chance that:
  • Intelligence_06 will hack the servers of DebateArt.com and grant a win to himself without votes through the sheer force of hacking
  • RationalMadman will see a revelation from the Biblical God and win from this acquired wisdom alone
  • Intelligence_06 will die in a car crash before the second round, thus granting an FF to himself and a win to Pro
  • RationalMadman will have his internet cables plugged out for months without anyone capable of repairing, resulting in a Con win
  • No one will vote on this debate(This happened many times already, therefore there is even less than 44% chance for a Con win actually)
  • DebateArt.com shuts down like DDO did, before anyone could vote
  • A Death Star from a galaxy far far away comes to our galaxy and destroys Earth with a galatic superlaser
  • Debating is now made illegal in most countries, including China, USA and Russia
Although those are as likely as Donald Trump suddenly hugs Joe Biden on a press conference then stabs him in the feet(it is almost zero), it is not zero. With so much unpredictability, one can only consider from the meta level: The voltage inside a conductor is the same, so is when you consider all the factors that can exist and can affect the outcome of this issue, no matter how unlikely. When you consider the probabilities, which ultimately decide who wins here, you will find out that a Con win is not the most probable.

2. "________________"

If I have the better proof, then simply I get the win. This debate is about who is better at either proving the resolution correct or wrong. If Pro FF's as a result that Con takes the win, that does not mean Pro is "right", it means he didn't have the better argument and does not deserve to win. So:
I will provide 0 proof this Round, that is my style and is adding to my doom of voters voting Con this debate being more likely.
This is essentially ineffective and counter-effective even. We are arguing for the better proof, not being fortune tellers. 

Look at their debate history.

Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse.
At the moment this argument was written, RM was 3rd on the entire leaderboard with an ELO of 1770 and over 400 debates while I am 12th on the leaderboard with an ELO of 1690 and less than 100 debates. If anything, the more skilled debater is RM, not me. Either there is no proof, or this is counter-proof.


Round 2
Pro
Probability vs Probability

It seems that the core misunderstanding at the foundation of Con's case lies in presuming that certain possibilities can just be listed and that can make it so that Pro is 'doomed' to not be able to disprove each and every one as possible. What Con has not understood is that if they are unlikely, it starts to look like Con is going for many unlikely scenarios to make it seem like Pro has a lot of probability stacked against him when actually it's quite the opposite.

I am not saying that all of Con's contentions ignore probability but so much of Con's case did that I am going to essentially swat away the majority of Con's Round 1 by explaining to you where this idea went wrong and then proceed to discuss the probability aspects.

In actual fact, ironically Con's 'Internet outage' possibility wasn't even the major factor, since instead of that a once a year kind of outage happened just some hours ago and DebateArt was one of them:


Unfortunately for Pro, since such a rare event happened and still left open a window for me to send my Round in, it seems that possibility actually has become a point in my favour as it's so extremely unlikely this would be happening within a couple weeks of each other (this kind of outage only happens now and again) and I can personally tell you that my Internet rarely goes out but if it does I'd handle it, I am even able to use phone data in an emergency for this kind of thing and this is a sort of debate where I could just rant on a phone but I don't even need to post last minute necessarily.

As for these 'voting combinations', Con is again only talking about possibility and not probability. The fact is that Con is essentially grasping at straws there...

In actual fact, if Con is going to stoop so low, I can and will hilariously point something out. Four-points voting system means the resolution can be true even if I win the debate, as long as I lose conduct, S&G and/or Sources but win Arguments or somehow if I lost arguments and won the others.

The thing is, if Con is going to dig into possibilities and loopholes, I will gladly point out that the resolution can be true even more, not even less, since Con can be voted even if the first voter favours me in the tally, so long as one of the others is given to Con. Actually, I can even abuse the fact that in this website a tied point is 1-1, 2-2 or 3-3 as opposed to 0-0 so Con is voted for if things are tied if we play 'possibilities and technicalities'.

Every single possibility is not only significantly low probability but can literally be flipped around... Also Con totally forgot that Pro is saying voters will vote Con:

Intelligence_06 will hack the servers of DebateArt.com and grant a win to himself without votes through the sheer force of hacking
What if I do? Also this means they'll vote Con.
  • RationalMadman will see a revelation from the Biblical God and win from this acquired wisdom alone
What if you do instead of me? This supports Pro anyway.
  • Intelligence_06 will die in a car crash before the second round, thus granting an FF to himself and a win to Pro
What if I do?
  • RationalMadman will have his internet cables plugged out for months without anyone capable of repairing, resulting in a Con win
Real life events suggest that glitches and technical malfunction are even lower proability than normal right now. Anyway, I think that Con forgot the debate's topic... This supports Pro as the voters will vote Con.
  • No one will vote on this debate(This happened many times already, therefore there is even less than 44% chance for a Con win actually)
Actually in the past 3-4 months almost 0 debates have ended in no vote, it's extremely rare now, there's been consistently 1-2 voters per debate, even if it's possible, it's not probable.
  • DebateArt.com shuts down like DDO did, before anyone could vote
It could, however this is interesting as even if this happens, this debate is about if the first user is likely to vote Con, not if the user actually gets to do it. Regardless, the likelihood of this is basically negligible, I challenge Con to prove differently.
  • A Death Star from a galaxy far far away comes to our galaxy and destroys Earth with a galatic superlaser
It could also lead to brainwashing all voters to vote Con...
  • Debating is now made illegal in most countries, including China, USA and Russia
USA has the first amendment. It is probably the least likely nation on Earth to ban debating... Con is personally based in China (not doxxing this has been publically admitted on-site, I'll source next Round if it's needed) and is here, participating. Con has consistently debated well and beaten opponents in the past. I don't see how this is even a 'thing' to be considering in probability or how Russia is relevant but I will wait for Con to explain. If Con is confused as I was that the site is hosted in Russia, the admin/owner has since cleared things up

Now for the second part of Con's arguments.

If I have the better proof, then simply I get the win. This debate is about who is better at either proving the resolution correct or wrong. If Pro FF's as a result that Con takes the win, that does not mean Pro is "right", it means he didn't have the better argument and does not deserve to win. So:
I will provide 0 proof this Round, that is my style and is adding to my doom of voters voting Con this debate being more likely.
This is essentially ineffective and counter-effective even. We are arguing for the better proof, not being fortune tellers. 
No, it increases the probability that voters vote for Con. I at least can lose a conduct mark for laziness and bad attitude even if I win the debate (and I am known for doing that even forfeiting Rounds in debates I've won that I can prove in next Round if needed but am too lazy to do now).
Look at their debate history.

Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse.
At the moment this argument was written, RM was 3rd on the entire leaderboard with an ELO of 1770 and over 400 debates while I am 12th on the leaderboard with an ELO of 1690 and less than 100 debates. If anything, the more skilled debater is RM, not me. Either there is no proof, or this is counter-proof.
Yes, it is correct to say I'm more 'skilled' by Ratings alone... however... I have nearly 50/50 or even 40/60 (I'm not checking, it's up to con to prove different) winrate as Pro on debates, I'm a much weaker Pro+instigator debater overall.

My winrate is 67.37% at this point in time and Con's winrate is 73.3%. I am just a glider, I float by noobsniping, nobody should respect me and it's quite likely that they won't in the votes. :(

So, what is Probability?

Intuitively, the mathematical theory of probability deals with patterns that occur in random events. For the theory of probability the nature of randomness is inessential. (Note for the record, that according to the 18th century French mathematician Marquis de Laplace randomness is a perceived phenomenon explained by human ignorance, while the late 20th century mathematics came with a realization that chaos may emerge as the result of deterministic processes.) An experiment is a process - natural or set up deliberately - that has an observable outcome. In the deliberate setting, the word experiment and trial are synonymous. An experiment has a random outcome if the result of the experiment can't be predicted with absolute certainty. An event is a collection of possible outcomes of an experiment. An event is said to occur as a result of an experiment if it contains the actual outcome of that experiment. Individual outcomes comprising an event are said to be favorable to that event. Events are assigned a measure of certainty which is called probability (of an event.)

I'll stop there as I'm lazy, please vote Con. This is not a concession though, I am just okay if you vote Con and sure it will likely happen.
Con
1. No one here can predict the future.

In response to RM's electricity outage incident, neither was this fabricated nor facilitated, but I was nearly being hit by a car... 2 times the evening before. I walked in my home scratchless though, but if I was 0.1 percent slower, I would probably be in Hospital and forfeiting right now.

Both of these examples, along with possibly many, indicate that the future is unpredictable, or at least, given what we have here, is so. We have no way here of knowing what will exactly happen next even if determinism is true due to we simply can't measure a fundamental particle's momentum and position simultaneously without considerable inaccuracy, that is the kind of machines we have here. In other words, we have no idea that RM or I will die today, or even both, resulting in forfeiture. We have no idea of knowing if DART will shut down today due to a sudden change of mind of the owner(although, please do not, thank you), and we have no idea of knowing if Palpatine himself will suddenly come to earth and either reduce it to cinders or he will convince the people on Earth to make spam accounts that will vote for Con(which may clog up the site and cause the site to go down...?). We just don't know.

Since we have yet to have invented a thing that even utilizes determinism or can even calculate what happens next, there is no certainty to what happens next in history. This means that no event, unless logically unsound, will have zero chance of happening. The future can go any way. Since there is an infinite array of things that could happen, and the future is virtually unpredictable, that means when we expand the scope as greatly as I could, any "predictions" on probability and any distinction between probability and possibility are essentually null. The future "has" random outcome.

Not only that, but obviously Pro has questioned what if all these happens inversely and happens to Pro instead of Con for example. In that case, Pro is true. Anything that benefits Pro could inversely benefit Con in another event, it is technically one-on-one corresponding, which in turn means that an equilibrium ought to be reached in which it shifts to nowhere other than a drawed state, neither Pro nor Con, which proves the opposing side false.

Pro fails to distinguish possibility and probability beyond the point of merely presenting proof and not explaining it. The future, according to the definition given, is virtually of random outcome. Unless Pro establishes any viable proof that determinism can actually be utilized and measured, the future is, to us, unpredictable, which means that the future has random outcome and on balance it does NOT favor CON, especially since the voting procedure is restricted to 81 possible votes, 9 of them ties and only 44% of them Con-favored. That means that my point in which the future yields random outcome and does not favor Con in possibility or probability(since they are equal here) stand still.

2. "Counter-proof"

I'll stop there as I'm lazy, please vote Con. This is not a concession though, I am just okay if you vote Con and sure it will likely happen.
Pro lacking in his argument as a device to ruse other voters into voting Con is fine I guess, but that does nothing in light of the resolution itself. It does not give a better proof of why Pro is correct, rather, it makes it worse.

Even if this really should count as a point, it can be overturned as well. First, Pro is not being lazy, if this is really counted as a point, since Pro really went out of his way to construct a point of creativity that counts. I do not consider Pro lazy at all, if anything. I am more lazy than him at times, for example here, here, and here.

Pro should not lose the S&G point either, due to his savvy usage of the quote blocks and the bolding function making the argument easy to read. On the other hand, look at an argument that is hard to read. That is the kind of things that would have deducted the S&G point, not whatever Pro has. If anything, Pro's argument is as readable as mine.

And since if that counts as a point, I would say that Pro really went in his effort to construct a point in a creative way, which is what he is supposed to do. Pro does not lose the Conduct point either, at least he should not have. On the other hand,
In actual fact, if Con is going to stoop so low, I can and will hilariously point something out.
Even Pro thinks that my arguments are bad or dishonest or bullshit, which means that there is probably points to be deducted from me here.

 I will gladly point out that the resolution can be true even more, not even less, since Con can be voted even if the first voter favours me in the tally, so long as one of the others is given to Con.
The inverse can be equally true given the future is random. The first voter is random in of itself. Point?

USA has the first amendment. It is probably the least likely nation on Earth to ban debating... Con is personally based in China (not doxxing this has been publically admitted on-site, I'll source next Round if it's needed) and is here, participating.
Pro lives in a country less prone to ban debating, therefore he has less chance to forfeit in this standard.

My winrate is 67.37% at this point in time and Con's winrate is 73.3%. I am just a glider, I float by noobsniping, nobody should respect me and it's quite likely that they won't in the votes. :(
Pro fails to acknowledge the fact that I have debated with the same person 19 times(and won 18 times, Gugigor) because yes I do stoop that low grinding wins using someone who just can't stop instigating debates. On the other hand, RM has ran for the president and is shown to be able to carry out the task better than Airmax, as well as that he well could be a play and moderate Mafia., on the other hand, I never sought for these accomplishments and I don't have any. So far, Pro is still more experienced as shown, especially since possibly most of my wins come from forfeits, concessions, or exploiting other users.

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet