The user who votes first on this debate will most likely vote Con.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 23,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
User = site member
TTTT PCCT PCTC CPPT CPTP TPCC TCPP TTCP TTPC
- 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
In actual fact, if Con is going to stoop so low, I can and will hilariously point something out.
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.
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.
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. :(
- Probability is yet to be proven to not be random, therefore all events should have a nonzero chance of happening in the future. As a result, on balance, it is more likely for the first voter to NOT vote CON.
- Pro is more skilled than me on this site. Pro is more likely to win over me given the preset.
- Pro's arguments are all disproven and all my arguments are dropped, proving Pro false as of now.
- Vote CON!
The USER who VOTES FIRST on this DEBATE will most LIKELY VOTE CON
PRO offers to predict the future based on DART stats and then lazily offers zero proof.
PRO's argument is difficult to parse but runs something like:
P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON.
C: Therefore, the first vote for this debate will favor CON.
P1: The first vote on any debate is more often CON than PRO
C: Therefore, the first vote on this debate will favor CON.
Both arguments are missing a major premise.
PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "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." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."
For the first argument to work, PRO must first show that high rankers are also very likely to vote first and even then we have multiple layers of likelihoods. Furthermore, PRO must show that these likelihoods are generally disconnected from quality of argument. Since the majority of debates on this site are poorly constructed to begin with, CON is naturally favored. Furthermore, In this VOTER's experience, CON enjoys significant advantages in terms of BURDEN of PROOF, last arguments, and above all, choosing one's opponent. Long before we consider who votes and how, CON is likely heavily favored.
For the second argument to work, PRO must again show that the first VOTE is disconnected from quality of argument. Since CON is favored before arguments are made, the majority of first votes should be CON but since PRO is making a very lazy argument, PRO must also show that these odds ignore even the laziest of arguments.
Oddly, CON also fail to consider how format and quality favor voting for CON generally but not PRO's argument specifically. CON weighs the probabilities as if each possible outcome are just as likely when in fact fewer VOTES rate sources, grammar, conduct and the outcome of all of these depend heavily on performance.
CON unconvincingly argues PRO's ratings will overcome any deficits in performance but then CON goes ahead by noting that PRO contemptuously offered zero proof to his argument and correctly claims advantage because his argument has evidence, in spite of this evidence contradicting the ability suggested by the leaderboard.
PRO effectively eviscerates CON "all possibilities being equal argument"
PRO correctly counters that the leaderboard favors quantity over quality.
CON effectively argues that PRO is deliberately throwing the debate, hoping to win by losing and I suppose such a tactic is clever but CON correctly points out that PRO makes a mistake by predicting a future for which the outcome is out of PRO's control. To win this debate, CON needed to convince the first VOTER to give the advantage to CON but make up those losses in subsequent VOTES and CON has achieved that result.
In the absence of any contention either way, the BURDEN of PROOF that CON would win this debate was on PRO. PRO failed to provide any evidence for two weak affirmative arguments both of which were missing major premises. Such a tactic may have proved sufficient to win the first VOTE but then that outcome itself contradicts PRO's unwise prediction.
In spite of some effective counterarguments, PRO loses this ARGUMENT.
CONDUCT also to CON for PRO's forfeiture and lazy R1.
I was tempted to give CON SPELLING and GRAMMAR based on the world salad of PRO's first argument and said as much in the comments of this debate but in truth, PRO's R2 was superior to his usual poor legibility and the requisite standard of "Overwhelming word confusion" is not entirely justified, just word confusion over one essential structural element.
Most fun I've had reading any debate in awhile!
First impressions:
The initial skimming suggests a con victory (which paradoxically favors pro). Pro's opening being so short, combined with forfeiting a third of the debate, really hurts him. Whereas I see con whipping out some math, and highlighting it with some good use of formatting... On formatting, I really had trouble following some of pro's replies.
possibility and not probability:
As a math guy, I enjoyed con's introduction to the many possibilities, and his 44% chance blind data was very good. The problem is that pro was immediately able to counter the implicit notation with the reminder of how unlikely many vague possibilities are; with the internet outage one highly in his favor due to basic probability distributions.
Con leans in on the future being uncertain, which ignores that the resolution is about likelihood rather than absolute certainty.
Pro further leverages that mixed votes exist. Con misses this and leans in more on his "81 possible votes." He later amends that a mixed vote could be inverted... Which misses that issue that it's not about just majority votes with how the resolution is worded, but any vote which casts points in favor of con.
Laziness:
I do agree with con that quality of arguments still favor a vote for whichever side presented them.
I actually laughed out loud at the execution of this:
"So far, Pro is still more experienced as shown, especially since possibly most of my wins come from forfeits, concessions, or exploiting other users."
"Forfeited"
Con did do a good job describing why forfeiting in a key round is not a silver bullet argument, and even ties back to his earlier bit about power outages. It's almost enough to tip the debate, but not quite...
...
Conduct:
Forfeiture.
Arguments:
Ultimately in light of pro's replies (even without being extended), I did not find con's explanations of possibility and uncertainty to be convincing. It even hurt his case the way it was utilized given the mixed vote possibilities (as much as I would have preferred if pro leveraged the exact numbers a bit, instead of just giving the impression). If this debate resolution did not contain the "most likely" qualifier, this would be a strong con victory; as is, I find pro more convincing.
Legibility:
Tied, but leaning in cons favor.
you want to play dirty games, alright.
this is objective proof that you are coming in with the intention to vote against me, trying to filler/insert whatever you can to justify it
rationalmadman is apparently blocking me again but his concerns are easily addressed with the following edit:
change: "P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to vote CON."
to: " P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON."
I don't see any other change to my VOTE needed to shut down RM's complaint about "lying"
I would also make this change:
ADD +1 point to CON for Better Spelling and Grammar
Reason: PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "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." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."
Oromagi is lying about my arguments in order to vote for me.
Oromagi is lying about my arguments in order to vote against me.
I said that the high rankers are con a lot more often... wtf are you talking about, I said the low rankers are pro very often.
Anyway
Okay
You'd best not, one of them is you.
The idiocy of votes casted on this site is usually self evident, but there are certain users who appear to consistently cast votes that give the impression of a delusion or adverse mental condition. I will not mention any specific user, however.
I'm really hoping that was a joke.
Doing it like a politician? I like it. /s
whats up
I will try to place my vote on this debate first. If either party wants to cash app me money to ensure I vote against them, I would be happy to oblige
1 week rounds, I refuse to do 2 week rounds because I personally have time now.
I can accept if this is over 1 week.