Instigator / Con
0
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#3787

You select the topic.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
1
1706
rating
560
debates
68.13%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.

Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .

***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THE SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***

Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1
Con
#1
What's on your mind?

I bet you I can read it.
Pro
#2
Mall was correct to bet that he can telepathically read RM's mind.

You are Con, as this is the side you chose.
Round 2
Con
#3
I never said telepathically. But virtually anybody contextually can. You were to respond to this debate. Can't do that without thinking of the choice to decide.

Now it looks like you didn't provide a topic that I can at least clearly see. 

Maybe you did that on purpose so I would come back saying you were thinking of a topic to put down and be wrong as none was put down.

But if that's the case , you over complicated it .

If you're saying I'm con, the negative side, opposed to what I said, it doesn't count. 

I'm not under terms to make a topic nor would I conflict myself with it.
Pro
#4
the 'telepathy' semantic scandal

What's on your mind?

I bet you I can read it.
'it' can only refer to 'mind' there and I just quoted Con's Round 1.

telepathic
having or showing the ability to know what is in someone else's mind, or to communicate with someone mentally, without using words or other physical signals:

Mind Reading
Empathic Accuracy

Humans cannot literally read the minds of others, but can create mental models so as to effectively intuit people's thoughts and feelings. This is known as empathic accuracy, and it involves “reading” cues telegraphed by the words, emotions, and body language of another person.

So, if Con genuinely stands by saying this:
I never said telepathically. But virtually anybody contextually can. 
We can infer that Con's sole gripe with the proposed topic of debate is that I inserted 'telepathically'.

Let's analyse what 'reading a mind' actually means generally.

read someone's mind
idiom (also read someone's thoughts)
to know what someone is thinking without them telling you

Which matches extremely well with the definition we have of 'telepathic' as an adjective referring to the nature of one's analysis and/or 'read' on what is going on in another's mind.

Now, that we have the telepathy out of the way, let's get to the 'betting'...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Holla Holla get your game-theory-optimal dollar!

Mall was correct to bet that he can telepathically read RM's mind.
This is what Con and myself are debating here.

Con stated no wager on their own end, meaning that I am forced to pay up what I feel such a bold bet deserved if they get it right and yet I cannot demand the amount I think I am owed if Con were wrong in the mindreading.

That is absolutely optimal in all ways.

Let's even notice the complete flexibility at play here, Con didn't state what was going on in my mind, that means that Con has the ability to fluctuate the bet-upon read on me to suit later scenarios. Con could even decide to bet that I'd take the bet!

Imagine this:

Mall has decided that the mind-reading prediction is that RM will take the bet...

  • Scenario 1: RM doesn't take the bet, who else would take it? It won't even matter, Mall/Con never set the wager! Mall is betting for free with any takers inherently owing something.
  • Scenario 2: RM takes the bet that Mall cannot read his mind and has proven that Mall read his mind!
It's genius!

Mall left this bet completely wide open and strategically fine in all senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now it looks like you didn't provide a topic that I can at least clearly see. 
There is a clear topic, it's the first line I wrote on a 'select the topic' debate and Mall knew this because Mall intuitively argued the topic here (on the incorrect side, though):


Maybe you did that on purpose so I would come back saying you were thinking of a topic to put down and be wrong as none was put down.
Mall has again forgotten that Mall is Con to the topic, not Pro.
But if that's the case , you over complicated it .
No Mall, you did.
If you're saying I'm con, the negative side, opposed to what I said, it doesn't count. 
You are opposed to the topic that states 'Mall was correct to bet that he can telepathically read RM's mind.'

I'm not under terms to make a topic nor would I conflict myself with it.
Correct! You read my mind!