Instigator / Pro
10
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4856
I'm Pro. You choose the topic.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
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.
Please send a message to me on the topic so I can start the first round with a full introduction.
Round 1
Round 2
Pro
#3
"Burden of Proof is on Pro "
A forfeit of a round to meet that burden is the fault of the opposing side, the con side. Judging this debate on the first round should not be counted against me.
Also I'm going to elaborate in conclusion that technically there is no such burden in this topic actually.
First of all prove exactly what?
When you guys give topics, they're sort of lackluster in description, criteria, definitions and specifications. The main thing you miss is formulating the topic properly.
Now I'm in the PRO position and that word itself will be my bread and butter.
Being that I mentioned about definitions, what is the PRO position? What does it mean to be PRO anything?
Like pro choice, pro abortion, pro gun rights, pro the republican party. Means I'm for something. I support something. I take the position of championing something. I can support another's position in something.
Being "in support of" something means giving assistance to, showing approval of, attempting to promote or obtain.
Now the topic or subject of a child committing genocide . Let's say it has been said in current news that it's a 3 and half to 4 year old child that agrees to having committed genocide. There's a trial or investigation and the verdict hasn't come out yet. This is an illustration.
I was given this news like I was given this topic. There wasn't much else to describe or direct the aim of objective in addressing the news or topic.
The child agrees " to take a stance of acceptance" to committing a crime.
Now I am Pro the child agreeing with their crime . Let's just say I made that declaration for my position on the matter. The news was just given to me. The individual who gave me the news doesn't have proof or evidence that the child is guilty and I'm not out to prove anything.
It's just the news circulating out there. My position supports that the person is the killer. Whether they actually are or not, there's no proof and further more I'm not proving anything. I'm just taking the stance that the person is guilty .
Likewise, there been no proof from the opposing side that mathematicians takes the stance of 2 adding 2 equals something other than 4.
But I can still take the position and according to this debate, I'm in position to be for them in this position that they've taken.
Whether they actually do or not or anything, I'm just pro them, pro whatever they stand for. Whether it exists or not. Just call it math bias . I'm an aspiring mathematician myself and I look up to them.
So due to the this particularly topic verbatim, no I don't have to prove anything. You've poorly or rather not described what specifically is supposed to be proven.
I'm for the mathematicians so I can explain how I can be for them. I can demonstrate what constitutes me being for them .
After your next turn, it'll be the third round. The debate criteria in debates is expected to be established at least by the first round in detail but I was caused to forfeit it .
At this point, why shouldn't this whole thing just be thrown out as a disqualifiable, unacceptable, non suffice invitation to a challenge?
Con
#4
a. Forfeit
- For some reason, Pro attempts to blame me for him forfeiting his round. This should probably just be ignored.
First of all prove exactly what?
- Prove that "Every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383" you know...the debate topic.
- Let's note that the pro offered no argument or evidence in favor of the debate proposition in his entire second round, even after forfeiting the first round. Pretty much everything he says therein can be discarded, he may as well have forfeited the second round.
Likewise, there been no proof from the opposing side that mathematicians takes the stance of 2 adding 2 equals something other than 4.
- Con does not have the burden of proof in this debate. There was no"shared" clause stipulated in the rules. Nevertheless, we know that mathematicians all make use of calculators in this work, and according to a working calculator 1+1=2, or not 61738383, so inductively we can conclude that at least one mathematician believes that 1+1 = 2 and not 61738383.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"For some reason, Pro attempts to blame me for him forfeiting his round. This should probably just be ignored."
"Please send a message to me on the topic so I can start the first round with a full introduction."
I repeat.
"Please send a message to me on the topic so I can start the first round with a full introduction."
The opposing side out of discourtesy did not give any topic information until it was their turn in a round thus reducing my space for arguing.
"Prove that "Every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383" you know...the debate topic.
Let's note that the pro offered no argument or evidence in favor of the debate proposition in his entire second round, even after forfeiting the first round. Pretty much everything he says therein can be discarded, he may as well have forfeited the second round. "
Not only were you discourteous, you gave vague lackluster details to this topic.
You stated the topic. Then gave a few sentences along with one with merely a few words
"Burden of Proof is on Pro "
Burden of proof of what?
Without being specific, I can go at this from several directions.
-Demonstrate, prove I'm for said topic.
-Demonstrate, prove 2+2 is what it is so all people that can count agree .
-Demonstrate, prove all people that can count agree 2+2 is what it is to them even though objectively it's not what two and two amounts to.
All relative to the topic. You can say it doesn't matter but by being specific initially I won't be getting subsequently in the debate counter retorts of"that's inadmissible" or "that's not an acceptable formula or methodology".
A similar issue with another debate with one of these "pick the topic" setups. You guys ought to keep in mind the topic will have to have a whole criteria behind it .
The person gave the topic, didn't establish any definitions to go with it. Then later on wanted to just challenge definitions that could of been agreed upon. We know definitions are just communicating what we mean when saying anything.
Trying to mark my case as invalid based on a foundational disagreement could be avoided. A lawyer should know what's inadmissible before entering court. For instance bringing in evidence into a trial that could be acceptable if obtained legally, with a search warrant, whatever. Not hearsay from a verified source or results of a polygraph. Those get thrown out.
A debate where the topic is abortion.
Burden of proof is on you that supports it.
Burden to prove what?
Proving why the sanity is there to support it.
Proving why it has to be legal.
Proving why it's morally acceptable.
Proving how it's rational.
A debate where the topic is everybody knows how to use a gun.
Burden of proof is on you that supports that.
Burden of proof to prove what?
-Prove that every entity classified as a body knows.
-Prove that everybody being a person knows.
-Prove that the capacity is there to know so therefore
-Prove that knowing is the minimum wherewithal of making a gun going off regardless of actually hitting intended targets.
-Prove that everybody knows how to use one gun or type thereof but not in general.
A debate where the topic is gay adoption.
Burden of proof is on you that supports that.
Burden of proof to prove what?
-Prove that it is right.
-Prove that it is acceptable.
-Prove that it is better than whatever.
Specific criteria is all. Keep it at the forefront.
We're well into the third round. The debate criteria should have been established at least by the first round. The topic should just be thrown out . I think I'll make that a part of the debate description going forward. You don't comply with sending a message, you automatically forfeit to avoid asinine rigamarole such as this from this individual.
Not really unexpected based on this individual's history. I digress.
But for the sake of edification, I try to deliver to the people.
Take note people. This is how you deal with people that try to pull a rigged game on you.
So I have it verbatim specifically with no assumptions as the verified debate criteria.
"Prove that "Every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383"
Specifically prove that every mathematician agrees that 2 plus 2 equals 61738383.
What's interesting is the opposing side using mathematicians like the standard.
Anybody that can add numbers correctly is using the same standard.
But anyway follow this closely.
2 plus 2 equalling 61738383 is the wrong calculation.
When you don't add numbers correctly, you get the incorrect calculation.
Mathematicians knowing all about calculations know that and would AGREE with that.
They agree adding numbers correctly gives you the correct calculation.
They agree adding numbers incorrectly gives you the incorrect calculation.
They agree 2 plus 2 is 4 based on counting numbers correctly.
They agree 2 plus 2 is 61738383 or any other incorrect calculation based on counting numbers wrong.
Why? It's an incorrect number. Anybody that knows about math including the mathematicians knows or agrees you get the wrong answer adding numbers wrong.
2 times 7 equals 9 based on incorrect math
2 plus 7 equals 27 based on incorrect math
2 plus 7 is 27 plus 2 and 7 equals 2727 based on ...
incorrect math, yes.
10 divided by 20 equals 2 based on incorrect math and on and on and on.
The remainder of the opposing side's statements weren't really necessary but their freedom of speech is as the site's standard allows.
Let's see another example.
1 half plus 1 half equals 2 quarters based on incorrect math.
Ok I'll stop there.
Con
#6
- I did not see any evidence or argument presented to show that "[e]very single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383." It seems like pro has no interest in actually trying to defend this in the debate, so I will mostly just extend my previous round.
Concession
- Pro even concedes that:
"2 plus 2 equalling 61738383 is the wrong calculation. When you don't add numbers correctly, you get the incorrect calculation...Mathematicians knowing all about calculations know that and would AGREE with that"
- So it seems that pro admits that Mathematicians do not in fact agree that 2+2 is not equal to 61738383. We may as well treat this as the end of the debate.
Round 4
Pro
#7
This was easy.
The opposing side is committing the invincible ignorance fallacy which is a track record of theirs if I'm not mistaken.
"Pro even concedes that:
"2 plus 2 equalling 61738383 is the wrong calculation. When you don't add numbers correctly, you get the incorrect calculation...Mathematicians knowing all about calculations know that and would AGREE with that"
- So it seems that pro admits that Mathematicians do not in fact agree that 2+2 is not equal to 61738383. We may as well treat this as the end of the debate. "
The opposing side very conveniently avoided where I said "Mathematicians knowing all about calculations know that and would AGREE with that".
I said they do agree. The opposing side didn't say prove that the mathematicians agree that 2+2 equals anything else besides or except 4 is the correct calculation.
The opposing said specifically said finally after pulling teeth:
"Prove that "Every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383"
You did not say prove every single mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383 is correct .
See, a lesson to readers, future readers, always be specific. Not vague with "burden on proof is on pro".
When you do communicate to be specific, make sure you're specific enough to help you. I tell you I'm just going to take what you say and use it against you.
I believe the opposing side knows every person period regardless of the title mathematician that can add numbers correctly knows what an incorrect calculation is in arithmetic. They know that people that can count correctly agree that an incorrect calculation is received when incorrectly adding numbers, calculating numbers incorrectly.
So in view of that reality which would be what you call proof, evidence, the truth, every person that can add correctly agrees that an incorrect numerical sum is what 2+2 equals to . How so? Why would they agree? They'd agree an incorrect calculation would get an incorrect number. This is like....duh.
Two plus two or adding any two numbers incorrectly,it's agreed you get an incorrect numerical sum. That's a universal understanding so we can say every mathematician .
Just that simple. Dodging the point of that as a copout is a specialty of the opposing side .
The debate has been over since the topic was clarified. It's just been a lesson on thinking outside the box that's been taught by me within the duration of this. Really since the first round causing me to forfeit it, it's been over. But hey, I'll make a note making a stipulation in the terms from here on out.
Class dismissed.
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:
The topic here was very clearly defined by Con, so I don't buy Pro's kritik. To believe something means to think that it is true—this is strongly implied throughout Con's argument, and it is the most straightforward interpretation of the resolution. Since Pro concedes that mathematicians do not think 2+2 is actually 61738383, this is essentially ceding the resolution as false.
Legibility goes to Con since Pro's case was unreadable at times, with arguments that seemed to shift from one kritik to another on different words in the resolution. This could have been solved if Pro had just used bold headings and bullets (as Con did) to make their case easier to comprehend.
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:
Well, this was a fun one.
"According to a working calculator 1+1=2"
This went unchallenged by Pro.
"They'd agree an incorrect calculation would get an incorrect number."
This went unchallenged by Con.
With both sides not touching each other's case, I have no way to vote either way.
I can believe that working calculators say that 2+2=4.
I can also believe that every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383, because they agree that when you add numbers incorrectly you get that number.
I am not going to give conduct points, because it does seem like topic was only established after that one forfeiture.
Legibility and sources were somewhat equal on both sides.
Every *single* mathematician
With a *bachelor's* degree
I see what you did there.
Or that
61738383 = 4
😀
"The topic is: Every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383"
Sure, as long as we assume that 2 = half of 61738383
Mall
8/19/2023, 6:24:11 AM
Several of you accept the challenge but don't send a message on the topic. Now I'm on the clock. What is the topic?
The opposing side is restricting the topic possibly causing a first round forfeit.
Let me guess, the topic will be "US should declare war on Canada" with Mall as Pro.