Instigator / Pro
4
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#927

RM cannot prove that I am type1

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

No information

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:

Con lists several ways that RM could prove that Sparrow is Type1. All seemed possible strategies, and Pro doesn't even try to refute them. Instead, he says that RM is either incapable of using those methods (unsupported claim) or that he simply can't. In the convoluted statement, "RM cannot prove that I am type1 because according to determinism he won't even if he hypothetically could using the methods you described, even if I hypothetically was because if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't", it is claimed that RM can't prove it, because he won't because if he doesn't then he can't. I'm not sure what sort of reasoning this is, and I can't make much sense of it.

Pro later says, "according to the deterministic worldview, if something happens or does not happen it was always meant to be so because everything exists in accordance with the dominoes of causality. If RM doesn't prove I am Type1, which he won't, then he CAN'T because it was NEVER going to happen" which I THINK means that every outcome is fixed beforehand. However, Con refutes this by a) putting determinism into doubt, since Type1 hasn't proven it, and b) pointing out the window of opportunity extending into the future.

So Con's arguments went uncontended, except for Pro's a) baseless, and b) refuted kritiks.

Arguments to Con.

Pro did not provide any sources.
Con's sources, as far as I can tell, have accurate information on the methods Con mentioned in his arguments.
Con's source [1], for instance, showcases an AI capable of identifying and matching people by their style of writing. I've tested it myself and it's fairly accurate.

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:

Basically no contest. Pro had no real case of his own, and chose not to refute any part of cons (he did attempt a very weak K via moving the goalpost).

Pro's opening case is two words, not enough to give him BoP, barely enough to make an assertion.

Con's in depth case on ways the subject of this debate could do something (seems not just un-impossible, but outright likely). For the criteria, I'll just use #7, RM could fake the evidence. This went uncontested. Pro tried a weird it hasn't happened yet so it will never happen, but this debate is not about history but possibility.

Sources were used by one side to show how easy proof would be, and they were left uncontested and with no counter evidence. The digitaltrends one showed how easily a program could identify matching works of the same author.