Pro does not seem to offer an argument, but instead appears to offer mostly a set of simple denials and assertions for which he offers little justification. Let’s cover these:
1.) This was a debate intended for RMThis debate was issued as an open challenge. No long or short description or indication it was intended for RM.
When issuing an open challenge, pro should have expected that any individual may accept it.
2.) This was a debate to prove whether Type1 is sparrow.This is not what the resolution states. The resolution states that RM cannot prove you are Type1.
If you intended the debate to be for RM to prove you are Type1; the resolution should have been “
I am not Type1”, it should have been issued as a direct challenge to RM, and a description should have been added stating the rules of these debate.
As pro did none of these things: the meaning resolution should be assumed to be the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
In this case; it is unreasonable to interpret this as “
RM currently has sufficient evidence to prove you are Type1”; this information is inside RMs head, so it cannot plausibly be expected to be shown in a debate by another party and is such not realistically possible to debate it. As it is unreasonable to presume a debate resolution has a meaning that is undebatable - this cannot be the interpretation of the resolution.
The only remaining reasonable possibility is that the resolution is that “
RM does not have the ability to prove you are Type1”.
As this is the only reasonable interpretation of the resolution: my original argument stands, and shows that this is clearly incorrect:
In points 1-7, I have shown it is possible for RM to show you are Type1- whether you are Type1 or not.
3.) RM doesn’t have the resources to conduct the above.Points 1-4 are relatively simple, and completely free and require no additional resources. On these points alone, RM would be able to completely prove you are Type1. [1]
Points 5-6 likely require no resources other than time and intelligence (see my next point). Given that RM obviously dedicates much time to this site, there is likely no time constraint.
Point 7 - the faking of evidence in particular could also be achieved with limited resources; at its most basic it would require the ability to use paint and edit HTML pages to fake the sort of information that could come from points 1-4; which, together with evidence gained from point (3), would likely prove you were Type1 to most people’s satisfaction.
In terms of cost resources, this applies only if RM opts for a third party.
If hacking you personally to prove you are Type1, was 40 hours at the rate of a decent software engineer ($150k - 1.5x average salary of a cyber security engineer[2] ), this would work out just shy of $3000.
Given that the gross median individual income in most OECD countries floats around $20,000 [3] this would mean RM would only have to work 2 1/2 months to achieve this target.
He could supplement his income by a second job (Starbucks in the us has. $10 minimum wage, which would require upwards of 300 hours - or around 4 months working an additional 20 hours per week)[4]
Alternatively, worst case if RM was desperate enough, 3000 is only 150 x $20 blow jobs. At 5 a night, this could be achieved in a month; and would also not come with tax deductions or withholding.[5]
So even in this case, the cost is well within a reasonable presumption of what is achievable by RM.
4.) RM is not intelligent enough.While I give RM a bit of a hard time in general - just due to the type of overly dramatic responses - he is not dumb by any means.
To be able to achieve points 5-7; his intelligence needs only to be sufficiently high to be able to find, download and google the usage of specific third party tools and software; with very little actual coding, or scripting required.[6]
Even were RM to want to write specific spearfishing code, or identity stealing code this is likely to be using already discovered security vulnerabilities found by others. RM does not need to determine how to inject program code by exploiting a buffer overrun bug from first principles - simply to apply other people’s techniques.[7]
As a result - the level of intelligence required is not substantial, and is clearly within RMs level of ability - even if one conservatively underestimates RMs intelligence.
5.) “I am totally not Type1”I am not making any statements about whether Sparrow is Type1 or not. This would be a separate debate under a differently titled resolution.
However, simply loudly denying that he is Type1 does not affirm the resolution:
Given the resolution, in addition to the points raised so far in this and my previous rounds: it is clear that RM has the ability and resources to prove Sparrow is Type1 to a degree that would be accepted by any reasonable person.
Should RM so chose : he could additional go to the effort of manufacturing that evidence to frame Sparrow with exceptionally compelling evidence would could also be used to prove Sparrow is Type1 to a degree that would be accepted by any reasonable person.
This would be like cases where Criminal Prosecutors prove a defendant guilty in a court of law - even though these individuals are factually innocent. What is or can be proven is not necessarily what is definitively true.
6.) “if he does not then he was destined in a sense not to and therefor he can't”Pro is confusing “cannot” indicating an inability with “will not” indicating a lack of will. These two are not the same.
Had the resolution been “RM will not prove”, Pro may have had a valid argument, but as the resolution must be interpreted as RMs ability not will, this point is invalid.
Conclusion.Pro offers no actual rebuttal of the points I raised. These should be considered
dropped.
Pro attempts to change the resolution away from that defined with no argument. This should be rejected.
Pro attempts to argue that RM doesn’t have the ability or resources for points 1-7: this is clearly refuted and should be rejected.
The resolution meaning I defined is the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution; and has been negated.
The points raise clearly show RM has the ability to prove Sparrow is Type1, whether that is factually true or not.
Sources:[1]
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/emma-identity-ai-web-app/[2]
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Cyber_Security_Engineer/Salary[3]
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=IDD[4]
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Starbucks_Corporation/Hourly_Rate[5] NSFW
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRedditAfterDark/comments/7vduc3/how_much_does_a_blowjob_cost_where_you_live/[6]
https://www.concise-courses.com/hacking-tools/top-ten/[7]
https://www.hackingtutorials.org/exploit-tutorials/buffer-overflow-explained-basics/
why do most people believe sparrow is type1?
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
RFD: If Ramshutu can prove it, then he can teach RM to prove it. Since Pro never refuted the ability of Con's methods of proof, they are considered valid.
Arguments to Con.
I believe having any sources at all compared to Pro's zero constitutes a win. Sources to Con.
Reason for mod action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. Second To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Since the vote failed to do these things, the vote is removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Thank you for the votes.
Do you believe sparrow is type1?