Quote Debates are actual debates

==PRO:== >>There are many topics open for debate asking things like Util is superior to deontology or things like that, comparative topics exist all the time. Proving why one is better than the other is necessarily the way you win comparative debates. Since quote debates are comparative debates, comparing the two legitimately is considered a debate. I'm comparing between two things.<< ==REBUTTAL:== This comment works for my argument. My opponent states comparative debates require proof that one side is better than the other, and then goes on to say quote debates are example of such debates. However, quote debates do not require reasoning or proof as to why their quote is better than the others. Quote debates =/= Comparative debates ==PRO:== >>Quote debates have some kind of topic. The quotes themselves have some link. That link to the topic is the loogical backing for the quote and thus they are logically backed in terms of the topic.<< ==REBUTTAL:== In a quote debate, my opponent has made out that: Resolution = Presumed Argument Quote = Assertion Link between Resolution and Quote = Logical backing However, then, under any debate any assertion to do with the topic is logical. Example: God is omnipotent PRO: God is obviously omnipotent because he made the bible. Under PRO's logic, the above claim is logical because it's linked to the resolution. However, this is far from true in any regular debate. ==PRO:== >>I would like to ask my opponent to what extent? Do i have to warrant my warrant? And then that one and that one and that one... The point is there is always some base assumption that can be questioned. My argument is that the quote is the original argument as to why pro/con wins the round because the topic questions who has the funnier/more serious quote. Thus there is a base level of argumentation made and appeal made to the topic itself. Thus the assumed argument (aff/neg has better quotes) IS backed up by evidence (quote) just like this debate starts with a topic (quote debates are real debates) and then arguments (like this one)<< ==REBUTTAL:== The extent the argument must be made is until (you feel) your argument is more logical than you're opponents. PRO then explicitly says: Quote debate: Resolution = Assumed Argument ---> Quotes = Evidence Actual debate: Resolution ---> Argument Actual debate = Quote debate This is a clear flaw in logic here. In a quote debate, my opponent says the resolution is the argument, and the quotes back it up. In an actual debate, an argument must be made off the resolution. This is a contradiction to what he has previously said, and works for my case. ==PRO:== >>Ok. I was going off quote debates that just post a quote. But if there is an explanation to the quote then the Pro wins this debate because in a comparative weighing topic, analysis as to why one is better than the other is one signal it is a debate. I could argue blue is better than green for instance and we could debate over that. Similarly if the CON says that quote debates allow one to include justifications then it is obvious that the topic is actually a debate.<< ==REBUTTAL:== I am not sure what PRO is saying here, but the quote debates mentioned throughout this debate have not included justifications, arguments, rebuttal, contradictions, or any of the many other characteristic of a debate other than: 1) It has a resolution (I have better quotes than CON) 2) It has evidence (The quotes) However, neither make up a debate solely. ==PRO:== >>1. There is no objective way to determine that anyways, look at all these topics on debate.org, most are not a 109-0 win. There is always some degree of subjectivity to a debate round (as there will likely be in this one). My opponent gives no reason to why debates necessarily have to have an objective standard. 2. Quote debates are objective in that they provide a link to the topic and the superior argument is voted off of (quote) 3. The rebuttal is in the form of competing impacts... ill explain in the next section.<< ==REBUTTAL:== 1. Although it does not pertain to this topic, the 109-0 wins you mentioned are the explicit results of vote bombing. 2. Providing evidence does not make an argument., as there is no rebuttal. 3. Unless one side says "My impact is better than PRO's because 'X'", then it is not rebuttal. ==PRO:== >>arguments are constructed claim-warrant-impact the impact bieng the reason why the argument is pertinent for the topic. Thus the arguments can be refuted at any of those levels. What im referring to is refuting it at the impact level by saying "Whats happening on my side is more important." This is a common debate strat.<< ==REBUTTAL:== Claim-Warrant-Impact obviously requires you to: Make a claim ---> Warrant your claim ---> Give the impact. A quote debate does none of this. ==PRO:== >>My argument is that since debates can devolve into assertion debates (which my opponent says have implicit impacts) then these assertions clash to the extent of magnitude. In the above debate CON basically granted that PRO's would happen but asserted a worse impact. Almost everyone would agree the above is a debate (Snowstorms vs Hurricanes). Two competing impacts give judges reason to vote pro or con and thus provide some way to evaluate a debate. A perfectly logical strategy in a debate is to concede one of your opponents arguments will happen but claim it does not matter because there is something inherently worse going to happen. These quotes represent an impact (laughing/crying) and thus the more sever of the two wins as in a debate with concessions (or one of the two could say that quote was not funny or whatnot) This means that this is a debate and is determined by evaluating impacts.<< ==REBUTTAL:== In the above example of a debate, CON makes no gesture to indicate he is saying his impact is worse than his opponents. If CON said "yeah but", or some variant of that, then it would constitute CON is saying his/her impact is greater than PRO's. If someone makes a statement, and then follows up with another statement with reference to the previous one, it is rebuttal. A quote debate does not have this. ==PRO:== >>Exactly - debates don't necessitate contradictions - they are not a necessary part of debate and thus since we are evaluating the quote debates based on the definition of debate then this argument should play no part. If most people could walk and there was the ability to walk for almost everyone, that does not mean a person who can not walk is not human.<< ==REBUTTAL:== The point I'm trying to make in this area is that debates can facilitate contradictions. Contradictions aren't in every debate, and may only play a small part, but they are in debates, both internet and real life, and because a quote debate cannot facilitate them, it distances them further from actual debates. ==CONCLUSION:== 1) Quote debates do not contain an argument 2) Quote debates do not contain rebuttal 3) Quote debates cannot facilitate contradictions ---> Quote debates lack the characteristics of Actual debates ---> Quote debates =/= Actual debates. I urge a CON vote.