Mass Refutation Debate #1

That said = Refutations = 11- P1: a. There absolutely can. One cat, plus one fish can either equal one cat and one fish, or it could end in one cat. The error here lies in my opponent interpreting basic addition solely in theory. P2: a. I can concede to this part of the argument. C: a. One apple, plus one orange, equals one apple and one orange. Not two apples, and not two oranges. b. Similarly, following my opponent's interpretation of basic math, 1X + 1Y = 1X + 1Y. This is still basic math, as solvency requires no advanced math to solve. However these two ones do not result in an answer of two when added together. 12- P1: a. Not true. According to the principle of "Komi"[12] if black ended the game with one point more than his or her opponent then they would still lose by 4 and 1/2 points. b. A standard Go match includes the rule of Komi. Whenever komi is not included, it is a modified match, not a standard round. P2: a. Based on a completely formalist interpretation of this argument, for all we know Hashimoto was black in this famous game. b. Because not all people are well versed in Go history (myself included) this argument really should have some kind of evidence to back it up. Without a thorough understanding of this concept it's not possible for me to refute. C: a. Despite my opponent's clarifying "note" offered at the end of the round, komi must be included in interpretation of who won or lost because my opponent places an emphasis on a "standard round". b. Based on the rule of Komi, Hashimoto could have very well lost for all we know. [12] . http://gobase.org... 13- P1: a. I will certainly concede to this first premise. b. I would like to extend this concept across the five new arguments my opponent presents. Because he presents no evidence to validate his claims we cannot believe them to be true. P2: a. My opponent doesn't present us with any evidence. For all we know we are all just characters in a movie, t. v. show, or videogame. Who's to say any of us exist at all. C: a. Again, my opponent offers no evidence to validate this argument. Our own belief that we exist is not enough to prove that we, nor the universe exists. 14- P1: a. Not all coins have a heads side. b. Because the side labeled "tails" is relative to the side labeled "heads" not all coins have a tails side. P2: a. The Japanese Yen coin does not have a heads side [13] C: a. Because a yen coin does not have either a heads, nor a tails side, it is not possible for a yen coin to land on heads nor tails. b. When my opponent makes this argument they make a huge assumption that all coins have a heads and a tails side. This is detrimental because through this assumption my opponent severely limits the scope of this argument. The impact is that while the term coin would include coins with a heads and a tails side, it does not rule out coins without a heads or tails side. Meaning that since coin without a heads or tails side (the Japanese Yen) cannot land on heads or tails, this argument is fundamentally flawed. [13]. http://flagpedia.net... 15- P1: a. Absolutely, this is fundamentally the way debates work. P2: a. I thank my opponent for saying this, but that decision is up to the voters to decide. b. Since this is a statement of opinion it cannot be accepted. C: a. Again, I thank my opponent for saying this, but that decision is one that must be left up to the voters; Under-view: (In response to my opponent's final note) a. Framework must not be abusive. At the point that framework serves not to clarify a debate, but to make it easier for the framer to win, it must be rejected. b. My opponent's final argument isn't really an argument, as the impact to the argument lies in my opponent's final note. Not the argument. At this realization, we must instead interpret this argument as framework. = Final thoughts = a. I doubt this will be a problem, but I feel it should be clarified anyway. Because I will not have a chance to respond to anything my opponent says in the final round, it cannot be counted as a voting issue. b. Thanks to my opponent for the fantastic debate! I hope to have more in the future. Thanks to the voters for reading as well. I hope you all enjoyed this debate as much as I did. c. This framework is abusive, as my opponent attempts to establish two contradictory claims.