The Debate Challenge

Thanks Pro. Resolution: My opponent seems to agree on the resolution I was arguing for, as he provided no rebuttal towards this. Therefore I assume my line of argument is valid. Space & Character Usage: As anticipated my opponent has used a mere 6,041 of a potential 16,000 (38%) characters total over two rounds in order to make his rebuttal and closing statement. This should cue voters in on the strength of my opponent’s (weak) resolution. My opponent’s total character count over three rounds was 7,267 characters, exactly 100 characters short of the 7,367 I used in just my opening statement. Therefore on brute volume, I have neutralized my opponent’s ‘forfeiture’ advantage. Counter-Rebuttals: Pro makes argument that GCL & Rational_Thinker9119’s debates do not demonstrate situations in which conduct can be earned even in the forfeiture of a round. This is at best an argument ad ignorantum especially with indirect evidence being the only thing presented so far in this debate. Pro makes an anecdotal testimony that he’s never lost a debate in which he has has even one round forfeited against him. I would like to remind voters that most of these forfeiters simply made no arguments whatsoever and went AWOL. Furthermore his own anecdote does not represent DDO as a whole, especially given many of his debate topics are generally of a less-serious nature (regarding fiction & anime/games etc) than other topics debates (religion, etc.). Gish-Gallop: Pro should automatically lose conduct points for this unethical tactic, against an opponent who is already pressed for character space to address even two normal rounds of arguments. Fortunately this Gish Gallop was very poorly done. The following points were all ad hominem fallacies[1], and do not address the resolution that I will lose the debate, and instead addresses the resolution ‘Why my opponent is more likely to lose the debate’. Even this resolution he fails to demonstrate. P.S. Thanks a lot to my opponent for conveniently numbering his list of gallop arguments, which saved me a significant quantity of character space. Since my opponent openly admitted that he was Gish Galloping, and admitted his arguments were indeed all half-truths/lies, then we can safely disregard all of them out of hand! Furthermore, on examination, every single argument is either a non-sequitir or an ad hominem [1] fallacy with the exception of 14-18, which was instead a fallacy of equivocation. Also my opponent hade a number of claims without providing any evidence, to which I can dismiss without evidence with Hitchen’s Razor [2]. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” My Credentuals/Credibility: My opponent cites my inexperience at debating, which is true. Although my field in science has made me no stranger to arguing my case and writing in an objective manner, which is a trait my opponent seems to not yet possess given by the three rounds already posted. Furthermore, I have several active uncompleted debates so far (plus this one as soon as I press the submit button) which will soon bring me up to ~12 debates, a 50% improvement on my existing record. 2 of my 3 losses are indeed a result of my forfeiture, but I showed that I also have a win where I forfeited at least one round. If you ignore the losses due to forfeits I actually have a very respectable 83% win ratio in the debates I put any effort into. And even my current 62.5% in ratio is higher than Pro’s 43% ratio (!). Pro is still under the impression he still deserves the conduct point, presumably due to forfeiture, but he has provided absolutely no rebuttal to my opening statement which described exactly why this is false. Unaddressed Arguments: Pro has not addressed any of my arguments regarding Pro’s spelling & grammar & sources. Nor did he justify his position on the conduct point, and in fact seemed to concede the point in attempting to soften his second round rebuttal in order not to lose them. Further still Pro has not sourced any of his assertions, despite my requests to do as much. Concession: Finally, I accept my opponent’s graceful concession, and his remark about people forfeiting debates and wasting other’s time. But this is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate, and can be ignored on analysis. Conclusion: I hope I have shown why I and others can win a debate even whilst forfeiting a round, and I hope I have educated the audience in a few areas into what decides the winner of a debate. Pro makes an agreeable point that forfeitures should be reduced/discouraged, it’s a shame Pro neglected to apply the same level of effort in the remainder of his arguments. Closing Remarks: I would like to thank Pro for offering this debate and for following through on his role in it. I hope we meet again in future. The resolution is negated, vote Con! References: 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...'_razor