Quote Debates are actual debates

======== REBUTTAL: ======== ==PRO:== >>Debates are not solely a matter of Logos but can also include elements of ethos and pathos. So there are multiple ways of making an argument in a debate, not all of them having to do with logic. So therefore quote debates can have the necessary characteristics of a debate, making an argument through pathos (whoever makes the judge laughs the loudest or cry the most wins the debate) thus there are no necessary characteristics lacking in quote debates. << ==REBUTTAL== I would firstly like my opponent to clear up what Ethos and Pathos are. I do concede there are multiple ways to make an argument. You can use sources, you can use pure rebuttals, but all arguments are statements that, in order to win, most be logically superior to your opponents. However, a quote debate is comparing which quote is better than your opponents. Whereas the main goal is to trump your opponent using logic in a regular debate, a quote debate requires comparing quotes with each other and seeing which one you prefer. It is a contest at best. ==PRO:== >>Moreover i contend that debates can devolve into a string of assertions and still be considered a debate, for example I could assert right now that quotes are educational. This is a claim but at the same time there is no logical reasoning behind the claim. Even without such a string of logical reasoning i can continue to make a string of assertions in a debate. All a quote debate is, is starting with a presumed argument (my quote is funny) and then post evidence (the quote itself). Thus there is a string of assertions even if those assertions are unwarranted. << ==REBUTTAL:== Whilst debates can turn into strings of assertions, they are often logically backed. You saying quotes are educational is logically backed, simply because quotes from great people are considered intelligent, and anything intelligent is educational. All debates under your theory have a presumed argument. This debate has a presumed argument E. G. Quote debates aren't real debates for CON (presumed argument) because. .. . (my evidence). This would be around the board for all debates. However, this is untrue. In all debates, all arguments have to be made. A quote debate does not have any argument other than quotes, therefore it is not a regular debate. ==PRO:== >>Finally, the clash is implicit in weighing, the resolution would state something like my quote is superior to yours meaning the only proof necessary is that one quote is superior to another. Quotes have the implicit logic in themselves (for example a quote debate asking which quote is funnier, i dont need to be told why a certain quote is funny, the logic for it is implied in the quote or most likely it would not be funny, the comparison comes in the magnitude). Such magnitude comparisons are legitimate in debate. Another example, if we were debating on national sovereignty vs. proliferation treaties, the debater in favor of the proliferation treaties might say the end result of the national sovereignty is a nuclear winter while the other side claims the impact of national sovereignty violations may lead to genocide. Legitimately this would be a debate as impacts are present in the round as is necessary for a weighing resolution even though the impacts are never weighed against each other<< ==REBUTTAL:== If the resolution states my quote is better than yours, then you have to explain why. This is the foundation of the argument. If you cannot answer Why? , then it is left to the judge, and it turns to what the judge perceives as better, not what is actually better. Although in the case of which quote is funnier (the one exception), where the reasoning is self explanatory, a level of rebuttal is expected E. G. My quote was funnier than CON's because 'X'. Although there are few debates such as Proliferation treaties vs. National Sovereignty, giving an impact is still not a proper debate. There, in all debates, is a certain amount of explaining to do regarding why you think your side is better than the others. ==PRO:== >>First i would argue that the rebuttal is implied in that each quote creates an impact as stated above which functions comparatively in a debate. Insofar as in a debate one can grant the opponent that one of their points is true while still winning by proving that their own point is also true and more important, the rebuttal comes in with whose quote is funnier. Thus there is a rebuttal when someone posts another quote. << ==REBUTTAL:== Rebuttal is not when the other person posts another quote. Posting your quote after someone else's to prove it is more important is not a form of rebuttal. Posting a statement with impact followed by a statement with greater impact does not constitute as rebuttal. E. G. Hurricanes vs. Snowstorms PRO: Hurricanes can destroy houses CON: Snowstorms can close down power stations and all electricity No rebuttal is evident here. Even if CON was trying to imply the the closing of a power station is worse than the destruction of homes, it is not rebuttal. It is merely trying to make claims without backing them up, with makes them a statement without any reasoning to why? it is better than PRO's. ==PRO:== >>1. Look at my argument or even your own argument for contradictions, i did not see any in your argument and you did not see any in my argument. This means that just by looking at your own case and my own case we can see that there are no inherent flaws in a debate. (and oh by the way claiming this argument makes your own a contradiction would be false in that it just links into your own case, as a paradox, it does not necessarily contradict) 2. I can put in place a one sentence argument that does not have a flaw in it that applies and does not contradict. 3. Note the wording of my opponent, "regular debate", "often", and "can also", mean he is defining debate by general practice and not what is. The wording of the case shows that other LEGITIMATE forms of debate allow for these contingencies to be untrue, debate does not necessitate that any of these be in the debate itself. He is not providing for the scope of ALL debates. << ==REBUTTAL== Firstly, I did not assert all debates have contradictions. I simply showed the lack of contradictions in quote debates, thus distancing them from actual debates. My opponent claims he can write a one sentence argument without a contradiction, however, I simply assert that an actual debate has room for a contradiction, whereas a quote debate does not. I would also like PRO to elaborate more on point 3. For the most part, I am comparing Quote debates to regular internet debates. These often practice a case of both sides making a case, and both refuting them, or one side making a case, and the other refuting them, and so on. For the sake of the debate and all simplicity, we shall not be discussing LD, CBA or any variants of debates other than a regular internet debate. So far, I feel my opponent has not fully proven a quote debate is on par with a regular debate, and so far urge a CON vote.