Twenty Questions

. . . . . . 1. "The object can be purchased from [T/WM]. Both of these stores sell tables, and the price of a table leg is included with the entire price of the table itself. " My opponent has shown that one claim can probably stand by itself. However, this is irrelevant because my argument has always been that they cannot exist at the same time (Hence why I combined them). The coexistence of these claims needs to be established since we are describing the same object. 2. "This is true. When I stated that my object was a table leg, I meant that the object is only one table leg. (Pretty self-explanatory) Thus, at least where I am from, most table legs individually sell for less than fifty dollars when calculating everything included with purchasing a complete table. " First off, my opponent now describes the object as not just, "a table leg", but, "only a table leg". If the object is truely -only- one table leg, then the answer to, "Do these stores sell the object? " should have been, "No. " Buying four table legs and a flat piece of wood is hardly buying -only- a table leg. Also, pro doesn't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I've always been speaking of individual table legs. When I use the term majority ("The majority of table legs are under that price"), I'm reffering to the group of independent table legs, examined individually. For instance, the "majority" of the candy bars on that shelf over there are probably no more than a dollar. If my opponent thought I was using 'majority' to describe the price of the entire mass, then why did he answer, "No" when I asked him if the majority of these objects at Target and Wal-Mart sell for more than fifty dollars? The original question I asked was whether or not the object itself sold at those stores for under that price. I'll refute my opponent's main argument in response number five. 3. "This is true, and I have already affirmed this. Remember that I am only speaking of one table leg, because I am only speaking of one object. " Once again my opponent misinterprets my use of the term majority. I realize that we are speaking of only one object, but in order to decide how many of these 'one objects' fit the answer you gave me, they need to be analyzed independently and then sorted into the majority and non-majority groups. I'm not trying to bundle the prices of fifty-one percent of the objects together as my opponent seems to think. 4. "I understand. However, I have already refuted both parts. " Pro argues that he has already refuted both claims. My opponent might be able to defend each claim individually as if the other doesn't exist, but they cannot coexist without contradiction- which was my point. Both need to be taken into consideration simultaneously because they are describing the same thing. Together they cannot work, as I've shown before, and will show again. 5. "I believe that my opponent is confused. Remember, the object is a single table leg. I do not have to assume that a majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that an individual table leg does not exceed fifty dollars. If you look at my opponent's first source, you can see that every single item listed on that page is under two hundred dollars (excluding one item). I bring up the term "two hundred dollars" because we can safely assume that the tables have four legs, and if each table leg can be at a maximum price of fifty dollars, then the table would be at least two hundred dollars. Since none of the tables (excluding one) exceed two hundred dollars, and by the fact that there is more to a table than just four table legs, we can assume that a table leg is under the price of fifty dollars (also substantiated by my opponent's source). " Here, I believe my opponent makes their strongest argument. I would urge readers not to discount my response before reading it carefully, however, because I have an adequate refutation more so than just, "You can't prove it! " Once again, my opponent misinterprets my usage of a certain term, which strikes me as peculiar given that he seemed to understand my usage of the word 'majority' during the questioning phase. I'm going to move on at this point, though, as I assume the reader has gotten the idea by now. My opponent makes the claim that he does not have to assume that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to -guarantee- than an individual table leg does not exceed that price. Don't be fooled- he does some simple math that would seem to refute my point, but there's one major flaw. I didn't just ask what the price of a table leg was. I asked if most table legs were able to be purchased for a certain price. The only way to have Wal-Mart or Target sell you a table leg, and thus purchase the object (Part of the requirement of my question), would be to buy an entire table. Thus, the table leg is not able to be purchased for fifty dollars or under. In order to -purchase- the table leg, you need to pay the full price of the table. This is why I said that the majority of tables would need to be at or under fifty dollars. My opponent's math is irrelevant. Once again, I asked if the object usually sells for more than fifty dollars. I can't stress this enough. Given that you -have- to buy a table to buy a table leg (Keyword, buy), my source backs me up after all. 6. "My opponent's second source includes many sporting tables [. .. ] that range from prices of several hundreds of dollars to even over a thousand dollars. However, my opponent must admit that most of the cost of these tables comes from such material as black tops, nets, steel supports, casters, pads, additional protection, durability for multiple function, play and storage positions, automatic scorers, [. .. ] etc. Essentially, I gave my best guess at reasonably concluding whether or not a single table leg is worth fifty dollars or not. Mostly from what I have personally seen, as well as from my opponent's first source and questionability of his second, it is pretty clear that my affirmation of a table leg that costs fifty dollars max is reasonable. " The same argument from above can be applied here. The only way to actually -purchase- a table leg would be to buy a table. I asked if [T/WM] would sell the object to me at that price. They don't. These stores only sell table legs to customers through tables. Most tables at that store are not at or under fifty dollars, thus you cannot buy a table leg for that price. Refuted. 7. "My opponent must remember the rule, "13[. .. .]" My opponent's first source actually helped my argument, and his second is a little faulty in trying to prove his point. " Agreed. I would ask my opponent to not discredit my objections as petty critique, as I find these to be critical to the debate. I have also shown that both of my sources support me. 8. "If you look at my opponent's third source, most of the items on the webpage are less than two hundred dollars, which I have already discussed to prove my point. Several of the items over two hundred dollars are sets that include chairs and the like, so we can't assume that those legs are priced individually at over fifty dollars. One item priced over two hundred dollars is a mere lamp that obviously doesn't include table legs. " My previous argument about price to -purchase- is extended. 9. "The truth is, my opponent did not show Pro to be contradictory [. .. ]" I disagree, and have supported my position as such. Given my opponents stance, he should have answered "Yes" to the question, "Do the majority of these items sell for more than fifty dollars? " My response to number five completely eliminates my opponents argument.