From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

Re: Only one issue being debated here Friends, specators, debate. orgsman (. . . or women for the anally politically correct much like yours truly), lend me your ears. I come to bury beem0r (beneath the weight of my potent arguments), not to praise him. The noble beem0r hath told you that the only issue being debated here is whether or not debaters have to prove that their case is certainly true, but this, my fellow debaters, is simply a false dichotomy fueled by his attempt TO FOOL YOU. For great justice, don't buy into his deception. As I had suggested in the previous round, my opponent in the other debate did not attempt to respond to my case and was not presenting the arguments which beem0r is presenting right now. Given that this is the case, EVEN ON THE OFF CHANCE YOU BUY INTO CON's ARGUMENTS WHICH DECLARE THE "possibility/certainty" STANCE TO BE FALLACIOUS, IT MATTERS LITTLE AS MY OPPONENT IN THE OTHER DEBATE HAD ESSENTIALLY CONCEDED TO MY CASE THROUGH RAISING NO OBJECTIONS AGAINST MY CLAIMS! !! ! The only possible way CON could even attempt to counter these facts is by advocating that judges are to judge based on their own knowledge rather than what takes place inside the debate (which is still a flawed stance), but as you can see, CON never attempted to do this in any of his rounds so far. To attempt to do so on his final round would be abusive since I have no means of responding to new arguments. With that said, there is really no reason for you to read anything else which he states on the matter on possibility/certainty. In fact, one could say that you may as well skip his third round and vote PRO when you have the opportunity, but to pacify CON, I will refute his arguments anyway. ------------------------- Re Abortion Example ------------------------- Alas, CON's attempts to find a flaw in the possibility/certainty tactic is futile. First, this example is an obvious false analogy. Let us compare my reasoning for the "Pizza rocks my world debate" to the reason CON provides for abortion. Quite clearly, I argued that there was no admissible evidence that would prove cliffsdover's claim true. As CON eloquently puts it elsewhere, "His personal testimony is not valid proof, since it is in his best interest to lie if the resolution is false [. .. ] needs to get an unrelated third party to validate his claim before we are required to acknowledge it at all. " This wasn't simply an issue that concerned the notion that although there is some evidence to suggest my opponent's case was true, he couldn't prove it 100%. This was an issue that simply concerned the fact that my opponent had ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EVIDENCE to support his claim. And without evidence, I am justified in suggesting that we have no valid means of determining whether or not the resolution is true (one must also note that this strategy can be pulled when there is an insignificant amount of evidence, but don't pay too much mind to this as this topic doesn't concern that theory). Of course, I could very well argue that there was no valid evidence to make a conclusion on the matter of abortion being wrong (as I believe there are some moral theories which compromise the idea of anything truly being wrong), but this is besides the point. The point is that this example and the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. -------------------------------------------- Re: No conflict with the resolution -------------------------------------------- Basically, my opponent is insisting that the following statements are the same: Statement 1: I like pizza. Statement 2: I'm not sure as to whether or not I like pizza, thus I may or may not like pizza. Do these statements sound remotely the same to you? My thoughts exactly. Generally, when one says "I like pizza", they mean they like pizza. In such a statement, there is nothing to suggest otherwise, thus we take it as a claim which promotes certainty. Thus, this would fulfill the condition which CON had suggested (that "I definitely like pizza" is what is being expressed). Of course, even if you don't buy that, you cannot ignore the fact that I may or may not like pizza and "I like pizza" express two different meanings. Thus, I would still have fulfilled my role in conflicting with the resolution as CON. ------------------------------- Global Warming analogy ------------------------------- Like the previous analogy, this is merely a strawman version of my case. Allow me to correct what CON is saying: Corrected Version: Imagine that you are in an argument. The person you're arguing with says that the main cause of global warming is the decreasing number of pirates. "There is no evidence or there is not a significant amount of evidence that would allow us to make that conclusion, thus we can only say that it may or may not be true at this point" would not be a valid response from you, at least not if you're trying to argue against them. When you put it like that, it not being a valid response simply makes no sense. It's sort of like saying that the position of agnosticism is invalid (wait, no, it's exactly like that). ------------------------------------------------------------ Re: Repeatedly states his point without backing up ------------------------------------------------------------ This is basically a repeat of what is said above. I've pretty much killed this horse through pointing out that cliffsdover presented no evidence for his case (even when I had offered him a means). Furthermore, I've repeatedly backed up my claims concerning certainty, but if you don't buy that, my above rebuttal on "No conflict with the resolution" should suffice. -------------------------------------------- Re: Yes and maybe have no conflict -------------------------------------------- Since CON has pretty much dropped my rebuttals concerning "direct" conflict, it is rather apparent that he means no conflict PERIOD. As I had said earlier, all it will take is a simple definition to annihilate this argument. yes-. http://www.askoxford.com... maybe- . http://www.askoxford.com... Pay particular attention to what is listed under the noun for "yes"; notice the term "decision. " Here's where CON's argument collapse entirely: When you say yes, you've made a decision. When you say maybe, you haven't made a decision (incidentally, one could say that because of this, even "no" has more in common with "yes" than it does with "maybe). Remember how I've been advocating that there is no way to conclude based on the present evidence when one makes use of the "possibility/certainty" tactic? It turns out that I wasn't full of hot air. This is where it hits home to as it reflects on my case. *takes a bow* ----------------------------------------------------------- Re: cliffsdover did suggest that pizza rocks his world ----------------------------------------------------------- I agree, HOWEVER, he never presented any evidence to back up this claim. Furthermore, he still believed that the purpose of the argument was to determine whether or not pizza was good. There is no getting around this fact, and is hence why defeat is certain regardless of what CON states in his final round. CLOSING STATEMENTS: I believe that CON and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that the resolution is correct and that CON has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following: 1) Cliffsdover never presented valid evidence to back up his claim. 2) Cliffsdover never presented the arguments which CON is presenting. 3) Cliffsdover disagrees with CON when it concerns the meaning of the resolution. 4) Cliffsdover raised no real objections to my arguments. 5) I've proven that "Yes" and "maybe" conflict.