Every debate can be won or lost

I will now briefly address my opponent's points. 1. "My opponent is going to suggest that the a tie debate is neither won nor lost and therefore provides a third option and thus X debate was not won or lost. " With respect, I am not going to suggest anything to that effect. Clearly a debate that is neither won or lost but COULD have been won or lost is not a debate that could support the Con case. 2. "Even if a debate is not won or lost by a given party, it could have been. " Yes, I agree with my opponent but only to the extent that such a win or loss was not logically impossible. 3. "If the debate occurs and voting happens then it is feasible to have a winner or a loser. " Once again, I agree with my opponent and again only to the extent that a decision on the winner of the debate does not in itself defy logic. 4. I also agree that a debate that is won by one party and lost by the other is a debate that can be said to be "won and lost" ("both by varying parties") and it is therefore a debate that "can be won or lost". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I agree with point 4 above, I contend that a debate cannot be simultenaously both won and lost by the same party. A party either wins the debate (their resolution is made out) or loses the debate (their resolution fails). If both occur at the same time, the debate is neither won nor lost. One might wish to call it a tie. I would not, at least in the case I'm about to present. I further contend that a debate that is logically impossible to decide (in that the only possible logical outcome is such that it would necessarily defy itself) is a debate that can neither be won nor lost. Let us now consider the following hypothetical resolution: "My opponent will win this debate" If I "win" that debate, this means that my resolution is thereby disproved and therefore I "lose" the debate. If I "lose" the debate, my resolution thereby becomes made out and I "win" the debate. If the debate is a "tie" then I "lose" the debate and thereby "win" the debate. I will go further. If I win the debate, my resolution is thereby disproved and I lose the debate. This means that my resolution is made out and I win the debate, which in turn means that my resolution fails and I lose the debate which means that. .. . ad infinitium. .. . No doubt my opponent will now contend that winning or losing is based on votes and therefore by definition the person who gest more votes wins the debate. With respect I will disagree with this for two reasons: 1. The very resolution is premised on the question of who wins the debate. Therefore in order for the resolution to succeed, I must lose the debate. Unless there is a win there can't be a loss and vice-versa. Except a loss is a win is a loss is a win etc etc etc. In this particular case a vote that declares the winner makes him a loser. 2. As stipulated by the ASSUMPTION (see my R1), a debate can only be won or lost if the process of deciding the winner or loser in itself does not defy logic. The process of deciding this particular debate defies logic as in order to find a winner he must be declared a loser. This makes him a winner and therefore a loser and hence a winner and therefore a loser and so forth. In other words, the one and only way to prove that I'm winning the debate is for me to be losing it. However if I'm winning, it proves that I'm losing it. The process is instant and perpetual. It is not dependent on votes, except for the first vote. Why? Because once the first vote is cast (let's say against me) I become the loser which in itself proves my resolution and makes me a winner. The decision becomes entangled in a loop of logic. The debate cannot be won and it cannot be lost. Let us also keep in mind that the voting method for this debate is to be "indefinite" as per the stipulation in my first post. I have above demonstrated an example of a debate in which the very act of declaring a winner makes him a loser and then the process enters a perpetual loop of logic. This might be the only example of such a debate or there may be others. However, in order to prove my resolution in the current debate, all I was required to do was demonstrate that a debate (even hypothetical) exists which can neither be lost nor won. I contend that I have done that.