I will lose this debate.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate, and welcome to DDO (debate.org)! A few things... First, my opponent is the instigator of a positive (non-agnostic) resolution, which means he has the burden of proof [1]. He must prove with his arguments that he is going to lose this debate. For all intents and purposes, losing the debate means making inferior arguments - not necessarily receiving less points - for reasons I will explain in my analysis. I'll separate Pro's points into numerical bullets for clarity. 1. Re: I will probably debate someone more experienced, so I'll lose. ---> While this is plausible, Pro could not have proven that he would have debated someone more experienced making this mere speculation. Had a new member accepted this debate, this contention would have been rendered useless. Additionally experience does not equal ability. For example I have never done formal debating, whereas most users venturing to this site have participated in HS debate. For all I know I could be the amateur in this scenario, while Pro could be a national debating champion despite him being new to the site. Moreover we don't even know if he's new; he could simply be a new account created by an old member. Basically with this argument we cannot verify any of the claims: we don't know Pro's experience, we don't know Con's experience, and we don't know what "experience" refers to. It's also not true that experience automatically makes you better at argumentation or refutation; after all Mirza's been here quite awhile (I kid). And finally, experience is almost irrelevant if the facts are not in your favor. For instance if I had to prove that the sky was orange, even with 65 years of debating experience under my belt the challenge might still prove too difficult. In short, this contention is not a strong one in my opponent's favor, and it has been negated. 2. Re: If I do lose this debate, the resolution is correct and proven, and thus I win. ---> Lessee hurr. If Pro loses the debate (makes inferior arguments) he will not have won. Indeed winning would imply making superior arguments. The logical law of identity states A = A [2] meaning something is what it is and can not be something different simultaneously. As such, Pro cannot lose and win simultaneously. Here Pro's mistake is assuming that because he will have lost the debate, the resolution would be affirmed... but after already losing the debate, the resolution becomes irrelevant. It may be affirmed, but it won't mean he has won the debate. Ergo, if he does lose the debate, the resolution will be correct but he will not win making this contention false. Here's an example: Suppose I was Con to the resolution "Murder is immoral." I argued that it was moral and perhaps I won the debate via semantics. After the debate, I admit that the resolution is actually true... however it still won't change the fact that I won the debate, even if the resolution was actually correct. In other words, what matters in a debate is not what is correct, but what side made the better ARGUMENTS. So while you very well might in fact lose this debate (and it seems you will), if you do not make the better arguments PROVING that you will likely lose, then you will indeed lose (rendering the resolution true) but that does not mean you win in terms of being awarded the victor. I will have made the better arguments; I will win the debate despite the resolution being affirmed. Your performance in the debate did not affirm the resolution, and that's all that matters - not whether or not the resolution was true. Another analogy: If I am Pro "Obama is not a socialist," but my opponent beats me in a debate about it, then I might be right but I still will have lost the debate. That's your position. 3. Re: If, however, I somehow win the debate, then the resolution is affirmed and I obviously should lose the debate. ---> This contention doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If Pro wins the debate, then how is the resolution stating he will LOSE affirmed? Nevertheless the only way Pro can win this debate is by proving (through his arguments -- and not the outcome of how voters responded) that he will lose this debate. The only legitimate argument he's given so far has been debating a more experienced member, though that's been negated. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ [ CONCLUSION ] The only way Pro can win this debate is by proving (with his arguments) that he will lose the debate. If he does not do that, he will have lost the debate despite the seemingly paradoxical terms. If he doesn't prove he will lose, then he will lose. When he loses, he loses - he does not win. While the resolution may have been correct, it was neither with Pro's arguments or lack thereof. Lack thereof cannot be evidence in this example. An analogy is supposing I've taken on a debate with the resolution "The earth is round" and I was Con. Suppose I've proven that the earth is flat during the debate because of my opponent's inability to perform. After the debate's conclusion (I won), I point out that the earth is not actually flat and technically I should have lost. However though the resolution would be affirmed through my own validation/ admission/ performance, I will still not have lost the already concluded debate meaning it is not a factor in the actual debate. Also, the resolution becomes irrelevant after the arguments' conclusion - not the voting conclusion. So, once Pro fails to prove that he will likely lose the debate, he loses in both aspects and terms. Thanks, Pro! This should be fun... [1] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 1969. p 370. [2] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...