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

======== Only one issue ======== First, my opponent makes the argument that cliffsofdover did not make any of the arguments I am making. That is true. However, my arguments are about debate analysis. I am arguing that looking at the debate, we cannot see CON's argument as a valid negation of the resolution, which is his burden. Next, my opponenet claims that his opponent automatically accepts L-M's arguments that he did not respond to [the possibility argument, in particular]. Let's look at an example, and we might see why. Resolution: So I herd u liek mudkips Pro: So I herd u liek mudkips Con: My opponenet simply MIGHT have herd I liek mudkips Pro needs not respond to CON's argument, as CON's argument does not invalidate PRO's stance. CON even EXPLICITLY left room for PRO to be correct. The same is true in "Pizza Rocks My World." ======== Example ======== I'm skipping this one. Call my original example here flawed if you will, I just don't want to have to say the same thing 10 places. The argument here will be the "No conflict" argument, which is up next anyway. ======== No conflict ======== When I said no conflict, I meant no resolutional conflict. I may even have said this. The resolution "Pizza rocks my world" was never refuted by L-M. As CON, it was his job to NEGATE the resolution. PRO provided evidence, and while it was refuted, at least it was presented. CON did not provide evidence for his negation of the resolution, and his position openly acknowledged that the resolution might be right. As CON, one might be familiar with the phrasing, "I am "Against" the above topic of debate." However, CON did not argue against the TOPIC, he argued against PRO's reasons, and partially AGREED with the topic. As I have said before, CON must negate the resolution, and I've just shown that it's supposed to be that way on Debate.org at least. The simple fact that CON presented a different case than PRO does not mean CON did his job. "Pizza Rocks My World" and "So I herd u liek mudkipz" have completely different meanings, yet the latter is not a stance CON could have taken and won, either. ======== Analogy ======== Like the example, it's kind of meaningless now. I proved my point without examples above. And without new arguments, either, I simply expounded on old ones. ======== No evidence from cliffsofdover ======== If we accept that cliffsofdover had NO evidence, then we should vote it a tie, since L-M gave no evidence to the contrary. L-M gave no arguments that negated the resolution, he simply negated is opponent's evidence. So in this case, it would be a tie, which means L-M should not win, which neggates the resolution. However, it can usually be said that a rebuttal such as "we can't trust his own testimony on the matter" does not completely eliminate the statements, it simply makes them much less meaningful. Thus, cliffs still had some evidence, however insignificant. This would mean cliffs won, which means L-M loses, which is a negation of the resolution. ======== Yes and maybe ======== I kind of covered this already, but I'll do it again. Yes and maybe are indeed distinct in meaning. However, saying maybe does not infringe on the possibiliuty of yes being true. Maybe is special in that it does not take a stance. It allows for either yes or no to be true. And it is L-M's job as CON to show that Yes is not a viable option, something maybe fails to do. ======== Closing statements ======== 1. He may have, by claiming that piza is da bestest food, or whatever he said. True, you made a rebuttal to this, but from a debate judging standpoint, points do not have to be seen as either 100% valid or 0% valid. Your rebuttal simply made his statement much less valid. But since it was the only evidence one way or the other, PRO should win. Especially since CON openly stated that the resolution might be true. 2. I am arguing, with you, about debate judging. There's no reason for him to make arguments about judging in a debate about pizza rocking his world. I'm arguing that a judge looking at the debate should not vote L-M. 3. cliffsofdover disagrees with me when it comes to the meaning of the resolution. It's rather irrelevant, though. 4. I showed why this makes sense in "ONly one issue" above. 5. They conflict, but maybe does not negate yes. Yes negates maybe, though. Since it is CON's burden to negate the resolution, CON would have to bring a "no" to the table, since that's what can negate a yes. Alright, that'll be it. 'Twas fun.