My opinion is better than your opinion

Round 1

1 of 3

Ultracrepidarian

Pro #1

Greetings Novice, thank you for the debate!

C1 - My opinion is more evidentially backed

I'll admit that this is an under-researched field, but 100% of studies (conducted by yours truly) have found I hold a superior belief. So if you want to argue against me, you'll have to argue against science.

C2 - In my opinion, my opinion is perfect

As my opinion is perfect, that means my opinion of my opinion being perfect is also perfect, and it's difficult to compete with perfection.

C3 - The population agrees

100% of participants who agree with me polled say that my opinion is better than yours. The people have spoken.

"I include this quote not merely for its meaning, but for the echo of intellect it lends—because sometimes, the appearance of wisdom is all which matters." - Probably not Voltaire

Novice

Con #2

FORFEITED

Round 2

2 of 3

Ultracrepidarian

Pro #3

The superiority of opinion must be proved through superiority of argument. As the users of this site know there are three components to persuasion. I must utilize all three to prove my opinion's superiority.

Logos (logic)

My above arguments already demonstrate this one.

Pathos (emotion)

There is no better tool to provoke emotion than poetry. Therefore, I wrote a haiku.

My opinion is good

Very much like this haiku

Feel emotion now

Ethos (credibly)

We have already established the fact I am a leading researcher in the field of if my opinion is better than yours. Also I'm Tom Hanks.

Sources <--- These sources prove I'm credible

Most trusted people in America

My research

Novice

Con #4

This is pretty straightforward since Pro has the burden of proof. I’ll jump straight into rebuttals—though there’s hardly anything to rebut.

C1 - My opinion is more evidentially backed

100% of 0 is 0. Seriously though, Pro doesn’t provide a single study, so this can be dismissed.

C2 - In my opinion, my opinion is perfect

Pro gives us no reason to care about his opinion here.

C3 - The population agrees

No evidence for this either.

Logos (logic)

None of the claims were supported, so all pro's arguments have been terrible!

Pathos (emotion)

No evidence here either.

Ethos (credibly)

Just repeated assertions—still no evidence.

This is a clear-cut case. No evidence was provided—just a collection of empty claims. If anything, what Pro has said gives us reason to doubt their opinion is better than mine, and since Pro must show that it is, things are not looking good.

Round 3

3 of 3

Ultracrepidarian

Pro #5

Thank you novice for responding! 😊 😊 😊 (smiles for likability)

C1 - My opinion is more evidentially backed

What do you mean no evidence? I am the leading researcher in this field. For example, every single mirror I could find agreed with me absolutely, and I was wearing a lab coat so you know it was serious. As you are not the leader in this field I believe you are unqualified to critique my peer-reviewed (by me in different moods on different days) research.

Additionally, according to my research, opinions uttered poetically by me, Tom Hanks are better than those from people without souls. (More on that later) We compared both opinions on the OSI (opinion superiority index) which measures factuality, logic, and general rizz. My (Tom Hank's) opinion was found to be superior in all aspects.

C2 - In my opinion my opinion is perfect

Pro gives us no reason to care about his opinion here.

It doesn't matter if anyone cares about my opinion, they don't alter the the reality of my opinion's perfection.

C3 - The population agrees

It's shown that making minor concessions makes one seem more rational, therefore I drop this point.

Logos (logic)

"None of the claims were supported, so all pro's arguments have been terrible!"

By attacking my arguments in that manner you are by extension attacking me. I thought you were above ad hominems. Anyways, my evidence can be found above or linked below.

Pathos (emotions)

Just a note, I am aware my haiku is structurally improper. It's poetic license.

My opponent has made it apparent they do not posses a soul. My poem was gorgeous, and anyone who has a soul would have definitely been so moved to emotion that they would have conceded. Con did not, therefore, con does not have a soul. That's just logic.

Ethos (credibly)

Are you seriously going to trust someone without a soul over me, Tom Hanks?

Some final thoughts

Don't be a racist

One might accuse me of using circular reasoning during this debate. Those people are (shape) racist. What do they have against circles? Circles are capable of being perfectly good shapes on the inside, which is what matters. If you disagree with me then you're just a hater and haters aren't welcome here.

What makes an opinion superior?

Some may say the answer is evidence (which I have much of) or logic but the truth is that there is no objective answer. In such uncertainty I feel the opinion expressed in beautiful poetry from Tom Hanks is a pretty safe bet.

Finally, I'd like to thank Novice for tolerating me and the (non racist) voters for their support

Sources:

https://thebannercsi.com/2017/04/01/my-opinion-is-better-than-your-opinion/

Written under one of my pen names

Novice

Con #6

Pro did not post a shred of evidence that his opinion was better than mine; he did not post a single study that he claimed to have self-authored, so ignore everything related to this point.

Pro asserted his opinion is perfect, but gave no argument for this.

Pro conceded the point about the popularization, but contrary to what he says, this does not show his opinion is any better since he also made the silly point in the first place!

There isn't much else to say, based on this performance, if you have reason at all, you have reason to think pro's opinion is far worse than mine since he made a bunch of ridiculous claims without support. Since pro had the burden of proof, and such a burden was not met, the case is closed.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#18

--> @Ultracrepidarian

Sorry, I intended to send my #17 to you, too. Trump foils again! Congrats on the win

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#17

--> @Novice, @Savant

Sorry, yes, I absolutely contended that Pro win the debate, and said so, verbally. I blame Trump for injecting covid into the voting machine.
I'll re-vote

Savant Administrator

#16

--> @Ultracrepidarian, @Novice, @fauxlaw

>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voted for a tie but wrote a justification for voting Pro. Votes for a tie need to justify why the debate was tied.

Savant Administrator

#15

---fauxlaw's former vote---
Voted for: tie
To be precise, a tongue-in-cheek farce of debate, and yet effective given rules of debate [must reference a discontinued, yet accessible site, https://www.debateart.com]. So, with the farce in mind:

Pro's R1 outlines a precise argument in 3 phases: backed opinion, opinion perfection, and population agreement, which all conclude with appearance of wisdom.

Con forfeited R1. Not, however, a loss, relative to the above cited former site since this forfeit was only 33% of the total arguments available to Con..

Pro's R2 offers three primary support features added to his R1 arguments: by logic, emotion, and credibility. Logic was demonstrated by R1. Emotion was demonstrated by original poetry; a haiku. The poem was not well constructed, but what poet follows poetry rules, anymore? or ever, since poetry has always been open-season relative to "rules." [see referenced site from Pro's R1] Credibility was demonstrated by Pro's reminder he is the premier authority of his opinion, as substantiated by Pro's sourcing of "the most trusted people in America," headed by Tom Hank's, aka Pro according to his demonstrated superior opinion.

Con's R2 consisted of denial of credibility of Pro's R1 and R2, denying the sourcings Pro clearly offered in R1 and R2, therefore, a failed Con argument.

Pro's R3 is a clever self-referece one had to research to discover Pro's claim of being the leader in the field of personal opinion, and we know it to be his alter-ego [his ego being Tom Hanks]. One may pass by Pro's username, Ultracrepidarian, to ignore the Ultra- and go to crepidarian, which is a shoemaker. Thus, one may suppose Ultra means he is the ultimate shoemaker. Nope, not in shoes, at all, but in an intangible: an opinionater of no expertise, and this fits the sense of Pro's absurd Resolve, demonstrated by his "Crippling Evidence" sourcing in R3.

Con's R3 was a late-to-the-party attempt at proper rebuttal of an absurd Resolve. Too little too late.

Pro wins the debate.

Savant Administrator

#14

--> @fauxlaw

You said Pro wins but voted for a tie. Was this a mistake?

Intel_06

#13

--> @Ultracrepidarian

Alting is allowed on this site? Oh man.

Intel_06

#12

This debate reads like the thing a youtuber or streamer does whenever the background song gets copyright striked so they have no choice but to delete the recognizable parts of the music and everything left is boring.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#11

Evidence this is an absurd debate that was entirely entertaining to read.

Ultracrepidarian

#10

It doesn't matter too much who wins, Novice is my alt account.

Savant Administrator

--> @Novice

I'm basing this on precedent from DART. I think there was one called "blargh is better than dkdikgb" or something. I think this would also fall under "comedy debates," in the DART voting policy, where it said that "voters on these are encouraged to judge arguments based on how funny they found each case." It also advised, "Please do not join an obvious comedy debate with the intent of treating it in a wholly serious manner." If every comedy debate was labeled as such with explicit rules, I don't think the notice about "obvious comedy debates" would be required.

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#comedy-debates

I don't know if these rules have been copied over explicitly to this site, but people were debating on here before I even copied over parts of the code of conduct, and the community has remained largely the same, so I think it's fair for people to expect that overall, voting will work the same here as it did on DART.

SatanLucy

--> @Novice

You are number 1 on leaderboard now on this site. I think its at least great that you dont have to work from 1500 elo again. As for this debate, there might be new voting rules on this site I am not aware of. Maybe voters are allowed a bit more freedom in voting, like on debate.org. You will have to work with what is/becomes standard on this site.

Novice

What a joke. If the rules don't say its a joke debate it isn't a joke debate. If you want a joke debate, put it in the rules. There is no specified rule that the debate is to be judged on who was "funnier."

I don't believe I have to deal with things like this on a new platform.

Novice

What the...
Can someone else please vote on this? I don't understand why things like this always happen to me.

Novice

Can someone please vote on this?

Ultracrepidarian

--> @Novice

Well you didn't refute any of my studies, which is understandable as they're flawless

Novice

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"Pro provided more evidence"

Is this some kind of joke?

Ultracrepidarian

You don't think circle racism is serious? That is deeply disheartening

Ultracrepidarian

Seems my links went to the wrong place, but as you never would have guessed they were mostly Rick rolls. I am deeply disappointed in myself for squandering this oppurtunity

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

To be precise, a tongue-in-cheek farce of debate, and yet effective given rules of debate [must reference a discontinued, yet accessible site, https://www.debateart.com]. So, with the farce in mind:

Pro's R1 outlines a precise argument in 3 phases: backed opinion, opinion perfection, and population agreement, which all conclude with appearance of wisdom.

Con forfeited R1. Not, however, a loss, relative to the above cited former site since this forfeit was only 33% of the total arguments available to Con..

Pro's R2 offers three primary support features added to his R1 arguments: by logic, emotion, and credibility. Logic was demonstrated by R1. Emotion was demonstrated by original poetry; a haiku. The poem was not well constructed, but what poet follows poetry rules, anymore? or ever, since poetry has always been open-season relative to "rules." [see referenced site from Pro's R1] Credibility was demonstrated by Pro's reminder he is the premier authority of his opinion, as substantiated by Pro's sourcing of "the most trusted people in America," headed by Tom Hank's, aka Pro according to his demonstrated superior opinion.

Con's R2 consisted of denial of credibility of Pro's R1 and R2, denying the sourcings Pro clearly offered in R1 and R2, therefore, a failed Con argument.

Pro's R3 is a clever self-referece one had to research to discover Pro's claim of being the leader in the field of personal opinion, and we know it to be his alter-ego [his ego being Tom Hanks]. One may pass by Pro's username, Ultracrepidarian, to ignore the Ultra- and go to crepidarian, which is a shoemaker. Thus, one may suppose Ultra means he is the ultimate shoemaker. Nope, not in shoes, at all, but in an intangible: an opinionater of no expertise, and this fits the sense of Pro's absurd Resolve, demonstrated by his "Crippling Evidence" sourcing in R3.

Con's R3 was a late-to-the-party attempt at proper rebuttal of an absurd Resolve. Too little too late.

Pro wins the debate.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Pro treats this as a troll debate, while Con treats it as a formal debate. That means judging this is going to be fraught, since neither side comes out and tells me what kind of debate is it. Out of fairness to both debaters, I'll try to be thorough here and analyze this from multiple angles, even though a debate like this normally wouldn't be subject to vote moderation.

First, if I am to interpret this as a troll debate, which side made funnier and more entertaining arguments? This goes to Pro, who made multiple jokes throughout his argument, such as calling himself Tom Hanks and citing a quote from "probably not Voltaire." Con didn't make any jokes or even attempt to, so if this is a troll debate, Pro wins.

Second, which side won from an argumentative standpoint? This is where Con has the greatest chance of victory, since he took the debate 100% seriously. The issue is that if I don't grade this as a troll debate, I have to take all of Pro's arguments seriously and expect responses to them. That is, even if an argument from Pro seems ridiculous on its face, I can only designate it as such if Pro dismantles the faulty logic behind it. There are too many arguments from Pro that Con drops, seemingly because Con believed they weren't worth addressing. For example, Pro argues from pathos, or emotion, which Con criticizes as lacking evidence. Sure, but emotion and evidence are different things. If Con had said something like "an appeal to emotion is not an argument" and provided a case where emotions lead us astray, that would probably have been enough to debunk that point. But this is a pattern with a lot of points Pro brings up. Con accuses Pro of making unfounded assertions, and even if I agree, that's a bit like saying that all your opponent's arguments are illogical...maybe they are, but you have to be specific and show which ones and why. At the end of the day, every sentence is an assertion, so a general critique like that it's sufficient to rebut. Pro also posted more sources than Con, which required more elaboration from Con on why they were unreliable (even though I agree they were). Pro even responds to the claim that their arguments were unfounded by calling it an ad hominem and pointing to their links. Pro's case is fraught with logical fallacies, but Con fails to show what they are besides essentially calling Pro's case silly and unfounded (which it is, but that's not an argument). To give just one additional example, Pro argues that their circular reasoning is valid because rejecting it is racism. Con doesn't respond to that. That's arguably even a defense for why I ought to accept unfounded (or circular) evidence, which takes the teeth out of what's basically Con's only argument.

Third, should this be treated as a troll debate or a formal debate? The vagueness of the title means it only really works as a troll debate, plus the fact that Pro leads with comedy showing their obvious intention. Pro doesn't come out and say "this is a troll debate" but of course a troll debater wouldn't want to break character. If Con wanted this to be judged as a serious debate, I think they had to at least address why we should ignore the obvious ways it appeared to be a troll debate.

Pro ends up winning this for a couple of reasons, and while Con may have wanted this to be judged as a "foregone conclusion," I can't ignore the context of an obvious troll debate or the fact that Pro is actually responding to Con in as much or more detail as Con is responding to Pro.

SomeDebatePerson

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I just have to say tie. Pro provided more evidence but Con provided more rebuttals. They were basically equal and it was hard to tell if this was serious, with all due respect.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Some final thoughts

New comment