This debate will not result as a tie.

My resolution is clear: I will prove that after this debate has ended, it (the debate) will not result in a tie.

Anyone disagree?

Definitions:

Tie: a state of equality in the result of a contest, as in points scored, votes obtained, etc., among competitors: The game ended in a tie.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Here's what my opponent says "I will prove that after this debate has ended, it (the debate) will not result in a tie."

Burdens
===================
Aff: To prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is impossible at any point in time for this debate to have an equal number of votes (as per my "tie" definition).

Neg: To give one viable scenario at any point in time after the debate has ended in which a tie could result on this debate.
===================

My main contention is that the second any debate ends on debate.com, the immediate vote score is 0-0 - a tie. Therefore, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden, as the debate will immediately be a tie.

Vote Con.

I accept my opponent's definition of "tie" and thank him/her for contending.

I start Pro with a definition for "result":

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re·sult Audio Help /rɪˈzʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object) 1. to spring, arise, or proceed as a consequence of actions, circumstances, premises, etc.; be the outcome.
2. to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing.
–noun 3. something that happens as a consequence; outcome.
4. Mathematics. a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation.
5. Often, results. a desirable or beneficial consequence, outcome, or effect: We had definite results within weeks.
—Idiom6. get results, to obtain a notable or successful result or response; be effective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME resulten (v.) < AL result&#257;re to arise as a consequence, L: to spring back, rebound, equiv. to re- re- + -sult&#257;re, comb. form of salt&#257;re to dance (freq. of sal&#299;re to leap, spring)]

—Synonyms 1. flow, come, issue. See follow. 2. resolve, eventuate. 3. conclusion, issue, end, product, fruit. See effect.
—Antonyms 3. cause.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[end]

If you would look at definition 2 (the definition we will be using, if my opponent agrees), it states:

"to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing.
–noun"

My opponent states: "My main contention is that the second any debate ends on debate.com, the immediate vote score is 0-0 - a tie. Therefore, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden, as the debate will immediately be a tie."

I ask my opponent: How can the voting procedure on this debate END in a tie, if it has never STARTED? At 0-0, no voting has taken place, so it has not started. Because of this, it cannot end, and therefore does not yield a "result". A result, consequently, will only be shown after all voting has ended.

Now you may wonder, what about such things as say, a soccer game that ends 0-0? Well, the scoring has not ended, but the game has, so this is the final result. You may now conclude that once this debate is over, the votes (or lack of) present right away are the final result. However this is not true. In a finished 0-0 soccer game, there is no more opportunity for scoring, since the game has ended. After a debate, on the other hand, there is always opportunity for gaining votes. Therefore the results are always changing.

The only way, therefore, that this debate can result as a tie, is if after all voting has ended, the score is tied. My statement was not that the debate CAN end in a tie, it is that it WILL.

Therefore, voters, at long as the debate is not tied, you have no choice but to vote PRO, as I will have proved my point that the debate is not tied.

It is now up to the CON to prove that this debate WILL end in a tie.

First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Con. To vote Pro is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie.

I accept his definitions.

I'd like to address one specifically "result":

"to terminate or end".

Now, lets replace "result" with its definition. The Resolution reads,

This debate will not **terminate or end** with a tie.

My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie.

Furthermore, his soccer example is not analogous, because unlike points in a soccer game - which can be scored in game, and are therefore a part of the game - people on debate.com cannot vote during the debate - in fact, they cannot vote until the debate ENDS - making voting procedure a wholly different aspect.

Now on to more contentions.

1) Admin shuts the debate down after me and you vote.

Its possible the Admin will remove frivolous debates like this to save server space for the new debate.com. If both of us vote, and no one else (1-1), the debate is a tie.

Note: My opponent has to prove that this is completely impossible to win. If he cannot prove why the Admin cannot do something completely within his power, vote Con. He has to prove beyond any possibility that the Admin will NOT shut this debate down. No matter how likely or unlikely, he has to prove beyond a doubt that this is impossible.

2) People vote for us equally.

If 10 people vote for you, and 10 people vote for me, its a tie. My opponent recognizes this fact when he says

"THE ONLY WAY, THEREFORE, THAT THIS DEBATE CAN RESULT AS A TIE, IS IF AFTER ALL VOTING HAS ENDED, THE SCORE IS TIED."

My opponent has said that this debate WILL end in a tie - no possibility of uncertainty. So - by his own statements - my opponent has to prove why it is impossible at all for this debate to have equal votes. Which he conceded.

Vote Con.

My opponent opens with:

"First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Con. To vote Pro is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie."

I can reword this as follows:

"First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Pro. To vote Con is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie."

And it will nullify this argument, because he is also unable to predict the future to a certainty (his certainty being, this debate will end in a tie).
Also, because neither one of us can fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. The true outcome will not be decided until voting ends. If the debate is not a tie, I have proved that the debate will not end in a tie. Vice-versa for my opponent. Therefore, until the voting has ended, nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. We will have to wait and see.

I also uphold my contention on this statement...

"My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie."

...that a procedure that has not started cannot end, and therefore, [not] yield results.

Now to address your points.

1) If an admin shuts down the debate right after we vote, that would be unfair to me as my point would be proven, but I will have lost (see below). Also, you cannot tell if I have voted or not, and vice-versa.

"If both of us vote, and no one else (1-1), the debate is a tie."

This is untrue. Who's to say I will vote for myself? I can vote to you, technically losing the debate. But since my point has been proven, people may see that and vote for me. So I'm taking a gamble here - I may win the debate, or lose, depending on the speed of voting. If we both vote for you, and someone votes for me, the result will be 1-2. One of two things can happen now:

A) Switch my vote, making me win 2-1, and proving my point that the debate will not end in a tie, thus making even more people vote for me to ensure my victory.

B) I can hope that a couple people will realize I have proved my point, and vote for me, making me win 3-2.

2) While I do agree that if the result is, say, 10-10, I will have failed to prove my point, I did not state that not tieing was impossible. Such a statement would resemble:

"This debate CAN not result in a tie"
or
"It is impossible for this debate to result in a tie."

However, my contention was:

"This debate WILL not result as a tie."

Therefore, I imply that though it may be possible to end the debate in a tie, [I am certain that] it will not happen. This also proves that I have not conceded to any of your arguments that pertain to the exact statement at hand.

So for my final note: Voters, as soon as you see that this debate is not tied, you are inclined/obligated to vote PRO. It doesn't matter who is winning, as long as it is not tied, I have proven my point, "This debate will not result in a tie". And therefore, you should vote PRO.

Please note that the voting record is not relevant to the debate, its who argued their side better.

Despite the fact that this should NOT be how you determine the winner even if the voting record DID dictate who won, I should still win.

Example:

**Debate ends.
**Score: 0-0. Con proved point vote Con.

**Some people vote.
**Score: 0-3

**Now its not tied. Vote Pro.
**Score: 3-3.

**Uh oh, its tied again. Vote Con again.
**Score: 3-5

All the way to infinite.

To refute right down the post:

I said: First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Con. To vote Pro is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie.

He said: I can reword this as follows: First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Pro. To vote Con is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie.

What he fails to understand: Actually, you cannot. As the Pro, you have to give reasons to believe you. I do not have to prove the polar opposite of your stance. I only have to prove that your stance is innacurate.

For example, if you argued

"All Ice Cream is Red"
I wouldn't argue "All ice cream is NOT red".
I would give examples of how SOME ice cream is red, but not all - therefore negating the resolution.

To parallel, I talked about how your absolute "WILL!" proves my point. And the fact that you acknowledge this as a valid point, and seek to 'cancel' it means a Con vote.

Next contention:

I said:

"My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie."

He said:

"...that a procedure that has not started cannot end, and therefore, [not] yield results."

What he fails to understand: When the debate ends, voting procedure begins - and is a tie. 0-0. Vote Con.

Next Contention:

I said: A tied vote results in a tie......

He said: While I do agree that if the result is, say, 10-10, I will have failed to prove my point, I did not state that not tieing was impossible.

What he fails to understand: Actually, you did say tieing was impossible. lets read the resolution "The debate will not result in a tie". That means that it is impossible for this debate to end in a tie...except if it ends in a tie...which my opponent conceded 5 lines up. Vote Con.

I believe I won all the voting issues. Vote Con.