frame

Debate for BryanMullinsTh1: The Roast Game - Is it fact or fallacy?

Opening Argument

Position: Against
WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 110 Pts
edited December 2017 in General
A debate for BryanMullinsTh1 so let him accept. This is a pending debate about an ongoing DDO debate that him and I had that I have now transferred to DI. This debate will seek to settle which one of us can make a more convincing argument about the Roast Game. He will be trying to prove to you that families eat their children and that you can prove this in a few simple questions regarding a Christmas dinner. I will be trying to disprove his premises to disprove his argument, and argue that his questions are not correctly poised. Whomever makes more convincing arguments wins the debate. I wish Bryan the best of luck and a Happy New Year. In my constructive, I will also be posting the link to our original DDO debate for viewing purposes.
BryanMullinsTh1aarong
  1. The Roast Game: Fact or Fallacy?

    8 votes
    1. Fact
      37.50%
    2. Fallacy
      62.50%

Debra AI Prediction

Against
Predicted To Win
67%
Likely
33%
Unlikely

Details +


Points For:

15


Points Against:

24



Votes: 4

Debate Type: Lincoln-Douglas Debate


Opponent: BryanMullinsTh1

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round

Affirmative Constructive

Cross Examination - Affirmative

Negative Constructive

Cross Examination - Negative

First Affirmative Rebuttal

The Negative Rebuttal

The Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Voting


Arguments

  • Cross Examination - Affirmative | Position: For
    edited December 2017
    It is not fallacy, even though I debated you once, it was still a tie, I technically beat you in that one, though you spelt my name wrong.


  • Cross Examination - Affirmative | Position: Against
    Before I get into the debate, I would like to settle a couple of facts about our DDO debate. Yes, it was a tie, but nobody voted out of the 487 views that it got, so it was more of a no-show. In the comments of that debate, you claim to have won because you protected your previous victory. For all viewing purposes, I will leave the link to our original debate in my constructive after this as well as your victory and a couple comments.

    I must ask you a few questions about your constructive now, so I will use your original argument, as formal debating was quirky for me the first time around, so you may not have known that it was your constructive. Answering the questions will better your arguments defense against questioning, not answering makes you look worse, but the call is yours.

    Q1: Your questions match an "If A and B, then C" format, such as if ham is special at a holiday roast and kids are special, then families eat children as a holiday roast. You try to make a deductive argument here, but what if the family members answered anything other than children?

    Q2: Would the family members freak out because you are making a wild assumption and not a fact based conclusion? Sure, it is a physiology test, but what if there seems to be less children in the house than before, wouldn't that be a better indicator of something?

    Q3: What evidence do you have to suggest that families in America eat their children as a Holiday Roast? In our previous debates, you weren't able to provide a credible news source, so I poise the question again to you.

    Q4: You say in Round 2 of your debate with yanagurl136 that your Game is a will tester that "provinces the truth". What if it is found out that your game does not match the truth? I come from a family of 5, and I know as fact that if I said your questions to my Mom, the same result would not be harbored, so what do you have to suggest that this Game works in every case?

    Thanks for reading. 
  • Negative Constructive | Position: Against
    Here is my constructive for the debate. Before I begin, I would like to thank the readers for reading this and for showing interest in the debate. For all purposes, here are the two links that Bryan and two other people (me as one) had on the topic.

    Bryan and I : http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-Families-Go-To-Prison-After-It-Was-Proven-They-Literally-Ate-Their-Children-The-Roast-Game/1/

    Bryan and yanagurl136 : http://www.debate.org/debates/Bryan-Mullins-The-Roast-Game-Families-were-eating-their-own-children-for-19-years/1/

    As stated in my introduction, my job here is to argue that your questions are not correctly poised and that I'll need to disprove your premises. 

    First off, I need to disprove your premises and show why your argument is fallacy based. You ask a fair question about what is special about a holiday roast, to which the answer is ham, beef, or turkey. Right here, we have already established that if child eating was the main thing that they ate, they would either be A: lying or B: Telling the truth. We need to distinguish between the two in your second question, "Who do you think is special" to which the answer was children. The two answers here are true answers, so that can not make a lie as you state in your assumption. Just because we have A and B does not always make C. That would be like if I said "My house is tall and it has 3000 square feet, so I must be burning bodies in my basement." You see, it does not follow! This is in philosophy, a No Correlation and an Invalid argument based off of a false conclusion. The premises were true, but a false conclusion was drawn which invalidates the whole argument. This is what you are struggling with here. You have 2 premises, listed in your questions, but then you take your deductive format and make an obscure conclusion that is false. Nobody can see into the mind of the parent. If I was a parent, I would be freaking out because this dude thinks that I murder my children, which clearly can't be true. Why doesn't the question giver call the police, yet it is assumed that the family member answers tentatively or freaks out. Your invalid conclusion and evidence do not follow.

    Now I must show why your arguments have fallacies. I will list them as such with sources at the end my argument for each one. 

    Fallacy 1 - Appeal to probability: "a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case or might be the case." This is essentially your argument, you think that because your Game might be true in exploiting liars, than it works in every case and is a fact that can be upheld, which it is not. 

    Fallacy 2 -  Affirming a Disjunct:  "concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B"  

    This is true in your case because when the family answers B, you automatically take it as a lie and take A, which is false to make a false conclusion, thus a fallacy. 

    Fallacy 3 -  Existential Fallacy: "an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion." This is probably the best one of the bunch because "Who do you think is special" and "What do you eat at a Christmas Roast" are universal questions that can be answered differently by anyone, but you take a specific conclusion that families must be eating their children.

    Thank you for your time, here are the sources for the Fallacies: 

    Appeal to Probability: 

    1.  Leon, Joseph (23 April 2011). "Appeal to Probability"Logical & Critical Thinking. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013.
    2. Jump up^ McDonald, Simon (2009). "Appeal to probability"Toolkit For Thinking. Archived from the original on 19 February 2015.
    Affirming a Disjunct: 

    Wilson 1999, p. 316.

    Existential Fallacy: 

     Wilson 1999, p. 317.
    BryanMullinsTh1BaconToes
  • Cross Examination - Negative | Position: For
    "First off, I need to disprove your premises and show why your argument is fallacy based. You ask a fair question about what is special about a holiday roast, to which the answer is ham, beef, or turkey. Right here, we have already established that if child eating was the main thing that they ate, they would either be A: lying or B: Telling the truth. We need to distinguish between the two in your second question, "Who do you think is special" to which the answer was children. The two answers here are true answers, so that can not make a lie as you state in your assumption. Just because we have A and B does not always make C. That would be like if I said "My house is tall and it has 3000 square feet, so I must be burning bodies in my basement." You see, it does not follow! This is in philosophy, a No Correlation and an Invalid argument based off of a false conclusion. The premises were true, but a false conclusion was drawn which invalidates the whole argument. This is what you are struggling with here. You have 2 premises, listed in your questions, but then you take your deductive format and make an obscure conclusion that is false. Nobody can see into the mind of the parent. If I was a parent, I would be freaking out because this dude thinks that I murder my children, which clearly can't be true. Why doesn't the question giver call the police, yet it is assumed that the family member answers tentatively or freaks out. Your invalid conclusion and evidence do not follow.

    Now I must show why your arguments have fallacies. I will list them as such with sources at the end my argument for each one. 

    Fallacy 1 - Appeal to probability: "a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case or might be the case." This is essentially your argument, you think that because your Game might be true in exploiting liars, than it works in every case and is a fact that can be upheld, which it is not." 

    My only and sure rebuttal to this is either you don't understand it or you just disagree with it. It is not fallacy, it is fact because it is sound because it makes alot of sense.  

    Here is my rebuttal explanation. "The Roast Game is pretty simple First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast?"The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special? "The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast? "The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it. 

    It makes logical sense because when you ask a family member these questions, you get the sense that the family member is assuming that I don't know what they were eating, making excuses like guessing average roast meats like "ham", " turkey", or "chicken" Then he faces your sudden answer "no" which gives him a sign that he is just making excuses to escape the question and to carry on with life.The roast game is just a psychological mind tester. It tests the human will to tell the truth.

    Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing."

    IT IS FACT!

    Link: http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com/wiki/Bryan_Mullins:_The_Roast_Game_Wiki



    So, that will shut you up.

    WilliamSchulzBaconToes
  • First Affirmative Rebuttal | Position: For
    It is never a fallacy if you don't understand it. It is always FACT.
    It will always be FACT!

    Debates I won to prove it:
    (1) http://www.debate.org/debates/Bryan-Mullins-The-Roast-Game-Families-were-eating-their-own-children-for-19-years/1/

    (2) http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-Christmas-end/1/

    There I proved my point.
  • The Negative Rebuttal | Position: Against
    Thank you for your arguments, I will first rebut your points, talk once more on the nature of the argument, and try to answer the questions you didn't answer yourself. 

    Lets start with the questions:

    Q1: What if the parents said anything other than children? 

    You left this unanswered, and I believe this reveals a flaw. If the parents answered anything other than children, would you keep pestering them with the same question. You might, but you would get the same answer and therefore not get the same conclusion. Again, universal premise, particular conclusion, which is an existential fallacy. If they said "I think my grandmother or my new PlayStation (because you said what as well as who), you would not say, "Alright, you eat your PlayStation for Christmas." This does not follow, and eating your grandmother for Christmas, please....

    Q2: Would the family members freak out because you are making a wild assumption and not a fact based conclusion? Are there better ways to go about this?

    Yes and Yes. If you truly wanted to find out whether they were eating their children, you would call the police and conduct an investigation. First, however, you need enough evidence, and your 2 questions and flawed conclusion do not provide any evidence whatsoever that the family is eating their children. A better indicator would be smell of blood or less children in the house, but your questions make your conclusion a wild assumption and not a fact.

    Q3: What evidence do you have that children are being eaten by their families in America as a Holiday Roast?

    First off, you did not provide ANY evidence to answer this question, and second, just because you win a debate does not make your argument any more valid. That would be like saying if I was having a debate that murder is okay and I won because ISIS voted for me in the debate. Does that make murder any more okay. Heck no! In the same way, your debates do nothing except show that you have some debating talent and nothing else. If you want to convince your audience, use actual sources!

    For instance, I did not merely call you out using obscure fallacies, rather I inputted my sources at the end to show that I have nothing to hide and that I did not make any of the definitions up, so because you haven't I see no reason to believe that your statement is "Fact". 

    Q4: Does your game "province the truth"?

    You did not answer and my response would come off your answer, so because of what I mentioned in Q1, the same applies.

    Rebuttal: 

    "My only and sure rebuttal to this is either you don't understand it or you just disagree with it. It is not fallacy, it is fact because it is sound because it makes a lot of sense."

    This statement is a fallacy in and of itself, namely an argument from incredulity, being an (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false." (Source) -  "Toolkit for Thinking".

    You argue that my argument is false because I disagree with your claims and that it makes a lot of sense to YOU. If it makes sense to nobody else, what is the point of getting your point across?

    " If they freak out, they already admitted it."

    Key word being if. Even though the chances of them freaking out is high, it is again because of the wild assumption mention I made earlier. I would consider the parents more guilty if they remain silent and not say anything about your claim. (But hey, that's just a theory, a crime theory!)

    "making excuses like guessing average roast"

    But what if this is what they actually ate? This leads into my question 4 from the Cross Examination that you never answered. It can't be an excuse because you have no sources proving that this is an excuse. Heck, I had a ham for Christmas myself, and I didn't eat any children!

    " It tests the human will to tell the truth."

    Until you realize that they have been telling the truth the whole time. I Googled into the search bar, " Families eating their children for holiday roast sources" and the first source besides your game was a guide on how to make turkey and what food was at the first THANKSGIVING!!! If this is not enough, I don't know what else is.

    "Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing."


    One source, please, where did you get this from, or did you create this yourself????

    Voters, BryanMullinsTh1 has not given any proof about this topic and I have provided you source of his logical fallacies. Therefore, vote Con. 

  • The Second Affirmative Rebuttal | Position: For
    I'll answer your questions.

    Answers:
    1. Then they are trying to be evasive to avoid telling the truth.
    2. Yes, they would freak out, but the only problem with that question is it is FACT, you're just begging your own question.
    3. There is NO evidence because they DESTROYED the evidence, though I posted explanation in this video: 

    4. Yes it does, they are responsible for what they've done, though parents and family members don't want to admit the truth.

    There, I've answered the questions he asked me, while he just begged his own questions, and begged the question in general.

    Voters, learning from WilliamSchulz is a lesson that just because you don't understand The Roast Game, doesn't make it a fallacy at all. It makes it more a FACT than fallacy.

    The choice is simple, vote Pro!
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 2 Points
    Conduct (For): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 0 Points
    Conduct (Against): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 0 Points

    Total Points (For): 9 Points

    Total Points (Against): 0 Points

    Explanation: The Pro made better arguments, con begged his own questions.
    BryanMullins
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 0 Points
    Conduct (For): 0 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 0 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 2 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 0 Points

    Total Points (Against): 9 Points

    Explanation: The voting is now even, I don't want this debate to be a throw away. But thanks anyway for the debate!
    BryanMullins
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 0 Points
    Conduct (For): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 1 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 1 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 1 Points

    Total Points (For): 2 Points

    Total Points (Against): 7 Points

    Explanation: Con did a good job with the argument, and pointed out logic flaws.
    he also had a slightly better conduct
  • Vote
    Persuasive Argument (For): 0 Points
    Evidence And Sources (For): 1 Points
    Conduct (For): 1 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (For): 2 Points
    Persuasive Argument (Against): 3 Points
    Evidence And Sources (Against): 1 Points
    Conduct (Against): 2 Points
    Spelling And Grammar (Against): 2 Points

    Total Points (For): 4 Points

    Total Points (Against): 8 Points

    Explanation: Although the topic is actually ridiculous, both sides did a good job explaining their points.
    I award persuasive argument to @WilliamSchulz.  He explained the fallacy.  I feel that the pro had a burden of prove for such an outrageous claim.  That didn't happen.

    BaconToes
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch