A person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant
Debate Rounds (3)
I am arguing FOR the above, and it will be the responsibility of CON to prove by example or otherwise that it is incorrect.
DEFINITIONS (all from dictionary.com)
Wrong - Deviating from truth or fact; erroneous
Truth - Conformity with fact or reality; verity
Lying - the telling of lies
Lie - A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
Ignorant - Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.
Lacking - being without; not having
Common usage dictates that when it is said that someone is "wrong", it is not to say that their existence is "deviating from truth or fact", but that an idea they have expressed is "deviating from truth or fact". If I said "williamblah is wrong", then I am criticizing some belief he has about some idea. Which idea, then, would depend on the context. To make things simpler, we shall make all instances of "expressing an idea" to be "saying an idea". Adding actions into the debate would overcomplicate things, but we could certainly go there in later rounds if PRO likes.
So, if we put all the definitions together, we see
"A person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant"
means the same as
"A person cannot express an idea that is inconsistent with reality without saying something that is intentionally deceiving, or without lacking knowledge or information on the subject they are speaking on"
The burden on me is to prove the resolution false, to show that there are times that when someone is wrong, they are neither lying, nor are they being ignorant.
I will be doing this through showing different types of being wrong that fit into neither of those categories. As long as I have one type standing at the end of the debate, I fulfill the conditions to win. I may be inserting more types in R2, which should be fine since PRO will still have R3 to argue against it.
1) A person can unintentionally deceive by not believing in the truth.
The definition of lying requires one to have an intention to say something inconsistent with reality, and the definition of ignorance requires one to have no knowledge or information about a subject matter. If a person has heard and seen arguments or proofs for the truth but refuses to believe in them, then they are neither ignorant nor are they lying. What beliefs they profess may be honest and may be unintentionally deceiving, but the fact of the matter is, the ideas coming out of their mouth are inconsistent with reality, and that makes them wrong.
The PRO maintains that he has a burden of proof, as implied in "I am arguing FOR the [resolution]". I certainly have a burden of proof as well, explicitly expressed in "it will be the responsibility of CON to prove by example or otherwise that it is incorrect", but at this point in time, if PRO fails to provide an argument, then he has failed to fulfill his burden and I get the win by default because I have fulfilled mine.
I await an argument from my opponent to prove that "a person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant."
williamblah forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux forfeited this round.
williamblah forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.