The Instigator
williamblah
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rezzealaux
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 10001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

williamblah

Pro

A person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant.

I am arguing FOR the above, and it will be the responsibility of CON to prove by example or otherwise that it is incorrect.
Rezzealaux

Con

I negate, "A person cannot be wrong without lying or being ignorant".

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."
Debate Round No. 1
williamblah

Pro

williamblah forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux

Con

Rezzealaux forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
williamblah

Pro

williamblah forfeited this round.
Rezzealaux

Con

I claim victory.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
This debate needed more votes. CON wins, though, by a long shot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
williamblahRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03