Do you like this translation of the Song of Songs-from the bible
Debate Rounds (4)
However, I know that I don't like it.
"However, I know that I don't like it"
well first off prove to me you dont like it
just saying so is no proof as you could be lying
"You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning." 
"The person making the positive claim always has the BOP."
quite right and I am going to prove my case by asking you to prove you dont like the poem
"However, I know that I don't like it."
so prove that you dont like it then i will prove my case
you proof of your point is going to be my proof of my point
so just done assert you dont like the poem prove your assertion-and based on that proof of yours I will give my proof
This remark is positively absurd. He CONCEDES that he has the burden of proof, and then says "I can prove a positive statement by asking you to prove a negative." He, not I, have the burden of proof. Therefore he must be able to prove that I like the translation, and I am then able to rebut. Note that the person without the burden of proof is never required to provide constructive arguments, but only to prevent the person with the burden from fulfilling his or her burden.
"so prove that you dont like it then i will prove my case."
Pro is all over the place. He concedes that he has the burden, then asks ME to prove a negative. He is committing and continues to commit a negative-proof fallacy. The full burden of proof is on him, not me. He, not I, is affirming a positive statement.
"you proof of your point is going to be my proof of my point."
This is patently absurd for a few reasons.
First, I am under no obligation to provide proof because I don't have the BOP. I must only prevent Pro from meeting his burden.
Second, the claims of the person without the BOP are true unless proven false by Pro. This is not for Pro's claims because he actually has the burden of proof. So, unless Pro fulfills his case, we default to me. If pro doesn't make a single argument -- and thus far he hasn't -- you vote for me by default because he has failed to uphold his burden.
"so just done assert you dont like the poem prove your assertion-and based on that proof of yours I will give my proof."
Once again, I am under no obligation to provide proof. Moreover, merely stating that I DON'T like it is in fact proof -- beyond my role in this debate, might I add -- because, unless Pro proves otherwise, he cannot prove that I like something without exclusive access to the contents of my mind. He has literally no case and no way to win this debate.
Pro has belligerently misunderstood burden of proof and provided absolutely zero constructive arguments. You must, unless he provides proof in his next round which is doubtful, vote Con.
note con did not prove his assertion that he did not like the poem
My proof that con liked the poem is an indirect proof
We have two contradictory alternatives
A con liked the poem B con did not like the poem
Con canot/did not give us proof of his assertion B that he did not like the poem
This must mean he lied "as he cant give us a proof Thus by the third of the classic rules of logic ie the law of the excluded middle ie of two contradictory propositions only one can be true - by con lying that leaves only alternative A Thus it must mean he must have liked the poem, as he lied about not likeing it-as he canot/did not give us any proof of his assertion
"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
Thus by the laws of logic I have proven that con liked the poem
Thus I must win the debate
For the last time, this is a negative-proof fallacy. The BOP was on PRO. Also, as I pointed out, i have exclusive content to my own mind, so stating that I don't like it is proof.
"Con canot/did not give us proof of his assertion B that he did not like the poem
This must mean he lied "as he cant give us a proof."
I'm not sure if Pro is a troll or simply this misinformed. All he has stated was a binary that I either liked the poem or didn't. This of course if false because there are shades of gray and a continuum. Let's consider that continuum from 1 to -1, with 1 being "like," -1 being "hate" and 0 being indifferent. Pro's burden of proof was proving 1, but he failed to prove 1. If the mere possibility of the solution being anything other than 1 is open after this debate, you vote Con because Pro hasn't upheld his BOP.
"hus by the third of the classic rules of logic ie the law of the excluded middle ie of two contradictory propositions only one can be true - by con lying that leaves only alternative A Thus it must mean he must have liked the poem, as he lied about not likeing it-as he canot/did not give us any proof of his assertion."
This is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. He falsely asserts that I lied -- WHEN HE HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF and my remarks, as the person without the burden, are true unless proven false because I do not have the burden -- with no evidence, and then provides the law of excluded middle to say that the statement is either true or false. That is true, but the burden was on PRO. What he is saying here is that I "lied" -- he provides zero evidence for that -- so therefore he must be true. First, this is false because he had to prove 1 and didn't. It is true that the proposition is either 1 or not 1, but not true to say that, because not 1, then 1, because it could be 0, or .5, and it wouldn't fulfill Pro's burden.
He has not proven logically that I liked the poem. This is quite possibly the most ignorant and incoherent logic I have ever seen which is quite literally an affirming the disjunct fallacy -- either A or B, not A therefore B. Clearly that isn't the case because we're dealing with a continuum. Even if Pro managed to prove not -1, he didn't prove 1.
The only logical conclusion is to vote Con. Pro did not uphold his burden of proof and provided positively horrendous arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to not understand that he can't fulfill his own burden by claiming someone else has a burden. He failed to show that Con liked the translation. Further, Con's assertion as to his own preferences seems pretty darn compelling; Con's in the best position to know his own opinion, after all. Pro simply had no good response to the tack that Con took. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.