The Instigator
crazypenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Everything is debatable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
beem0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,168 times Debate No: 5988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

crazypenguin

Pro

I got this from a friend and thought it would be interesting, everything is debatable. Please find one thing that there is no debate about.

Thanks,
beem0r

Con

Greetings. It is my duty, and my honor, to present to you several things about which there is no debate. That is what my opponent has asked me to do.

"Black is exactly the same as white."
There is no debate on this issue, since the very fact that we make some distinction between them, labeling them two separate things, necessarily means they are not exactly the same.

"The Sun is the closest star to Earth."
Along with many other undisputed scientific facts, there is no debate on this issue.

"A day is longer than one second."
Note that this does not mean it always 'seems' longer, but that it actually _is_ longer.

"A table is a table."
This is true by definition, and is not debated.

"If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles"
This is a simple logical syllogism, the truth of which there is no debate over.

"It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist"
This is false by definition.

"People can drown."
Proven fact.

etc.

Show me that these statements are all debatable, and perhaps I shall concede.
Debate Round No. 1
crazypenguin

Pro

Refutations that will just be covering why they are debatable:

"Black is exactly the same as white."
What if I have eyes that don't see as regular human eyes do and Black as you say is exactly the same as white just as we have a name for those things, ISOMERS.

"The Sun is the closest star to Earth."
How do you know that there is an undiscovered star closer than the sun?

A day is longer than one second."
What if I was trapped in a time vortex and no time existed, then that is not applicable.

"A table is a table."
Again what if I has genetically mutated eyes or was from long ago or was from somewhere else and that was not a table?

If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles"
How do you know all cars are automobiles?

"It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist"
What about if someone states a statement, that is absolute truth.

"People can drown."
What if we lived underwater then can people drown?

I am interested in your refutations,
beem0r

Con

beem0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
crazypenguin

Pro

It is to bad my opponent forfeited this round.

I would just like to state that right now we are having a debate and were on all the topics he presented in his case.

Thanks,
beem0r

Con

I sincerely apologize for the forfeit. I just logged on today for the first time in a few days.
I'm going to suggest right now that you vote for my opponent. I failed to address his case, and it's not very fair for me to all of a sudden do so this round. That said, that is exactly what I am going to do. Here's what my round two would have looked like [roughly], had I been present.

1. "Black is the same as white"
RE: "What if I have eyes that don't see as regular human eyes do and Black as you say is exactly the same as white just as we have a name for those things, ISOMERS."

As my opponent shows, the only debatable-ness here comes from a lack of definitions. Building definitions into the resolution fixes this.
Since black is the absence of elctromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range, and white is a particular combination of a non-absence of this same radiation...
Since I don't feel like looking up real values, we will call the lower bound of the visible light spectrum "A" and the upper bound will be "B." We'll call a specific frequency distribution that creates white "C."
We can now change the 'non-debatable' resolution to this:
"An absence of electromagnetic radiation between frequencies A and B is the same as electromagnetic radiation defined by C."

Note that I have already given one thing that cannot be debated [that is to say, there is only one position from which valid arguments can be made - in this case, the affirmative].
I will go on to defend my other R1 statements in the same fashion, though.

2. "The sun is the closest star to the earth."
RE: "How do you know that there is an undiscovered star closer than the sun?"

If we define star as requiring a certain size and heat output, then we can see from direct observation that there is no undiscovered star closer to earth than the sun. As I did with the first example, we could construct a more precisely-worded statement.

In the same vein, here's another topic that isn't debatable: "The earth is a star." Because of how earth and star are defined, this is simply not true. There are required attributes of a star [size, chemical makeup, etc] that the earth does not meet.

3. "A day is longer than one second."
RE: "What if I was trapped in a time vortex and no time existed, then that is not applicable."

If no time existed, then neither days nor seconds exist in your vortex. Therefore, saying a day is longer than a second does not create a contradiction in this case.

It is like trying to disprove "Midgets are smaller than ordinary adults," by pointing out that neither exist within a certain room. That's a complete non sequitur, not a valid argument. For 100 dollars to be more than 1 dollar, there does not have to be money existing in every location in the universe.
Throwing non sequiturs is not a form of debating a subject, it's a form of failing to do so.

4. "A table is a table."
RE: "Again what if I has genetically mutated eyes or was from long ago or was from somewhere else and that was not a table?"

I don't even know what you're talking about. If you're saying that some criteria exist in said thing that make it not a table, then it has absolutely nothing to do with 'a table is a table.' Rather, you'd be arguing that a non-table is a non-table, which is also true. While true, stating that a non-table is not a table does not constitute arguing the example I gave.
Here's the example in more abstract terms.

Let us say that there is some boolean condition: that is to say, something that is either true or false.
This condition is either true or false.
Claim: "If that condition is true, that condition is true."
Arguing that that condition is false does not address the claim. It is a complete non-sequitur, and a failure to debate the topic.

5. If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles
RE: "How do you know all cars are automobiles?"

Because it is explicitly stated in the syllogism. Arguing about whether cars are automobiles is not addressing the topic. The topic is "IF all cars are automobiles...," not "All cars are automobiles." The topic did not claim that all cars indeed were automobiles. Though, on a side note, they are, since cars are by definition automobiles.

6. It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist.
RE: "What about if someone states a statement, that is absolute truth."

How? I just drank five liters of poison. I just stated that, but it is not an absolute truth.
Even so, that has nothing to do with the topic I gave. "It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist" is a contradiction. Given the inherent logical incorrectness of the statement, there are no actual arguments for the affirmative, and therefore no way to debate it.

7. "People can drown."
RE: "What if we lived underwater then can people drown?"

That's a complete non-sequitur, given that we don't live underwater.

Person 1: "1+1=2"
Person 2: "BUT WHAT IF IT DIDN'T?"
That does not constitute an argument about whether 1+1 really equals 2. Person 2 has not introduced any argument even suggesting that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. He's not even necessarily disagreeing with person 1.

Sorry about the lack of organization, but due to the fact that I have suggested people vote for my opponent, I decided not to put _too_ much effort into this.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
If I were beem0r, I would have simply said "My username on DDC is beem0r."
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
If I were con I would have used math...

p^~p is always a false statement Because something cannot be true and false at the same time...
Posted by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
how can he have better conduct when he forfeited aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Agree with before: Pro
Agree with after: Pro
Better Conduct: Con
Spelling/Grammar: Con
Convincing Argument: Con
Sources: Tie
Posted by vitalsign789 8 years ago
vitalsign789
What a topic...
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Quite. :)
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Indeed. :)
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
And when that comes up, it will be addressed ;]
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
The only problem I see with this is that "debatable" hasn't been defined... I could think of a definition that would give pro the win, even though the semantics shouldn't matter. :P
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
You just did say something.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
crazypenguinbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
crazypenguinbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
crazypenguinbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
crazypenguinbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05