The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Fallacy of Self-Representation (Biblical)

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 46110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




The Fallacy of Self-Representation

There are definitely MANY fallacies of debate. Choose to look them up if you will, but falling under one of these fallacies innately will cause your position to be essentially meaningless. I'm here to discuss the fallacy of Self-Representation, and its impacts on a religious debate.

Examples are easily understood, so let's bring this into perspective.

Joe is a big bully. He is the verdict of what is "cool" or not. Joe thinks that Bill is stupid. But, bill says otherwise. Bill tells Joe how he is an intelligent person and does well, and that Joe is wrong. Therefore, since Bill thinks he himself is smart, Joe innately must agree upon him, because Bill's word is true.

The fallacy is that you CANNOT represent yourself if you are the one challenged.

Bill, in this stance, is using a fallacy of self-representation. When the object of the accused is being challenged, you cannot use that object to defend itself. If Bill wants to be considered at his position, he cannot defend himself WITH himself. He needs to use another source, otherwise his evidence is falsely biased and innately fallacious.

Continuing how to solve this fallacy.

Bill thinks he is cool, so he brings his mother and a few friends to talk to Joe. The friends and mom talk it out and all decide bill is smart, because they witness Bill's success, and show his grades and scores to Joe.

Another example.

John is a Astronomer. John believes the Earth revolves around the Sun. Will is another Astronomer, but he believes that Earth revolves around the Moon. Will says that John is wrong. But, john shows, from his own research, exactly how the earth HAS to revolve around the sun. He quotes from his evidence, "The Earth's gravity is affected by the sun". It just HAS to be true, it's scientifically positive!

Even with evidence, you CANNOT use the object in challenge to represent itself, as the EVIDENCE ITSELF is challenged.

Here's how you solve it.

Because Will does not agree, John decides to form a new experiment. John brings a committee of others that preset their ideas, and concludes their ideas. One member says how the Sun is the most masseuse object, another quotes our yearly rotation around the sun. Since they come from different AND viable sources that are not related to the previous accusations, they are legitimate evidences that can be accepted. Since Will sees this, he changes his opinion.

Now, for the moment of truth. How it deals biblically. My FINAL example.

Monica does not believe in Christianity, and that the bible is false. Sarah decides that she is going to try to prove her point in an argument. So, Sarah quotes from the bible, John 20:29 "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Well, Sarah MUST be true. Her own Bible has a defence against those who don't believe! Since Sarah can use the Bible as evidence for why the Bible is legitimate, she is definitely true.

This falls under the same fallacy.

When discussing the Bible, you cannot use the bible, or anything related to it, to defend it. Whether it be topics of creationism, whether religion is true or not, or essentially any point that is related to religion, you cannot use the challenged to represent itself. Since arguments behind Creationism, Pro-life, Religious validity, etc. are all based off the belief of the Bible, you cannot use the bible to defend your arguments. Instead, other points must be proved. And remember, things associated with the same point of view cannot be used, they must shine from a new perspective. In sense of biblical terms, or religion itself, the perspectives are generally "Fact" or "Faith"

The correction.

Sarah realizes that she cannot use her own bible to defend the fact that she believes. Sarah thinks the bible is Fact, and it might be so. But, since the bible is being challenged, she must use a different source. She would quote the Pope himself, or possible evidence that artifacts from the Bible truly exist. But, since she cannot use ideas associated with the aspect of the Bible, she cannot utilise these elements in the debate. So, Sarah is left with no choice but to argue outside the means of the bible, and use other forms of truth on the incidents. Sarah is left only with her aspect of faith, past what she believes is true from the bible. So, Sarah tells Monica that she believes in the Bible because she said so, and that Monica should believe too, because you just have to I suppose.

Can you notice when the fallacy truly takes its shape in recognizing arguments?

It's important to see how it truly makes sense. From the examples above and a definition of a fallacy, I think it's very reasonable to agree with my standpoint that this fallacy truly does exist. Post your arguments. And remember.

Challenging the fallacy means you should not use what it entails. Essentially, do not try to bible quote or biblical evidence your way out of the argument.



I feel this will be a very good debate.

I'm going to run down a simple line of logic.

P1: Morgan Freeman is God.
P2: Everything. Morgan Freeman says is true.
P3: God inspired the writers of the Bible to write truth.
C: The Bible may self-represent.

Point 1: Morgan Freeman is God

We have two instances where Morgan Freeman reveals to us that he is God.

In Bruce Almighty:

And in Evan Almighty:

In the second image it's more convincing as he's sitting on the ark.

However, full observance of these films will reveal that Morgan Freeman is revealing to us that he is God.

Point 2: Everything Morgan Feeeman says is true.

I merely present a video for my evidence:

Point 3: God inspired the writers of the Bible to write truth

This is just logical stuff. If God wants a relationship with us like he's demonstrated by coming to earth in the forms of Jesus and Morgan Freeman, then it makes sense he'd want us to know truth. Since everything he says is true, we can assume that everything in the Bible (or at least things that actually have an affect on us) is true.

Conclusion: The Bible may self-represent.

This is just logical stuff. The Bible is written with the inspiration of the golden milk chocolate voice of Morgan Freeman. We have to assume that it speaks truth. It's actually a ridiculous assumption intellectually to say the Bible isn't true given the evidence presented.

Thank you pro for making this debate! I hope we can have fun with this and get down to the truth!
Debate Round No. 1


Response to p1.

If I were to challenge moegan freeman being god, than you could raise the point morgan freeman is god. But, like stated with the second example of the fallacy, you cannot use any examples of morgan freeman himself as a way to justify him. Essentially, these movies are just different parts of the bible in a metaphorical stance. Please read through the scope of the argument before you make this clause.

Reaponse to p2

Again, supporting evidence must be unrelated to the challenger himself and be impartial towards the postions. I can provide an incident. For example, if I think my dad is not cool, he cannot defend himself by saying he thought he was cool, or a book he wrote saying he was cool, or a picture of something he did that was cool. The point is, evidence remains unbias and unrelated.

Response to p3.

Of course a "God" is going to try to break the fallacy, he benefits. It will simply break any fallacy to try to make people believe in their petty lies. The more obscure and undebatable, the better. Its hard to debate when you have a fully prepared prestandard of fallacious bias lies such as the bible


My opponent has not provided counter-evidence, which means my arguments are still superior. However, I will address the arguments to ensure their utter destruction.

My opponent has not been able to refute that Morgan Freeman is always right. Morgan Freeman's voice is literally the sound of truth.

Logically we can't just say that there is nothing that can self-represent, otherwise it's impossible for us to actually have truth. Truth may self-represent as it is the truth regardless of what other sources say it's not. Since Morgan Freeman always says the truth (as it has been established at this point), it would be illogical for us to actually oppose Biblical self-representation, as it was inspired by the voice of Morgan Freeman.

My points and evidence as a whole have not been adequately attacked to this point.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2


jacksch forfeited this round.


The debate has been conceded. Thank you for reading, and please vote in favor of me!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
No...I started the point, which means you don't decide what my point was. My point was that your debate is unwinable. You're stating a defintion and a case where it may apply like my vocab book did in seventh grade. You just made it a lot longer. Tell me if you're getting this. I have to keep changing the way I say it, because it doesn't look like you're understanding me.
Posted by jacksch 3 years ago
The entire point that "God is Real" is a truism. Religion is the truism. A faulty one at that.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
No, religion isn't truism, but your resolution is. That means that if anyone seriously challenged you they'd lose on pure definitions. Instead, I accepted the challenge. Have fun :)
Posted by jacksch 3 years ago
Religion is not a truism. Instead,"a truism is an argument that is considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that really is not disputable.""For example, the argument that "genocide is bad" is a truism; virtually no one is going to argue that a genocide is good.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
What I mean is that you win by definition. I'll debate you to the best of my abilities though.
Posted by jacksch 3 years ago
A truist statement in this essence isnt applicable at all.
First of all, religion is not widely accepted enough to support a truism stance.
Things like 1+1, ideas that logically fit together. Religion is DEFINITELY not a very "logical" conclusion. The entire belief itself is mere faith.
Secondly, truism is not an option when debating this fallacy
This fallacy is essentially disproving truism, disproving that you can just use the "true nature" of something to prove itself. The entire purpoae of this debate is to prove truism is a falty debate logic

Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Have you heard of a truism?
Posted by jacksch 3 years ago
Kinda uncalled for? How does it matter how long my account has lasted. Debate me seriously
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
You got an account 6 months ago and you're just now doing something?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF