The Instigator
Mr.Cogburn
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

I Will Not Contradict Myself

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...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 21237
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Mr.Cogburn

Pro

Rules:
1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers.
2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No.
3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5.
4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken.
5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins.
6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win.
7. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person.
Contra

Con

1) Do you support George W. Bush's actions as President? Specify "no" if needed.

2) Are you Pro-Life?

3) Do you support a limited amount of regulation in an economy? More or less?

4) Do you support President Obama's economic actions as president?

5) Do you think that the rich should pay their fair share, and therefore use the progressive tax for the USA?

6) Do you think people have a right to own a weapon to defend themselves?

7) Do you think that weapons should not be taxed because that would infringe the second amendment?

8) Do you support stem-cell research?

9) Do you support smaller government?

10) Do you believe in the scientific establishment?
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Cogburn

Pro

1) Do you support George W. Bush's actions as President? Specify "no" if needed.
Mostly.

2) Are you Pro-Life?
Yes.

3) Do you support a limited amount of regulation in an economy? More or less?
Yes.

4) Do you support President Obama's economic actions as president?
No.

5) Do you think that the rich should pay their fair share, and therefore use the progressive tax for the USA?
No.

6) Do you think people have a right to own a weapon to defend themselves?
Yes.

7) Do you think that weapons should not be taxed because that would infringe the second amendment?
Yes.

8) Do you support stem-cell research?
Yes, just as long as it is not funded by the Government.

9) Do you support smaller government?
Yes.

10) Do you believe in the scientific establishment?
I am going to answer yes, but can you expand on this a bit?
Contra

Con

1) Assuming that the government is going to increase regulation; would you want it to be moderate increases or major increases in the amount of regulations?

2) Do you support tax cuts?

3) Do you support abortion?

4) Do you agree with the science community that there is an ozone hole?

5) Do you support a sales tax at the state or local levels?

6) Do you support Single-Payer healthcare?

7) Do you agree with Bush's decesions on healthcare policy? Specify please if needed.

8) Do you support a ban on chlorofluorocarbons?

9) Do you support a larger role of government in helping the poor have healthcare?

10) Do you think I have been coherent in this debate thus far?
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Cogburn

Pro

1) Assuming that the government is going to increase regulation; would you want it to be moderate increases or major increases in the amount of regulations?
Trick question. One, this is not a yes or no question. And two, you leave out the possibility that I might say decreases in regulation. So I will answer this one by saying a major DECREASE in the amount of regulations.

2) Do you support tax cuts?
Yes.

3) Do you support abortion?
No.

4) Do you agree with the science community that there is an ozone hole?
Yes.

5) Do you support a sales tax at the state or local levels?
Only during times of high inflation. In all other times, no.

6) Do you support Single-Payer healthcare?
No. I do not support things like Obamacare.

7) Do you agree with Bush's decesions on healthcare policy? Specify please if needed.
They were better than Obama's, but I wouldn't say that I "agreed" with them.

8) Do you support a ban on chlorofluorocarbons?
No.

9) Do you support a larger role of government in helping the poor have healthcare?
No.

10) Do you think I have been coherent in this debate thus far?
Yes.

Now are there any contradictions by me? You are supposed to point them out.
Contra

Con

Contradictions

1) My opponent has said that he is against regulation in general, and generally wants less regulation. He supports President Bush, and is against President Obama. However, Obama has created less regulations in his presidency than Bush so far. [1]

2) My opponent agrees that an ozone hole exists, but doesn't want to ban CFC's (chloroflouracarbons) which cause the ozone hole.

3) My opponent says I have been coherent, but in question 7 round 2, I misspell "decision" as "decesion".

4) My opponent says he temporarily supports a sales tax, but nearly anything can be made to become a weapon. For example, a watch can choke a guy, a shovel can smash a skull, etc. Sorry for the gross imagery.

5) My opponent says that he is pro-life, but he doesn't want the government to protect the lives of the poor.

6) My opponent says he doesn't approve of Obama's economic actions as president. However, my opponent also says he supports tax cuts. Obama's stimulus package cut taxes for 95% of working families, a contradiction. [2]

7) My opponent says that he is opposed to the government providing healthcare to the poor, but he is reluctant on Bush's actions as president, but didn't express disapproval. Bush increased the amount of community level health centers helping the poor by over a third. [3]



******* New Questions **************

1) Do you support a separation of church and state?

2) Are you good at seeing things that aren't in main focus?

3) Do you support school vouchers?

4) Do you think tax cuts ultimately increase revenues for the government?

5) Do you think that the environment should be protected?

6) Do you with tort reform?

7) Do you support abortion in any cases? Specify please.

8) Do you think that the government should provide some stimulus in poor economic times?

9) Do you want to honor women soldiers?

10) What figure is noticeable in this video that doesn't really have a place in the video (besides Australian culture)?



[1] http://thinkprogress.org...
[2] http://www.politifact.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Cogburn

Pro

=======Answers to Contradictions=======:

Contradiction 1: Ha! Obama has created less regulations than Bush (sarcasm hinted). First of all, Bush has done all of his eight years. Obama is only just beginning has fourth year. Second of all, the regulations passed by the presidents take several years to enforce and implement. So most of Bush's regulations would be taking effect now and Obama's regulations couldn't have even taken effect mostly. But most importantly, "Mr. Obama has approved 129 rules that cost more than $100 million, compared with 90 such rules under Mr. Bush."[1]

Contradiction 2: "A more careful reading would be that though most experts think they did, we are no longer clear how.""We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done."[2] Not to mention, the ozone hole has gotten worse since the banning of CFCs. Look at the graphs in source [3]. It's worse isn't it?

Contradiction 3: You have been coherent. Coherent is defined as "logically connected; consistent"[4]. I have understoody your questions so far. The definition says nothing about misspellings. I find you coherent. I understood that question even with the misspelling.

Contradiction 4: Yes. Almost anything can become a weapon. But putting even a big tax on anything wouldn't stop it being used as a weapon, even by the poor. Something that is $1 and is taxed 50% is only now $1.50. Still very affordable. Not to mention, this isn't a contradiction. This is you trying to attack my viewpoints. No contradiction here.

Contradiction 5: There is such a thing as the right to life. There is nothing about the right to wealth. Life is given. Wealth is earned.

Contradiction 6: [5] to counter your argument. One, it is a lot better to lower taxes for the rich than it is for the poor. One, the poor do not create and expand businesses very often (both activites of which create jobs). Two, the poor don't pay any taxes. "Some 46 percent of "tax units" (not 47 percent) pay no income tax—some 76 million tax filers.""Of the 46 percent, nearly two thirds pay FICA, basically their Social Security taxes."[6]

Contradiction 7: I do not approve of this decision by Bush. His healthcare and education decision were questionable at best.

=======Answers to New Questions=======:

1) Do you support a separation of church and state?
Yes.

2) Are you good at seeing things that aren't in main focus?
Usually.

3) Do you support school vouchers?
Yes.

4) Do you think tax cuts ultimately increase revenues for the government?
No. But it dosen't matter. Reducing revenue for the Government is necessary.

5) Do you think that the environment should be protected?
Thorugh individual people. The Government should have no control over environmental decisions.

6) Do you with tort reform?
You are not coherent here. I agree with it though.

7) Do you support abortion in any cases? Specify please.
When the woman's life is in danger and when the woman has been raped.

8) Do you think that the government should provide some stimulus in poor economic times?
No.

9) Do you want to honor women soldiers?
Yes.

10) What figure is noticeable in this video that doesn't really have a place in the video (besides Australian culture)?
The video won't load. My internet is a load of crap.

=======Sources=======:

[1]:http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2]:http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...
[3]:http://www.theozonehole.com...
[4]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5]:http://www.nytimes.com...
[6]:http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org...

=======Comment=======:

You are welcome to counter my arguments against your contradictions and are welcome to point out new ones.
Contra

Con

Total Contradictions:


1) New Regulations

My opponent said "this is Obama's 4th year. Bush took 8 years." However, it is according to the same time frame. Up into this point into each of their presidencies, Obama has approved about 5% less regulations than Bush thus far. I win here.

My opponent says that may cost more. This is true initially, but you are leaving out a few points:

1) The regulations approved under Obama will save money by preventing accidents for example in deep-sea drilling.
2) Some of the Obama regulations such as governing coal ash will actually create thousands of jobs. [1]

2) Ozone Hole

Newer information resolved the controversy over if CFC's did cause the ozone hole. [2] Plus, CFC's stay in the atmosphere for 20-100 years. [3] Then ban passed in 1987.

3) Sales Tax on Possible Weapons

You said you support a sales tax. However, you opposed taxation on weapons. Unless you specify and say "only formal weapons" this is a contradiction.

4) Healthcare for Poor

My opponent is pro-life. However, he is against healthcare for the poor. Lack of healthcare for the poor results in about 45,000 deaths a year. Thus, my opponent cannot be truly pro-life if he is opposed to helping the poor have assured healthcare (single-payer, universal, etc.) [4]

5) Tax Cuts

My opponent said that "I am opposed to President Obama's economic actions." He also says he is pro for tax cuts. He doesn't go into detail. He doesn't say "I am against Obama's economic actions - besides his tax cuts." Since Obama helped cut taxes on 95% of working families, [5] he cut taxes obviously. A contradiction.

6) School Vouchers

My opponent says he favors separation of church and state. However, he is for school vouchers. Many private schools are religious. Giving them public funding is equivalent of the state funding a church (minor). Thus, a contradiction.

7) Bush and Stimulus

President Bush, whom my opponent is "pro", passed an economic stimulus, [6] and my opponent is "con" for a stimulus by the government. A contradiction.

8) Coherency of my opponent

In round 1, my opponent says:

"Rules:
1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers.
2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No.
3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5.
4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken.
5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins.
6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win.
7. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person."

However, if I am allowed to ask a question in round 4, and you made a contradiction, I cannot point this out in round 5. This is a contradiction, because questions are useless in round 4 if I cannot use them to made a contradiction, because I cannot in round 5.

Sources:

[1] http://thinkprogress.org...

[2] http://www.nature.com...

[3] http://healthandenergy.com...

[4] http://www.reuters.com...

[5] http://www.politifact.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 4
Mr.Cogburn

Pro

Mr.Cogburn forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

My opponent forfeited.

Plus, my opponent contradicted himself EIGHT times, which he could not effectively refute. In R1, he said if he contradicted himself ONCE, CON wins. Therefore, I win. Thank you voters.

VOTE CONTRA



Fun fact:

Contra: Spanish for against
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
Well I guess my actions helped Pro, because either way he would of lost by contradicting himself.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
My RFD: I you look at my last comment, you can see why voting on this thing is very hard.

Conduct: Conduct goes to con for pro's forfeit.
Spelling and Grammar: Spelling and Grammar go to pro because con broke a rule.
Convincing Arguments: Since pro was found contradictory, con wins here.
Sources: Sources go to pro because con broke a rule.

I know that con broke a rule and a rule stated that all 7 points had to go to the opposite person. But pro forfeited and was found contradictory, so I think that these points should go to con.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
I don't know what to call it. The fact that pro forfeited is -1 for him, but you broke rule 1 which is -7 for you, but pro was found contradictory, so you win. This is confusing.
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
You didn't ask new questions in Round 4. "Rule 1: From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers."
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
Ron Paul, how did I break rule 1
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
Actually this should be a tie because con broke rule 1.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
Wow people are still doing these. These are always fails for pro.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I ruined the surprise? XD
Posted by Mr.Cogburn 2 years ago
Mr.Cogburn
What are you talking about?
Posted by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
Thanks 16k
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 2 years ago
mongeese
Mr.CogburnContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiting the 5th round of this debate is an instant loss for Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Mr.CogburnContraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason I agreed with con was because his questions lead to automatic contradictions. His supporting of GWB contradicted all of the answers to: regulation Ozone hole tax cuts stimulus school vouchers.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Mr.CogburnContraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: contradiction number 5 really did it for me, con admitted he misspelled words but pro did ff a round. good debate though
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
Mr.CogburnContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is comments.