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

I am debating 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,161 times Debate No: 15787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




I will set a few ground rules for this debate:

(1) Round 1 is for acceptance and definitions

(2) Logic is assumed to be correct

(3) I is defined as the entity debating the position of Pro for this debate

Good luck to my opponent and let this be a fun debate (:


This should be a cool debate. I have no idea what to expect. Before we begin though I would like to question rule 2. If we assume logic in general to be correct, then that means he would auto-win if he can give a logical reason the resolution is true, regardles of how questionable it may be. I would suggest adding "unless proven false" to the end of the rule.

Honestly though, I dont think this will be an issue, I'm just putting it out there just in case. If you dont plan on using this rule to affirm then feel free to pretend like I never said any of this.

I wish my opponent luck.

Debate Round No. 1


Since my opponent has not provided definitions for debating and myself I will do so:

Debating: To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.[1]

Myself: Used reflexively as the direct or indirect object of a verb or as the object of a preposition.[2]

I would also like to propose that neither side (in this debate, the debate with the resolution "I am debating myself") has the burden of proof.

Before I start my arguments. I ask my opponent and the voters to bear with me while I begin a debate where I contend I am debating with myself.


The goal of my debate is to affirm the resolution that I am discussing or arguing formally with myself. So am I really debating myself? One might say no (something even I'm inclined to say so). Debating with myself suggests inner conflict. It suggests that my opponent is myself.

Consider these two statements:

I am cat

I am not a cat

If one single entity were to argue for both, formally, it would be debating itself.

The two statements that arise from the resolution of this current debate are as follows:

I am debating myself

I am not debating myself

If I argue or discuss these two statements with myself it is arguing myself correct? I will anticipate the response of my opponent (myself) and bring up a point. This is not necessarily true because by the time I bring up a counter point against myself my mind and chemical balance have changed. Maybe a different part of me is doing the actual debating. I would like to point out that I (me) is poorly defined and ambiguous. What exactly is I? is I a particular temporal entity or is it referring to an entity that refers to this mind through all its movements through time?

This makes me think of identity. If I define myself that does the action "A" does that mean only the parts of "me" or "I" that actually contribute to the action "A" is the correctly define I? I think I will contemplate this some more throughout the night and onto tomorrow and who knows however long.

I will argue with myself till I at least finish my debate with BlackVoid.


Now I will begin my argument. As you can see above I, the entity debating Pro for this debate, am debating myself. I was discussing or arguing the same topic as this debate and will continue to debate with myself outside of DDO till the conclusion of my current debate with BlackVoid. So therefore at any moment between me typing this and the conclusion of this debate I will be debating with myself.

Since this is a long 8000 character limit debate I will type more of an argument next round because at the moment I am tired and would also like to see how my opponent (BlackVoid) will respond before I go to the trouble.

I thank him again for accepting the debating and am honoured to have such a reputable debater debating with me (:


Many thanks to AznWords for starting this. This looks to be really fun, I really had to think outside the box to refute this.

So lets get to it.

First, my opponent has violated his own rule. According to him, "Round 1 is for acceptance and definitions". But he gave definitions in round 2. Conduct goes con right there.

Now to the debate, it would appear that in order for my opponent to win he must prove that he is debating himself. He has tried to do this by typing a supposed debate with himself about whether he can debate himself of not.

First argument is Paradox. He claims he is debating himself. However, this supposed debate he is engaging in is about whether or not he can actually do so. This means that, in order to legitimately debate himself, he must be in question about whether he can actually do it. Therefore, since he is questioning himself about whether this resolution is even possible, he cannot prove the resolution true because he himself isn't sure that he can debate himself. This makes the resolution unverifiable.

Second argument is Provability. As humans have not yet developed the technology necessary to read minds, we really have no way to definently know that he is debating himself. And he as such has no way of proving this either. For example, I can easily claim that I am running around my neighborhood half naked wearing a thong. That doesn't make it true; I have no way of proving it. in the same respect, that means that this resolution isn't verifiable either.
Now he may say that he was in fact debating himself in his round 2 post, when he typed a discussion about whether debating himself is possible. However we also have no way of knowing whether this is a legitimate self-discussion, or whether he is merely faking this discussion to try and prove a point.

Third argument is Timeframe. The resolution states "I am debating myself". Because no timeframe is given as to when this supposed debate with himself is taking place, the resolution must be considered active until this debate is over. If at any point during this debate my opponent is not debating himself, he loses because the resolution was false. This is because the validity of a topic can change over time. For example, if I create a topic that says "It is April 7th", then a day passes, the resolution becomes false because it would be April 8th. In the same respect, this resolution can be proven false if it does not remain true. Therefore, vote con because my opponent will surely not be debating with himself for the entire duration of this round. At some point he will be typing a response to my arguments, in which case he is debating me and not himself. Or he could be sleeping, at which point he is not debating himself either.

He also must be debating himself for the entire duration of this debate because he himself said that's what he will attempt to do. My opponent wrote that "I was discussing or arguing the same topic as this debate and will continue to debate with myself outside of DDO till the conclusion of my current debate with BlackVoid". At that point, extend my argument saying that its not possible for him to be debating himself for an indefinite period of time; at some point he will either be debating me, sleeping, etc, and the resolution will become false.

For these reasons I urge a con vote.

Debate Round No. 2


Opening comments
Before I begin, I would like the audience to acknowledge that my opponent has not made a statement against my proposal that both parties share the burden of proof. Therefore according to etiquette he has accepted the proposal. If my argument are found unsubstantial this debate shall be declared as a draw unless Con develops a sound constructive argument to disprove the resolution.

I would first like to point out that I have not violated my own rule. I stated that Round 1 is for acceptance and definitions. This means I have never stated that definitions were limited to Round, it means I stated that Round 1 was limited to acceptance and definitions (no arguments were to be presented during this time). Since my opponent failed to take the responsibility to defining the remaining terms left to ambiguity I took the responsibility.

Addressing my opponents argument one

I will now like to address my opponents claim that my first argument is a paradox. The resolution for our current debate and my debate within the debate are both not necessarily self contained. Note that both debates are discussing whether a subject is debating with himself in which case is me.

This has yet to completely address my opponents attack but will help add clarity in defending my argument. I will now deconstruct my opponents refutation:

Premise 1: In order to legitimately debate one self there must be questioning of a topic.
Premise 2: In this case the topic is whether he is questioning himself.
Premise 3: He is questioning whether the resolution is possible.
Premise 4: He cannot prove the resolution because he is not sure that he can debate himself. (derived from Premise 2 and Premise 3)
Conclusion: The resolution is unverifiable.

There are a number of problems with this attempt to refute my contention. The third premise is false and assumed. Part of a resolution deals with whether an absolute or possibility is being asked for. My opponent has changed the resolution to attack my point by stating my resolution deals with possibility of itself rather than whether it is currently case. This is a Straw Man Fallacy, which is where one changes an argument, refutes it then claims the original argument was refuted.

Even when this logically fallacy is not taken into consideration the rest of the argument does not hold. Just because I am at the moment unsure of whether I can debate myself (which was not actually the case, my debate was about whether I am) does not constitute any reasoning why I cannot prove the resolution. If one were to question whether he owned a television would that automatically mean you can assume it is not possible for him to verify it? Even if he found a television in his home that he has the credit card receipt (in his name) for? This is absurd. Furthermore this takes the false assumption that I have already pointed out in the previous paragraph; this makes an derivation on the false Premise 3.

Lastly the conclusion is misleading and irrelevant to the argument. I take it as my opponent is using this as a case against my main contentions (if he answers no to this, he has already admitted its irrelevance. Verifiability is not a prerequisite for a debate. There are many debates concerning the existence of God. The existence of God is inherently unverifiable. If one argues that God is verifiable, by ignoring that he is inherently not one could make a case. If my opponent decides to go down this path and expand let me remind the audience that the resolution for my own personal debate and this current debate are the same. Does my opponent content that this current debate is not actually a debate because it is claimed to be unverifiable?

Addressing my opponents argument two

My opponents second argument is that because it cannot be proven whether or not my questioning of a resolution is genuine it cannot be proven whether or not I am debating myself. *Please note that this is simply deconstructive and does not give my opponent proof (which he too carries the burden of) against my resolution of the current debate. Legitimate belief in an opinion (and in this case a self-questioning because one entity holds an opinion on both sides) is another pre-requisite for a debate Con has arbitrarily declared. I ask my audience whether they believe it is possible for someone to debate an opinion if they do not genuinely believe in it. If both sides do not believe in the opinion he is arguing is it impossible to have a debate? If an individual does not truly question a topic does that mean he cannot discuss it critically with himself? I believe that it is self-evident that the premise genuinity is not required to have a debate. This is not from the definition nor is it sound.

Addressing my opponents argument three

My opponents argument is as follows:

Premise 1: The resolution is temporal. It refers to an event happening in a particular time frame.
Premise 2: My opponent has to take time to respond to me and sleep during the time period of the resolution.
Premise 3: My opponent cannot be debating himself while responding and sleeping.
Conclusion: My opponent cannot be debating with himself in the given time period.

Premise 1 is true, as I have presented it originally and Premise 2 is undeniable as long as am a mortal (which is not necessarily true and is assumed). The real mistake is the third premise that states it is not possible for me to sleep and be debating. A debate does not exist only at the moments a point or argument from one side is being made. It is absurd to say that the time in between opposing contentions being made the debate cease to exist. Does my opponent currently contend that he is not having a debate with me because he is not actively thinking and making a point about it at this exact moment. In a debate there are at least two opposing ideas that take turns being developed. The whole entire time period between the proposition of a resolution to a conclusion of the case is when a debate is being debated. I can add new points and pieces of evidence to a topic I am discussing or arguing with myself (debating) at any time. Till I have stopped questioning myself and have concluded a solid opinion for or against the resolution the debate is still in effect. I do not necessarily have to be debating my previous topic either. I could be questioning my career choice or any topic. So therefore I am still debating with myself as I am typing this response; my debate has not been concluded and is still on going along with my many other self-debates.
Concluding statements

My opponent has failed to refute my proof of the resolution and has not presented any proof himself. I have stated and properly defend my case. For these simple reasons I urge the voters to vote Pro.

I have had an enjoyable debate with my opponent and I thank him for being my opponent. I also thank the audience and the voters for reading and considering my cases. Now I am off to bed (:


First I thank AznWords for what has been an extremely interesting debate, and putting effort into it, which is hard to find for unusual topics like this.

Lets start on the conduct. He claims that he just meant that round 1 wasn't for arguments, and that definitions weren't limited to the first round. I find this hard to believe; if definitions weren't limited to round 1, it would enable me to easily bring up a new definition in round three or four and try to semantics my way to a win. Now my opponent appears intelligent enough to recognize that, and as such most likely put in this rule to keep definitions to round 1, as is customary in most debates. However, obviously I called out his mistake in giving them in round 2, so this point must flow con.

Honestly though, I suggest voters to not make the debate decide on this, just conduct at most.


Pro: I accepted we both have BoP

I'm aware of that. That why I gave my timeframe argument. Its an offensive contention that disproves the resolution. My other two arguments deal with his inability to support the BoP, which is still within my grounds.

Now to contentions.

1. Paradox

Pro: Premise three (questioning the resolution) is false and assumed

I will quote my opponent and allow him to disprove this.

"So am I really debating myself? One might say no (something even I'm inclined to say so). "

He directly questions the resolution and even comes out and admits he's inclined to say that the resolution isn't taking place. My opponent defeats his own argument.

Pro: Straw man, resolution is about whether the debate is occurring, not if it is possible

If the resolution isn't possible, then how can it be occurring?!

Pro: TV example; you can not know something but still verify it

First, the example he gives is extremely unrealistic. How would you not know if you owned a TV?

Secondly, he is wrong in his conclusion. If something is verified, then you can't be questioning it. For example, my laptop is (visually) verified to be on my lap right now. Therefore, I do not question whether it is possible for the laptop to be there. In the same respect, if he is indeed debating himself, then he shouldn't have to question whether it is possible. Therefore my argument stands; if he questions the resolution, which he has done in his previous quote, then he cannot prove the resolution.

Pro: Rez doesn't have to be verifiable. God isn't verifiable, yet it is still a debate

Supporters of God argue that he is verifiable from the different Holy Books, complexity of nature, miracles, etc. This example is not applicable.

Also, resolution needs to be verifiable. If it isn't pro cannot win. For example, if I create a topic titled "There are things so small that human technology cannot see", then that cannot be verified because we obviously cant see these things to prove the resolution true. In that case, con should win because there is no way pro can show his resolution to be true. It is the same in this debate. If he cant prove the resolution true, then he should lose.

Pro: "This" debate isn't a debate under my logic because it is unverifiable

However, it is verifiable. We see the website in front of us and the arguments presented. We can verify this is indeed a debate. We cant do the same with my opponent's because of the arguments I've previously given.

2. Provability

Pro: Doesn't disprove resolution

1. No warrant as to why

2. Wouldn't matter regardless; I gave an offensive argument through Timeframe, simply attacking your burden with this argument is still con ground.

Pro: You don't have to believe in an opinion to debate it

This is non-responsive to my argument. My contention states that he cannot prove to us that his debate is actually happening, since it is merely something he is claiming is true. I mentioned nothing about opinions being required for a debate. I'm not sure if my argument was misinterpreted or what, but in any case it was not responded to.

3. Timeframe. This is the most important point in the round. If voters read nothing else, read the arguments we have made about this.


Pro: Agrees to premise 1

It has now been established that the resolution must be taking place 100% of the time until this debate has ended. If I can prove that at any point my opponent is not debating himself, I win, as this is what he agrees he must prove.

Pro: Debate is still occurring even if there are intervals where arguments are not being made or thought up.

He defines "debating" as "To discuss or argue formally". If he is asleep, which he agrees he does, then he is not "discussing or arguing formally". He is sleeping. Therefore, it is proven that there is a timeframe at which he is not debating. Therefore the resolution is not true for the agreed timeframe. Vote con based off this alone.

Pro: My logic would say that I'm not debating my opponent if I'm away.

Indeed I'm not, especially according to your definition. I'm not arguing formally with you if I am asleep, so I am only debating you if I am typing or thinking of an argument, such as right now.

His conclusion

Pro: I don't refute his proof, and give none of my own

My entire case was built around him having no proof for the resolution. And as previously stated, my Timeframe argument was direct offense which refutes the resolution.

My conclusion:

His definition of "debate" destroys his defense against Timeframe. Since he has conceded that he must be debating himself during the entire duration of "this" debate, and he agrees that he is sleeping some of the time, then his definition proves that the resolution is not true.

I once again thank my opponent for a great debate and wish him luck in the future.

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AznWords 7 years ago
No where in the resolution or the actual debate is what you based your vote own suggested. My opponent had no problem understanding the resolution. I am debating myself can mean many things, as long as I show some reasoning that affirms one or more of those possibilities I am doing my part for the debate. The debate was meant to include the use of semantics.

The debate still has a debatable proposition. I never presented the debate the way you voted the debate on. I have not misrepresented or painted my resolution to one of its specific meanings then have changed it. The debate does not include discovery of what the resolution is, it has just gone down one line of argument concerning the resolution. There is no contrary clarifications.

I do not see why you fail to admit you misunderstood the resolution by your own fault. I have never lead the audience to your specific interpretation of the debate, you have simply made your own assumption.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Pro has the obligation to post a clear and coherent resolution. I reject the idea that a debate can include discovery of what the resolution is. Without any contrary clarification in the challenge, the resolution should be taken at face value. Failure to debate the resolution as presented is technically also a conduct violation. It's not possible to win a non-debate.
Posted by AznWords 7 years ago
Haha, it seems like all my debates that haven't been default wins never get any votes. Thanks for posting that.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Happens sometimes. I posted this is a forum topic designed for debates with little to no votes a good while ago, hopefully we get a few extra opinions.
Posted by AznWords 7 years ago
The only voter seems to have not actually read the debate. The resolution was never that I am debating myself in this debate but whether or not I'm debating myself in general. I hate when people don't actually read the debate -.-
Posted by Sottaceti 7 years ago
Argument is not objective. B)
I am moral.
I am amoral.
These are both true. Thus, I am debating myself vs I am not debating myself are a pair of viable sentences. B)
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Ha, nice argument. This'll be a bit tougher than I thought.
Posted by AznWords 7 years ago
Sorry I was working on another debate last night before my internet crashed so I couldn't get back to you right away. I'm sorry to say I might have to cut it close and post my debate tommorow because I've been swamped with work coming back to school.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Just a quick question, do you plan on getting round 2 up today or tomorrow? Just wondering so I know if I should go to bed now or wait a bit to see the arguments and sleep on it.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Alright then. I was just afraid that your argument was going to come off of that rule if I accepted it. But it sounds like it wont so its all good.

Mad semantics? Sounds awesome!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Brian314 7 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for Pro's definitions in Round 2. Arguments go to Con because the only offensive argument was the Timeframe argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro is not debating himself, he is debating Con. Pro would have to prove Con is a ghost account of his. I know Pro was trying for something philosophical, but it didn't work. Pro has the obligation to make a clear coherent resolution in the challenge. Even Con said he didn't know what to expect. That fails.