The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 10 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,194 times Debate No: 13811
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong"

I am the pro/for, so my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument

1) The only rule is that there are no rules,

Notes "the statement "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" is made without any context or reference
wjmelements

Con

First, I would like to define the resolution.

"I" refers to the author of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the instigator.
"you" refers to the audience of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the contender (or the audience, but the audience can not "prove" anything within the context of the debate).
To prove one "wrong" has been defined by the instigator, as "to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument."
To be "wrong" clearly means to be "deviating from truth or fact." http://dictionary.reference.com...

Reasons my opponent is wrong:
1) "The only rule is that there are no rules"
In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself. In confirming A and ~A, my opponent has necessarily made a false statement, and is therefore "wrong." My opponent defies the Law of the Excluded Middle (http://www.quantonics.com...).

2) The statement "there are no rules" is necessarily false for other reasons.
The following are rules:
- "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" "
- "I am the pro"
- "my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument"
- The Debate.Org Terms of Use, which my opponent has agreed to http://www.debate.org...
- The Code of Federal Regulations, which exists http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov...

3) My opponent stated "the statement "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" is made without any context or reference"
This is not true. It was obviously made with references and contexts. The following are the references and context:
- "I am the pro/for, so my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument"
- "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" "
The first identifies not only who is making and asserting the statement, but who it is referring to with both the "I" and the "you." The second identifies the context of the statement to be this debate.

I thank my opponent, and wish him luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

1) "The only rule is that there are no rules"
In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself. In confirming A and ~A, my opponent has necessarily made a false statement, and is therefore "wrong." My opponent defies the Law of the Excluded Middle (http://www.quantonics.com......).

If I said "there are no rules" then my opponent would of being correct to state, that "there are no rules" is a rule in its self thus is a contradiction, or as he put it "In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself."

P1) There are no rules
P2) There are no rules is a rule in of its self

There fore P1 is a contradiction and thus false

But I never made the claim "there are no rules" lets look at exactly what I did claim

"The only rule is that there are no rules"

P1) The only rule is that there are no rules
P2) Stating that there is a rule against rules is a rule in of its self,

Thus P1 correctly states that's the only rule is that there are no rules

2) The statement "there are no rules" is necessarily false for other reasons.
The following are rules:
- "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" "
- "I am the pro"
- "my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument"

These are topic, comments and descriptions, just because he says they are rules doesn't mean they are

- The Debate.Org Terms of Use, which my opponent has agreed to http://www.debate.org......
- The Code of Federal Regulations, which exists http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov......

You have made an assumption that I have agreed to these rules, I reject your assumption

I still claim you have not proved me wrong

"
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his quick response.

== Parameters ==
My opponent contends not my definitions.

== Arguments ==

1) Self-Contradictory Statement
The statement was, "The only rule is that there are no rules." This is self-contradictory and therefore false because it not only declares the existence of a rule ("the only rule") and the non-existence of rules ("there are no rules.")

The statement would not have been self-contradictory had my opponent instead stated "There only rule is that there are no OTHER rules"; however, he did not, and his statement is self-contradictory, therefore necessarily false.

2) The Existence of Other Rules
My opponent dismisses his statements not as rules, but as comments and descriptions, but they are clearly parameters of the debate.
- In declaring the topic, my opponent has made the rule regarding what the topic is.
- In declaring his side, my opponent has made a rule regarding which side I may take.
- In declaring the win condition, my opponent has made a rule regarding the burden of proof.

Next, my opponent has denied that he has agreed to the Terms of Use; however, he has an account, and account creation requires agreement with said Terms. Therefore, my "assumption" that my opponent has agreed to said rules is entirely valid.

Lastly, because my opponent has declared that there are no rules, identifying that there are rules that exist negates my opponent's statement.

3. Context and Reference
My opponent drops, and therefore concedes this contention.

== Conclusion ==
I have identified my opponent's false statements; therefore, I can prove and have proven my opponent wrong. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank my opponent for pointing out my mistakes,

You may think I have conceded defeat because the topic was ""I am right, and you can't prove me wrong"

But I have a defense argument which consists in 2 parts

Part 1)

1) Some one can't both be right and wrong at the same time about the same thing (that is to say right and wrong are mutually exclusive
2) If I am not right , then I am wrong
3) If I am not wrong, then I am right

Part 2)

1) The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction
2) I have accepted the correction
3) There fore I am right
4) Because I am right I can't be wrong (see part 1 of the argument)
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has agreed that he was incorrect in multiple ways and therefore wrong.

My response is divided into two parts, both agreeing with the mutual exclusion or right and wrong. The first challenges my opponent's first premise in his Part 2. The second negates the resolution regardless of my opponent's rebuttal.

== First ==
Because right and wrong are mutually exclusive and the agreed-upon definition of wrong is "deviating from truth or fact," my opponent's statement, "The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction" is incorrect. There is no absolute factual way to respond to the pointing out of an error. My opponent has not met any burden of proving his opinion on the response to negative feedback to be objectively correct. Rather, it seems to be a subjective and moral "right" rather than an objective, factual one.

== Second ==
I would like to identify that the resolution is two conditions ("PRO is right" and "CON cannot prove PRO wrong"), both of which must be true for affirmation. While my opponent may be currently correct, he has conceded that I have proven him wrong.
Therefore, the statement "you can't prove me wrong" is false, for I have proven my opponent wrong.

== Conclusion ==
The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Well here it is the final round and thus my final response.

My opponent seems to have an objection to one of the premises in my arguments ""The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction" he then goes on to say "There is no absolute factual way to respond to the pointing out of an error", his statement is just as much of an assertion as my statement, by the sounds of it, he wants you to reject my assertion yet accept his assertion.

If CON really had a problem with the premise, he could of argued for its falsity, if he had shown the premise false he would of shown the argument it was a part of as false, he did not do that.

I would note that its a bit late for Con to now argue for its falsity, since this is the last round and I wont be able to respond to any argument.

Thus I repeat my argument

Part 1)

1) Some one can't both be right and wrong at the same time about the same thing (that is to say right and wrong are mutually exclusive
2) If I am not right , then I am wrong
3) If I am not wrong, then I am right

Part 2)

1) The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction
2) I have accepted the correction
3) There fore I am right
4) Because I am right I can't be wrong (see part 1 of the argument)

My last part of the argument is this

1) Something that is right can't be proven wrong
2) I am right (see part 1&2)
3) There fore I am right and can't be proven wrong

Vote Pro
wjmelements

Con

My opponent does not contend my argument regarding the subjectivity of his correction argument in regards to the word "right," and so it still stands against his case. My opponent then agrees that his premise was no more than an assertion, and therefore invalid. He then tries to state that therefore my argument is invalid because it has the same lack of evidence as his, yet I used the agreed-upon definition to qualify my statement, so my opponent's rebuttal is incorrect.

My opponent's syllogism fails because one can be right about one thing, but wrong about another (this was even one of his premises), and for the reason pointed out last round, that he equivocates the moral definition of right with the factual definition of right.

Review:
- My opponent agrees that I proved him wrong.
- Therefore, I can prove him wrong.
- Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Very entertaining debate! Good work Con.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
You guys have too much time on your hands. But then again, I did take the time to read it ...

I think the meaning "The only rule is that there are no [other] rules." is clear. Elliptical reference is common. Pro wins that one.

However, Con wins on the Terms of Use and Federal Law. Those rules apply. Pro had to agree to the Terms of Use, and the Federal Law applies whether Pro agrees with it or not. Pro was wrong in his assertion there were no other rules.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Awesome. Thoroughly enjoyed reading this one.

Arguments to con, as he clearly demonstrated pro's logic false.
Posted by KevinW 6 years ago
KevinW
I do not understand this debate, but as long as you guys are having fun -- that is all that matters.

KW
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
A second approach, rather than attacking the first half of the statement, would be to attack the second half, and arguing that I could prove PRO wrong, but that I haven't yet.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Captain_Ronnie 6 years ago
Captain_Ronnie
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
IllegalcombatantwjmelementsTied
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:06