The Instigator
CAPLlock
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LoremIpsum
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I ,too, wont 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 14803
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

CAPLlock

Pro

Try me.
ends on 5th round
20 yes/no questions
LoremIpsum

Con

So, the opponent said I have twenty questions to try and make him 'contradict himself'. Also, his most recent comment states there will be 20 questions in the whole debate. So I'll start with a mere two now.

1) Should I try you?

2) Is the following statement true: "This statement is a lie"?

Those are the only questions I shall ask for now. However, I believe this debate already goes to me. Notice in the comments that the opponent stated that there would be 20 questions per round, then in the next comment, he clearly states that it will be 20 questions per debate. Him stating one thing, and then contradicting it with an opposing idea is a contradiction. Because my opponent has contradicted himself he loses. Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Pro

well I meant to change it and since it startes when you start asking me a ? sooo. the rules have been changes I didn't say i comments counted
1 - you should
2-yes that is a lie

LoremIpsum

Con

Welcome to Round 2. I'm simply going to be covering my opponent's arguments and rebuilding a bit. It shouldn't be very long at all. Here we go,

*well I meant to change it*

I do not doubt that my opponent meant one thing and said another. However, my opponent should have simply left his mistake well alone and played along to not contradict himself. But because he decided to go against what he said, he contradicted himself. This is simple enough, the the fact that the opponent 'meant' a certain thing doesn't change the fact that he, with his own words, directly contradicted himself. I posted the comment 'lul' to insure that comments can't be deleted, so the readers of this debate can go see for yourself this evident contradiction.

*since it [starts] when you start asking me [questions]*

My opponent states that he didn't have to contradict himself until after the the questions start, however this is quite simply a lie. A debate starts when an opponent takes a debate. I took the debate, and the AFTER the opponent made the comments that contradicted. Also, my opponent simply stated he won't contradict himself. Seeing as he didn't place any restrictions on this (ie I won't contradict myself during this round, or I won't contradict myself while wearing my favorite shirt) then it applies universally to him across the whole debate. This means he is purporting that he won't contradict himself not only in the debate, but not in the comments, or even the forums either. So because of this, he contradicted himself, and it most certainly counts.

*the rules have been [changed]*

This is proof that my own opponent admits to contradicting himself, following the assumption that he is the one who believes he can 'change' rules. I'd like to make the point that he can't change rules though. As I said earlier, actual intent doesn't make contradicting statements any less to the contrary of each other. However, this also doesn't mean that the statements are true. Meaning my opponent's belief that he can simply add or change rules is completely unfounded and unfair should they be supported. I agreed to his statement of 20 questions in the debate, but I will not agree to the rule change that the contradictions can only start being counted once the questions have begun.

*didn't say [my] comments counted*

See my previous argument on the rules of the debate.

*1 - you should*

Referring to the very first argument by my opponent he says that I should ask 20 yes/no questions. This assumes, of course, that they will be answered by either yes or no. However, here the opponent clearly answered with neither a yes or a no. Because he did not follow his premise of yes/no questions, he has contradicted himself, in that he is doing one action that contradicts a previous statement. So even if it were to be accepted that contradictions don't become legitimate until questions start, here is a contradiction stated clearly after the round started.

*yes that is a lie*

My opponent stated he would answer yes/no questions with yes/no, and was therefore bound to it. This means he left himself open to be contradicted by a question such as the one I asked. I asked if the statement "This statement is a lie." is true. He stated it was not true. So following the answer to his question, he is saying that the statement "This [statement] is a lie" is false. That means he is stating it is true. However, if it is true, then it isn't false like my opponent stated, and it certainly goes against what the statement originally said. This is called a paradoxical statement, meaning it can't really be given a truth value state (yes or no). But because my opponent said he must answer in yes/no, he has binded himself to always answering incorrectly on paradoxical statements. Now why is this a contradiction? In a debate, each debater assumes that they are debating the truth. When my opponent sides with a false statement, he is debating for a lie. Because the opponent went from debating for the truth to debating for a lie, he has contradicted himself. The only way out of this argument would be to admit that he is arguing with the assumption that he must lie, which would warrant his loss even on its own.

-Conclusion-

My opponent contradicts himself outside of the round and inside of the round, and does not manage to adequately defend the former of the two (not having a chance to refute the latter). Because he fails to show how he hasn't contradicted himself, he has lost. I will have more questions later, and there is only one that I leave the debate with.

3) What is your screen name?
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Pro

I changed the rules
I never contradicted myself.
to affirm the opposite of (a proposition, statement, etc)
I never said two opposites (PROVE IT)
This is proof that my own opponent admits to contradicting himself, following the assumption that he is the one who believes he can 'change' rules. I'd like to make the point that he can't change rules though.
You cannot change them yourself, your highness.
Don't try to say
"well, that's not really MY definition, therefore your wrong"
okay
3) What's your screen name
Im known as many things , but , here, Im CAPLlock

LoremIpsum

Con

*I changed the rules*

I realize that the opponent feels he can change the rules, but he quiet simply can't. As the creator of the debate, he issued a challenge, however that does not make him an all-powerful administrator that can change the rules as he pleases. The opponent is not legally allowed to change the rules. Along these lines, the opponent also cannot simply make new rules up whenever he pleases. This would be abusive to me and create a very unfair debate. Therefore, my opponent's assertion that the rule "Contradictions in the comments don't count" is not substantiated and should not be observed. Also, this means that my opponent still has contradicted himself.

*I never contradicted myself, I never said two opposites (PROVE IT)*

First of all, let's talk about the opponent's definition. His (sourceless) definition says to contradict is to 'affirm the opposite of'. However, according to Merriam Webster, the definition is to affirm the contrary of (contrary means a proposition so related to one another that not both can be true). This is a much more acceptable definition because it comes from a source and can be logically applied. For example, the opposite of black is commonly understood as white. However, if a man said that he is going to get a white car, and got a green car instead, he would still be contradicting his original statement, even if he wasn't doing the exact opposite. So applying this to my opponent's comments in the comment section, we see he contradicts himself. First he says there will be 20 questions per round, and then he says there is will be 20 per debate. This is an obvious contradiction because he says two things that cannot coexist and affirms them both. This is proof of the contradiction that my opponent asked for and proof that I have won today's debate.

*You cannot change them yourself, your highness*

This statement directly says one thing, and implies another. The words "You cannot change them" says that I can't change the rules, which is pretty obvious in the statement. However, "yourself, your highness" also has a function. 'yourself' means he is saying 'oh contrare, you say I can't change the rules so neither can you'. 'Your highness' is a mockery of me based of his assumption that I wish to change the rules (which I don't). The fact that he would find it mock-able to change the rules means logically that he is against changing the rules himself. However, his very first sentence of this round was "I changed the rules." This statement directly conflicts with his implication that changing the rules was a bad thing that he assumable wouldn't do. So here, we have a contradiction inside the round to match the contradiction outside the round.

*Don't try to say that's not really MY definition, therefore [you're] wrong*

I didn't simply assert mine was better, but I actually sourced it and backed it up by reasoning and logic, something the opponent has failed to do all debate round. Because of this failure to use logic, my definition supersedes his.

*DROPS*

My opponent dropped two arguments, meaning he didn't attempt to refute them. Clearly he didn't use anywhere near his 8000 character limit, so he did have the space to refute them, but he simply didn't, perhaps because he agrees. The arguments were:

1) The argument regarding him answering yes/no questions with answers other than yes/no.

2) The argument regarding the question I asked "This statement is a lie".

Neither were even mentioned, so because of that they go to me.

CONCLUSION

My opponent poorly refuted my attacks in a measly paragraph backed by sourceless data and no logic to speak of. He even dropped arguments, not mentioning them at all. I've shows a source where necessary and backed my arguments with plenty of logic, making me the clear cut winner of this debate even right now.
Debate Round No. 3
CAPLlock

Pro

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Read that bit for just a second.

*the rules have been [changed]*

THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION

*didn't say [my] comments counted*

See my previous argument on the rules of the debate.

It doesn't matter.You can't say will count.
2) The argument regarding the question I asked "This statement is a lie".
for something contradict I need to say one thing then say the other.
You also they get that statement heres what basically means the same thing.
I always lie
If you were to say 'Yes' that means you do lie, but if you always lie that means your lied about you lieing. It goes in a cycle. Con has block the cycle and made it seem i contradicted myself.

My opponent poorly refuted my attacks in a paragraph backed by sourceless data and no logic to speak of.
Such as Logic and the dictionary
He even dropped arguments, not mentioning them at all. I've shows a source where necessary and backed my arguments with plenty of logic, making me the clear cut winner of this debate even right now.

Where did I? Because you forgot to mention that paradoxes never stop the cycle
LoremIpsum

Con

LoremIpsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CAPLlock

Pro

CAPLlock forfeited this round.
LoremIpsum

Con

LoremIpsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
really?
Posted by LoremIpsum 6 years ago
LoremIpsum
How old are you? Just curious...
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
Can you read? Read that definition.
Posted by LoremIpsum 6 years ago
LoremIpsum
lul
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
Per debate. sorry
Posted by CAPLlock 6 years ago
CAPLlock
per round
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
20 questions per round or in the entire debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.