The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dimmitri.C
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

I will NOT contradict myself.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Dimmitri.C
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,540 times Debate No: 16700
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

kohai

Pro

Here is how this will work, my opponent will ask me a series of10 questions in each round. I will respond and hopefully not contradict myself from previous rounds.If I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent.However, if I do NOT contradict myself, then you all vote for me.This is just a fun debate--nothing serious.
Dimmitri.C

Con

It is essential that the audience take into consideration the underlying contradiction found within the very guidelines of this debate. Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. This line of reasoning is, in principle, self-referentially false—contradictory statements are necessarily false in essence and, therefore, incapable of logical modification. A contradiction can be explained formally as the irreconcilability amid two or more propositions. Indeed, a contradiction is logically unavoidable, e.g., the two propositions “X is Y" and "Y is not X" are mutually exclusive. Therefore, Kohai's line of reasoning, i.e., contradictory statements which are necessarily false can also be proven as true, participates in committing a logical incompatibility. Kohai has affirmed that a statement can be both logically contradictory, yet amendable—this statement violates the principle of contradiction, thus, Kohai has lost the debate.

Vote Con!









Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply. Aren't you a sneaky character.

Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation.

Actually, I stated If "I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent."

My opponent has taken this out of context to suggest that I stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation.
Well, my opponent, according to his profile, is Christian. Therefore, he most likely believes the Bible.
I can go through a bunch of "Contradictions" and he can easily just explain them--as many debates on debate.org are doing. And that is what I'll be doing in this debate--Clearing up the "Contradictions.

This line of reasoning is, in principle, self-referentially false—contradictory statements are necessarily false in essence and, therefore, incapable of logical modification.

See post above

There are no contradictions.

Dimmitri.C

Con

In response to my argument my opponent has merely pointed out the hypothetical 'if' statement in the beginning of the sentence to try and help synthesise the contradictory statement which he made. My opponent has failed to realise that hypothetical statements are subject to the laws of logic, as is all philosophy. For, the laws of logic render a hypothesis, e.g., Kohai's contradictory statement, tenable or untenable.

Kohai has stated,

"If I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent."

I will repeat myself: The statement quoted above is, in principle, self-referentially false. For my opponent is suggesting that a contradictory statement, which is inescapably false in essence, can be logically modified to make sense—contradictory statements are necessarily false. Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical explanation can amend a logical contradiction. This line of reasoning is untenable and contradictory.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for hasty reply. You are sneaky and a worthy opponent.

I think the best way to clear this whole thing up is as follows
In my guidelines, you (the voters) will vote for my opponent if I contradict myself and I can't prove that it is not. My opponent says that is impossible. Let me give you an example of how that is possible.

1) My opponent in round 1 asks me "Are you thirsty?" I reply no.
2) my opponent in round 2 asks me the same question, but I answer yes

Without a second look, it appears I have contradicted myself from the previous round. However, one can clear it up by the simple fact that it was asked at a different time. Therefore, I can not be thirsty the first time he asks, but am the second time.

That is what I was saying in the terms of agreement. No contradiction there.
Dimmitri.C

Con

My opponents response is absolutely incomparable to the contradiction which he unambiguously presented in the guidelines of the opening round. For example, merely asking whether or not you're feeling or needing water at two separate times while responding with either a "yes" or "no" at two seperate times does not amend the contradiction I pointed out earlier. Thirst is not necessarily or unavoidably applicable at all times while a contradictory statement is necessarily applicable at all times and, therefore, logically irreconcilable. A human beings desire for water is arbitrated by the individual, relative to the consistency of their dietary intakethe laws of logic apply universally. Thus, the comparison made by my opponent is, in context, unparalleled. In other words: Kohai has stated that he is thirsty and not thirsty at once.

Here are two questions,

1. Do you believe materialism is the only source of truth?

2. Do you believe all truth can be revealed by empiricism?

Vote Con!







Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for showing superb conduct in this debate.

1) I do not believe materialism is the only source of truth
2) I do not believe all truth can be revealed by empiricism

Why vote pro?

1) I did not contradict myself
2) My opponent failed to ask me 10 ?s per round.
3) I cleared up what I meant in his so-called "Contradiction."

Therefore, you should vote pro!
Dimmitri.C

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate him. Kohai, you are a worthy opponent and I very much enjoyed this debate.

Let's bring back the threads of this debate,

'1) I did not contradict myself'

My opponent stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. Indeed, my opponent has declared that a necessarily false statement can be synthesised—contradictory statements are inevitably false. My opponent has contradicted himself.

Undeniably, my opponent never synthesised the contradictory statement he made. My opponent merely participated in committing a logical non-sequitur—a conclusion of irrelevance. Please remember what I said: A human beings desire for water is arbitrated by the individual, relative to the consistency of their dietary intakethe laws of logic apply universally. Thus, the comparison made by my opponent is, in context, unparalleled. In other words: Kohai has stated that he is thirsty and not thirsty at once.

Vote Con!







Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
I would love Con to repost this debate challenge in the same way it was first given; I have 10 questions which I know will cause him to contradict himself...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Kohai,

If you want, I'll take up the challenge on this same debate. I think I can beat you with one question.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Kohai,

The point you're making is irrelevant and therefore not essential to the debate. I don't need to supply questions as you already pulled the rug from under your own feet in this debate.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Lolz. Well, I'm just making a point. Nor have you even asked me the questions yet you were suppose to ask.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
My opponent doesn't seem to realise that my religious disposition is not pertinent to this discussion. This is clear evidence suggesting that Kohai doesn't even understand the topic and guidelines of his debate. My beliefs are irrelevant to the topic of this debate, Kohai. I suggest you refrain from participating in committing the red-herring fallacy.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Oops, I had meant to say, 'the two propositions "X is Y" and "X is not Y'" and not what is written in the text box!
Posted by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
The 1,000 character limit is restrictive, ha ha!
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Your questions are not limited to yes or no questions. I should have made that clear.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Too late, lol.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Are your answers limited to yes or no?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
kohaiDimmitri.CTied
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: Wow that didn't take long
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
kohaiDimmitri.CTied
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: lol
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
kohaiDimmitri.CTied
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: He's got you on this one Kohai. You clearly implied that a contradiction could be explained by logic, but if it can be explained by logic it isn't a contradiction. It's funny how important a word like "apparent" can be in a debate like this.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
kohaiDimmitri.CTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This was hilariously well done, I have to applaud Con for his cleverness. His point was not adequately addressed, so I'm voting for Con.