The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
32 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 9 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 8864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (9)

 

mongeese

Pro

I will now try to defeat the diabolical wizard, as well.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.
2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.
3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers.
4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.
5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses.
6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses.
7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate.

Good luck.
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for this challenge. I, the diabolical wizard, will now proceed to conquer.

I accepted on the premise that PRO would not change his BIG issues. I have taken a screen shot and hope to have a fair debate.

1. Is a dictionary a reliable source?
2. Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile?
3. When in conflict, should public health be valued over liberty?
4. Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health?
5. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in their own home?
6. Can God create anything?
7. Can God lift anything?
8. Can God create everything?
9. Can God lift everything?
10. Is God omnipotent?
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

"1. Is a dictionary a reliable source?"
Sometimes. Not all definitions are applicable to any situation. For example, school does not always refer to fish.

"2. Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile?"
Yes, assuming that I get to define what the BIG issues to how I interpret them.

"3. When in conflict, should public health be valued over liberty?"
That depends on how extreme it is.
If a guy wants the liberty to release a deadly poison into the air, putting everybody into a coma, yes.
If a guy wants the liberty to not pay for another man's ills, no.

"4. Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health?"
At the age of responsibility.

"5. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in their own home?"
Yes, assuming that they don't expose any person to secondhand smoke that minds, or is under the age of responsibility.

"6. Can God create anything?"
Yes.

"7. Can God lift anything?"
Yes.

"8. Can God create everything?"
Yes.

"9. Can God lift everything?"
Yes.

"10. Is God omnipotent?"
Yes.
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for a quick reply.

1. Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?

2. Can God create something greater than himself?

3. Can God lift himself?

4. Is God omnipresent?

5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility?

6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility?

7. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibiliy?

8. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility?

9. Does banning abusable drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?

10. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization?
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

"1. Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?"
Yes.

"2. Can God create something greater than himself?"
Yes.

"3. Can God lift himself?"
Yes.

"4. Is God omnipresent?"
Yes.

"5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility?"
As long as it does not affect others.

"6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility?"
As long as it does no harm to others.

"7. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibility?"
As long as it does no harm to others.

"8. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility?"
As long as it does no harm to others.

"9. Does banning 'abusable' drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?"
Yes.

"10. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization?"
Yes.
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent again for a timely response.

I have seen several contradictions, but I will wait until next round to post them. If my opponent sees them and is willing to concede, we would save time, memory, and bandwidth.

1. Should abusable drugs be legal for this "responsible" population?

2. Can anything possibly be considered greater than God?

3. Are you against drug legalization?

4. Is this question 4?

5. Is this question 5?

6. Is this question 6?

7. Can God create something more powerful than Himself?

8. Can one infinity be considered greater than another?

9. Can something possibly be more powerful than something omnipotent?

10. Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

"1. Should abusable drugs be legal for this 'responsible' population?"
Answering this question would mean agreeing that this population is generally responsible, which I am not willing to do.

"2. Can anything possibly be considered greater than God?"
Yes.

"3. Are you against drug legalization?"
You've admitted yourself that the BIG issues are hard to understand. It would depend on what you meant by drug legalization, as there are many possible interpretations. If you go into more detail, I'll answer this in the next round.

"4. Is this question 4?"
Yes.

"5. Is this question 5?"
Yes.

"6. Is this question 6?"
Yes.

"7. Can God create something more powerful than Himself?"
Yes.

"8. Can one infinity be considered greater than another?"
Yes.

"9. Can something possibly be more powerful than something omnipotent?"
Yes.

"10. Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?"
Yes.
wjmelements

Con

My opponent's contradictions:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?
---Yes

Is a dictionary a reliable source?
---Sometimes. Not all definitions are applicable to any situation. For example, school does not always refer to fish.

Well, I do believe that the definition of "infinity" that would be applicable in this situation is most likely:
-The quality or condition of being infinite http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
...And the most applicable definition of infinite would be:
-Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

So,
If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity.
If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can God lift anything?
---Yes
Can God lift everything?
---Yes
Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?
---Yes

God can lift anything and everything, yet he can create a stone that he cannot lift.

So,
If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does banning 'abusable' drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?"
---Yes
Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health?
---At the age of responsibility.
Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization?
---Yes
Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile?
---Yes, assuming that I get to define what the BIG issues to how I interpret them.

(I don't see any other way to interpret "Drug Legalization" without contradicting the applicable definitions in the dictionary).

Drug Legalization obviously refers to the un-banning of abusable drugs.

So,
If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them.
If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health.

As further evidence of contradiction:
5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility?
---As long as it does not affect others.
6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility?
---As long as it does no harm to others.
Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibility?
---As long as it does no harm to others.
Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility?
---As long as it does no harm to others.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The contradictions are plain as day. However, the rules state that my opponent has the opportunity to "use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over."

I'm hoping for the "PRO admits defeat" option.
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

First, the infinity contradiction.

I will now define "consider": SUPPOSE.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

One can suppose that a number is greater than infinity. That person would be wrong.
Stalin considered Hitler to be his best friend. Stalin was wrong.
We can consider things to be true when they are wrong.
Therefore, Question 10 really couldn't accomplish anything, because anything can be considered to be anything, but that does not make it so.
Therefore, the number 2 can be considered greater than infinity, although whoever is making this consideration is not very smart. This does not stop such a consideration from being possible.

Now, for the God contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"6.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible."

By this perfectly acceptable interpretation of "omnipotent," God is able to create something that he cannot lift, and still lift it.

The ability to do the logically impossible means that the statements don't contradict, because God can lift what he cannot lift, because the definition of omnipotent allows for it without contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway."

And, finally, the drug contradiction.

"(I don't see any other way to interpret 'Drug Legalization' without contradicting the applicable definitions in the dictionary)."
The way I interpreted "Drug Legalization" was the legalization of drugs for all, not just those above the age of responsibility.

"Drug Legalization obviously refers to the un-banning of abusable drugs."
However, the age is not so obvious.

I took "Drug Legalization" to mean allowing everybody, including those under the age of responsibility, to use any drugs. Under this interpretation, I disagree with it. However, I agree with my opponent if we interpret it his way. However, my way is what we interpret it by, by my answer to Question 2.

Because of my interpretation of "Drug Legalization," the contradiction that my opponent points out is false.

There. All three contradictions are false.

"I'm hoping for the 'PRO admits defeat' option."
Never!

Thanks for this debate, wjmelements. It was great.
wjmelements

Con

If one contradiction stands, then the resolution is negated. Fortunately, all will.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1st: Infinity and my opponent's "applicable" definition.
"Suppose" is the last definition on his sourced definition of consider. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, it is the least applicable. In this situation, "consider" obviously means "regard".

A number cannot be regarded as greater than infinity. Therefore, my opponent's claim still contradicts the dictionary.

Good try, though.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2nd: " God is able to create something that he cannot lift, and still lift it."

This is obviously an invalid argument. If God can lift this something, then He cannot create something that He cannot lift.
My opponent's definition doesn't matter; there is still contradiction, whether my opponent believes that it disproves omnipotence or not.

Good try, though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3rd: My opponent's interpretation of "Drug legalization".

My opponent has created an unnecessary faction in his definition. Legalizing drugs for a portion of the population is still legalizing them.
Legalization- http://www.merriam-webster.com... "to make legal"
My opponent's interpretation of Drug Legalization is inconsistent with the dictionary. My opponent's rebuttal only creates another contradiction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONCLUSION: In one way or another, my opponent has contradicted himself.

If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity.
If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid.

If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything.

If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them.
If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health.

My opponent has contradicted himself. Therefore, the resolution is negated. VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
/vows to slay the diabolical wizard... someday
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
The diabolical wizard had the last laugh.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I'm going Con here. While mongeese can say the Christian God can do the logically impossible, that leads to logical contradictions. By admitting that the Christian God violates logic, mongeese effectively concedes.
Posted by Levin 7 years ago
Levin
this debate is really cool. I want to do one like it.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Under PRO's definition, yes.

It is Decartes' argument against the Paradox of the Stone.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
What the - God can do logical contradictions?
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Ha. Ha.
Will, you are so funny.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"My mind does not have selective reading, I didn't notice it"

I sense a contradiction. (lol)
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
My mind does not have selective reading, I didn't notice it. Nice selective hearing joke, I'm deaf.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
U_E, your mind has selective reading. Don't worry: men have selective hearing.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JohnGotti 7 years ago
JohnGotti
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05