The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
kohai
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I will not 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  
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: 10/8/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 18670
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

mongeese

Pro

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, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction.
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 PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
7. 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. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.
8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.
11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.

Good luck.
kohai

Con

I want to thank you for giving me a chance to re-do this debate.

1. Do you believe in God?

2. Have you ever mooted before?

3. Do you like to sing?

4. Have you ever sung?

5. Are you positive we are having this debate?

6. Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend?

7. Can we possibly know anything?

8. Do you use 100% of your brain?

9. Is taking the life without consent of that person ever justified?

10. Have you ever mugged someone?
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. No.

7. Yes.

8. Yes.

9. Yes.

10. No.
kohai

Con

Thank you.

1. Have you ever beat your wife?

2. Do you consider yourself to be a person to follow the Bible?

3. Is this statement false?

4. Do you agree with your current positions on your "BIG issues"?

5. Are you the type of person to betray a friend?

6. Have you ever betrayed a friend?

7. Do you enjoy singing?

8. Do you believe in life after death?

9. Will you answer this question by saying, "No."

10. Are you going to heaven?
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

1. No.

2. No.

3. That question cannot be answered adequately, because it is not a statement yet refers to itself as a statement. A question cannot be true or false.

4. Yes, as I interpret them.

5. It would depend on the scenario.

6. Yes.

7. Yes.

8. Yes.

9. This question cannot be answered adequately, because each time I conceive a new answer, the new answer is incorrect and the old answer is correct.

10. I believe so.
kohai

Con

Contradictions

In round 1, I asked my opponent, "Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend?" My opponent answered, "No." However, in this past round I asked, "Have you ever beat your wife/girlfriend?" To which he answered, "No." This is a contradiction as my opponent admited to beating his wife/girlfriend in round 1. "Did you stop beating your wife?" The answer, "No" Seems as if my opponent has beat his wife/girlfriend.

Questons

1. Do you enjoy betraying a friend?

2. Are there such things as absolutes?

3. Are you a Christian?

4. Do you support slavery?

5. Are libertarians ever wrong?

6. Is Evlis Presley alive?

7. Can we know anything for certain?

8. Is it fair for me to bring up a contradiction that you cannot respond to?

9. Can God creat a rock so big even he cannot lift it?

10. Does omnipotence mean that God can do anything?
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Contradictions

I have never stoppe beating my wife/girlfriend because I never started, and I have never had either a wife or a girlfriend, making the action impossible. I never started, I never stopped, I never did. This is logically consistant and consistant with all of the answers I have provided in this debate.

Questions

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No.

5. Yes.

6. I do not know; I am unaware of anyone named Evlis Presley.

7. Yes.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.
kohai

Con

Contradictions

To respond to my last contradiction, my opponent said, "I have never stoppe beating my wife/girlfriend because I never started, and I have never had either a wife or a girlfriend, making the action impossible. I never started, I never stopped, I never did. This is logically consistant and consistant with all of the answers I have provided in this debate."

You never stopped beating your wife/girlfriend because you never had. However, this further contradicts the "no" answer. "Have you stopped beating your wife/girlfriend?" "NO" implies that you still do because you have not stopped.

Furthermore, my opponent fails to answer this question, "6. I do not know; I am unaware of anyone named Evlis Presley." Elvis Presley (http://en.wikipedia.org...) was a famous singer. Sorry for the typo.

1. Should gays die because they are gay?

2. Is the Bible the inerrant word of God that should be followed without question?

3. Should you, "love your neighbour as yourself" if that neighbour is Adolf Hitler?

4. Have you made any mistakes this debate? (spelling, contradictions, etc).

5. Is it possible nothing is true?

6. Is this a debate?

7. Is a direct democracy the best form of government?

8. Are all people created equal with Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot?

9. Is racism justified?

10. 1. Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2. God has contradictory attributes.

Does God exist?
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

Contradictions

It is true that my answer to Question #6, Round 1 may imply that I beat my wife/girlfriend to some, but it is a false implication that draws from a misunderstanding of the question. I never stopped beating my wife/girlfriend because I never beat my wife/girlfriend, and an action must be started before it can be stopped; this was clarified in an answer to a previous question, which should disprove the false conclusion my opponent draws from my first answer.

I never failed to answer Question #6, Round 2 as my opponent claims; I answered it, and he even quoted my answer.

Questions

1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. I do not know; it is possible that I made a grammar or spelling error, but it is also possible that I did not.

5. No.

6. Yes.

7. No.

8. No.

9. No.

10. Yes.
kohai

Con

My opponent admits to the contradiction but states it is a "misunderstanding." Well, he should have asked me what I meant.

In addition, my opponent stated that he is a Christian in round 4. A Christian, by definition, is a person that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God that should be followed without question. I asked my opponent, "Should the Bible be followed without question" to which he answered "no" implying something is wrong with the Bible, thus he is not a Christian.

Lastly, my opponent stated he was a Christian but does not support slavery. The Bible support slavery, and thus contradicts himself in that manner.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
I would also like to remind everyone of Rule #7 (source vote is combined with arguments vote) as they vote; some people tend to forget this.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
kohai, read Rule #3:
"3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction."

Round 4 was the last round that you had for pointing out contradictions. You're never allowed to introduce new contradictions in Round 5 for the reason that I would not be able to respond to them in the debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
mongeesekohaiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: did not contradict self
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
mongeesekohaiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's loaded question could have trapped Pro but unfortunately for kohai, Mongeese's arguments stood...An action must start before it can be executed. If mongeese never beat his wife in the first place, then that means he did not beat her now or currently...
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
mongeesekohaiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: No new Contradictions in R5, Kohai loses.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
mongeesekohaiTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: An action can't be stopped if it never started, so Pro's defense is sound. 5 points as per rule 7. Conduct Pro since Con brought up new contradictions in R5, even though Pro said it would be unfair beforehand.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
mongeesekohaiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did trap Pro with the stopped beating girlfriend contradiction. However, he was supposed to ask yes/no questions, and he asked a loaded question. "have you stopped beating ...." implies that Pro had done it at some point and Con already made this assumption and went from there. With that assumption being false, the question was no longer a yes/no question as required by the rules. The contradiction therefore is invalid.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
mongeesekohaiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to abide by pointing out contradictions in R5, going against rule 3.