The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

I will not contradict myself.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 10/9/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,715 times Debate No: 18701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

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. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.
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.
12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.

Good luck.
jm_notguilty

Con



Challenge accepted, let’s begin.




  1. Are you a homosexual?

  2. Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and

  3. Do you follow the law?

  4. Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy?

  5. Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights?

  6. Is killing another person ever morally acceptable?

  7. Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm?

  8. Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces)

  9. Are semantics appropriate for this debate?

  10. Will you contradict yourself in this debate?

Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

1. Are you a homosexual?
No.

2. Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and
No.

3. Do you follow the law?
No.

4. Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy?
No.

5. Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights?
Yes.

6. Is killing another person ever morally acceptable?
Yes.

7. Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm?
No.

8. Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces)
No.

9. Are semantics appropriate for this debate?
Yes.

10. Will you contradict yourself in this debate?
No.
jm_notguilty

Con



  1. Similar to Q #10 of R1, Are you sure that you’re not going to contradict yourself in this debate?

  2. Did you respond to my very first statement?

  3. Are you in favour of Abortion?

  4. Did you answer ‘yes’ to the last two questions in round 1 of this debate?

  5. Did you answer ‘no’ or some other no-related word to the above question?

  6. Are we certain that we exactly know the future?

  7. Are you a realist?

  8. Do you believe in dwarves?

  9. Do ideas exist?

  10. Do you believe that the online dictionary you cited in the rules in R1 is an accurate source?


Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

1. Similar to Q #10 of R1, Are you sure that you're not going to contradict yourself in this debate?
Yes.

2. Did you respond to my very first statement?
No.

3. Are you in favour of Abortion?
For medical abortions, yes. For social abortions, no.

4. Did you answer ‘yes' to the last two questions in round 1 of this debate?
No.

5. Did you answer ‘no' or some other no-related word to the above question?
Yes.

6. Are we certain that we exactly know the future?
No.

7. Are you a realist?
Yes.

8. Do you believe in dwarves?
Yes.

9. Do ideas exist?
Yes.

10. Do you believe that the online dictionary you cited in the rules in R1 is an accurate source?
Yes.
jm_notguilty

Con


Thanks for the response. Here are some new questions:



Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate?



Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction?



Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist?



Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate?



Do typical knights use helmets?


Is this question visible to the naked eye?


Do typical knights use horses?



Do typical knights use swords?



Are the three questions stated above factually correct?



Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you’re really not going to contradict yourself in this debate?



Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate?
No.

Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction?
No.

Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist?
No.

Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate?
No.

Do typical knights use helmets?
Yes.

Is this question visible to the naked eye?
Yes.

Do typical knights use horses?
Yes.

Do typical knights use swords?
Yes.

Are the three questions stated above factually correct?
No.

Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you're really not going to contradict yourself in this debate?
Yes.
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

CONTRADICTIONS:

C1: The Substance Contradiction

In the 2nd question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if I ‘mentioned’ a substance that can be harmful and illegal, to which I said no, but in the 7th question of that same round, I asked him if knights used ‘horses’. Now, my opponent failed to define ‘horse’, which is a mistake, because according to Merriam Webster, there is another definition of ‘horse’, which is a slang term for heroin {1}, which is an illegal drug/substance that can be deemed harmful {2}. Ergo, contradiction.

C2: The Beaver Contradiction

In the 2nd question of R1, I asked my opponent if knights have a connection with ‘beavers’, to which he says ‘no’, but in the 5th question of my R3 post, I asked him if knights used helmets, to which he says ‘yes’. Now, my opponent failed to define what a ‘beaver’ is, which is a mistake and it can give me the advantage of clarifying it more accurately. According to Merriam Webster, another definition of a ‘beaver’ is a piece of armor protecting the lower part of the face, a helmet visor {3}. My opponent states that typical knights have no connection to beavers but if he states that typical knights used helmets (which have beavers {3}), then it is a contradiction on his part.

(A minor issue, my opponent may claim that when I wrote that question, I didn’t complete it with a question mark, I apologize, it was a clumsy minor mistake on my side, but since my opponent answered it clearly with a simple ‘no’, we can assume that he really understood the question and ignored the typographical error and that there’s no need for me to rephrase or clarify.)

C3: The Dwarf Contradiction

In the 7th question of my R2 post, I asked my opponent if he is a realist, to which he said yes, a definition of ‘realist’ according to Merriam Webster, is that it is a concern (engage, occupy) for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary. But when I asked him the next question (R2Q8), if he believes in dwarves, to which he says ‘yes’, but my opponent failed to clarify to which dwarf he believes in, so, again, a mistake, and can give me an advantage of clarifying the term more accurately. The ‘dwarf’ I am referring to is a small legendary* manlike being who is usually misshapen and ugly and skilled as a craftsman {4}. Now, in the 3rd question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if he believed (to accept something as true/real) in legendary/mythical creatures, to which he says ‘no’, this is contradicting his statement that he believes in dwarves. If he really is a realist and does not believe in legendary/mythical creatures, then he shouldn’t believe in dwarves. Contradiction.

(*Legendary- from the word ‘legend’, a popular myth of recent origin)

C4: The Ideas Contradictions

C4.1: This is kind of similar to C4, I asked him in the 9th question of my R2 post if ideas exists, which he says ‘yes’. Ideas can be defined as an image in mind {5}, and ‘exist’ is defined as to have real being whether material or spiritual or to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions {6}. Again, in R3Q3, I asked him if he believes (to accept something as true/real) legendary/mythical creatures, again, he said ‘no’, but said creatures are technically ‘ideas’, so, if PRO states that ideas exists, then he should also say that said creatures exists, but he didn’t, ergo, a contradiction.

C4.2: This also contradicts his statement that he is a realist, when ‘real’ has almost the same meaning as ‘exist’ {6} {7}. So when he says he’s a realist and states that ideas exists at the same time, then it affects his answers on the ‘dwarves’ and ‘legendary/mythical creatures’. Contradiction.

C5: The ‘I haven’t contradict myself’ Contradiction

C5: In the 1st question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if he has already contradicted himself, to which he says ‘no’, but according to the previous contradictions I’ve stated above (like the ‘Ideas’ contradiction), which occurred before I posted R3, so he actually had already contradicted himself, and therefore this answer is a contradiction to the accuracy of the previous contradiction accusations I’ve stated. (This also contradicts his statement in the 10th question of my R3 post).

----

Now, since most of my accusations are based on definitions, and that all definitions come from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, my opponent may claim that the definitions in the questions are obsolete or that he was referring to another definition, if he claims so, it is invalid since my opponent had the opportunity to clarify his answers (or state a specific definition pursuant to Rule 9), and his answers in my R1Q9 and my R2Q10 post state that semantics are appropriate in this debate and the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is a reliable source.

Since 1 contradiction is enough to negate the resolution, I urge the voters to vote CON if a contradiction stands unrefuted.

I await my opponent’s defense/rebuttals.

Good luck!

REFERENCES:

{1} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #6)

{2} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (we can assume that based on the definition per se, ‘addiction’, in a way, can be harmful)

{3} http://www.merriam-webster.com...

{4} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #3)

{5} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (Definition #1 is okay but definition #7 is more precise)

{6} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #1)

{7} http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #2)

Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

Throughout this round, I shall use the power vested in me by Rule #9 to define any words in any questions that my opponent used to create contradictions with the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at my own discretion. As my opponent did not define the words as he asked the questions, he has no authority to define the words therein; that power rests only with me. My opponent claims that I "had an opportunity" to define the words in the questions that has passed, but nothing in the rules suggest that my power ever expires; I may define the words at any time, the only restrictions being that the definitions must come from Merriam-Webster and that, naturally, I musn't contradict myself. Any definitions that I establish fundamentally override any definitions that he has proposed when accusing me of contradictions. Any definitions that I cite are viewable on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, linked in Round 1, with the exact definition locations provided.


CONTRADICTIONS:


C1: The Substance Contradiction

With my power, I define "horse" to mean "a large solid-hoofed herbivorous ungulate mammal (equus caballus, family equidae, the horse family) domesticated since prehistoric times and used as a beast of burden, a draft animal, or for riding," definition 1a(1). Therefore, "horses" refers not to a potentially harmful and illegal substance but instead to animals. There is therefore no contradiction.

Even if my opponent had the power to define words, which he does not, his proposed definition would not work, because "horses," plural, cannot refer to the slang term "horse" which is only used in the singular; "heroins" does not make any sense.

C2: The Beaver Contradiction

With my power, I define "beaver" to mean "either of two large semiaquatic herbivorous rodents comprising a family ... having webbed hind feet and a broad flat scaly tail, and constructing dams and partially submerged lodges," definition 1a. Therefore, "beavers" refers not to any pieces of armor but instead to animals. There is therefore no contradiction, as I have never claimed that there is a connection between beavers and knights.

C3: The Dwarf Contradiction

With my power, I define "dwarf" to mean "a person of unusually small stature," definition 1a. Therefore, "dwarves" refers not to any legendary creatures but instead to small people. It is not contradictory for a realist who does not believe in legendary creatures to believe that dwarves exist, because they do [1].

C4: The Ideas Contradiction

There is an important distinction that must be made between ideas and physical things. This computer exists. The idea of this computer exists. The idea of a unicorn exists. A unicorn does not exist. The claim that legendary creatures are ideas, which is necessary to substantiate my opponent's supposed contradiction, is imply false. The creatures are not images; they are creatures. It is not contradictory to claim that the idea of something is not that thing itself, or that the idea of something can exist while that something does not. I have never claimed that an idea is synonymous to that which it represents (in computer science, for example, a reference to an object is not the same as the object itself, and a reference can refer to something that does not exist), so such a claim has no part in any supposed contradiction of mine.

The second proposed contradiction of the pair relies on much the same falsehood as the first, so I merely refer you to the above paragraph.

C5. The 'I haven't contradicted myself' Contradiction

This contradiction isn't really a contradiction at all, as I have consistantly claimed that I have never contradicted myself, making my belief that I have not contradicted myself an unwavering, noncontradictory statement. Additionally, even if this contradiction were valid, it would rely on the contradictions above, and I have disproved all of them, thus subsequently negating this one as well.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

I would like to remind all voters that according to Rule #7, the sources vote goes to the victor of the debate, regardless of which debater actually used the most sources.

Thank you, jm_notguilty, for this debate; you gave a, while futile, noble effort. I hope to debate you again in the future.
jm_notguilty

Con


I thank my opponent for his response.


First, I’d like to clarify that the rules didn’t really specify that I’m entirely restricted to define words in my accusations, nor did I actually have the obligation to define the words at the same time asking the question. I didn’t misinterpret Rule 9. I used that rule as a reliable dictionary.


Again, my opponent had the opportunity to define and clarify his answers, since all questions might cause a contradiction, he also could’ve asked me to rephrase the question with a definition, but he didn’t. So since I wrote those accusations in R4, I’m bound to define it for my advantage to prove a contradiction, if didn’t do that in R4 and let my opponent define those words instead, my accusations then would be invalid or unclear, which would be unfair since I can’t make new arguments in R5, how can I contradict someone without actual definitions? I technically have a de-facto power on defining words to support my accusations.


Also, please note that I did define the words first in my accusations, and my opponent rebutting them using different meanings is not acceptable and is therefore, invalid.


----


Now, I’d like to refute some of my opponent’s relevant arguments countering my accusations:


“Even if my opponent had the power to define words, which he does not, his proposed definition would not work, because "horses," plural, cannot refer to the slang term "horse" which is only used in the singular; "heroins" does not make any sense.”


I agree, but if you search ‘horses’, it will direct you to ‘horse’, it does not matter if it’s plural or not, or it makes sense or not.


“The creatures are not images; they are creatures. It is not contradictory to claim that the idea of something is not that thing itself, or that the idea of something can exist while that something does not.”


Creatures can be considered as images when you picture it, since an image is a representation or imitation of something, and when it is an image in mind, it is a representation/imitation of something in your mind. Again, if we were referring to the original definition of what I defined, it is actually contradictory if you claim that ‘ideas’ exist and legendary/mythical creatures exist.


Both my contradictions in C4.1 and C4.2 therefore, stand.


In my response to C5 (seeing that I refuted my opponent’s defensive argument), is a valid contradiction, and is therefore, a contradiction made by my opponent.


Yes, he consistently claimed that he didn’t contradict himself, but in response to the 1st question of R3, if he has already contradicted himself, to which he says ‘no’, it doesn’t matter if he continues to deny the question, it’s still a contradiction since a contradiction already happened before (See my previous argument in R4).


---


Again, to prove a contradiction, I need to clarify it, and by clarifying it, I need to define it more accurately. My opponent’s contradictions were and still clear and were never refuted accurately, they stand firm.


Mongeese, it was a pleasure debating with you, I wish you luck on your other upcoming debates (and the current one where you and I are still involved in).


Voters, I thank you for reading and based on my arguments made to support these accusations on my opponent’s contradictions, I urge you to vote CON.


Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Definition abuse was never supposed to be an issue due to Rule #9. The attempted contradictions were a misunderstanding of the rule.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I am a fan of these debates but the recent focus on shifting definitions is...a lot less interesting and entertaining.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
drafterman, it would be rather difficult for me to incorrectly use the very rule that I created. Any words used in the question or answer can be defined by PRO during any round, not just the round in which the question was asked or answered.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
I think Con should've pointed out the connection to beavers, regardless of definition. Using the other definition of beaver, a beaver is a mammal and since a knight is human, so is a knight. They have a connection through common ancestry, since both beavers and knights are mammals.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
If you post the new debate before you post your Round 3 argument, I'll forgive the rule violation.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Damn, I didn't see that, would that result an auto loss for me? Because if so, I'll concede and not bother wasting your time on the next following rounds and claim I already lost due to a rule violation.

Or would you like I send the challenge now and just continue as if I didn't violate a rule.

I apologize again, sorry.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
jm, you still haven't sent me a challenge as per Rule #12.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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: Rule 9 makes him free from contradictions.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Rule 9 won it for Pro (and drafterman doesn't know what he's talking about).
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ftydfu
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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: ditto to Ore_Ele
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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: Since PRO gets to define words that were not previously defined, he is freed from the contridictions.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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: Rule 9 won it for Pro. Pro successfully showed that ideas of things and things are two different things.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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 had a good chance to take this one, but didn't quite pull it off. Pro was consistent with the answers, and provided a good rebuttal to the supposed contradictions.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
mongeesejm_notguiltyTied
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: Both participants used rule #9 incorrectly. The rule is that PRO may define any words "in the question or the answer" unless CON has defined the words "when the question was asked." This sets the scope of rule #9: the question (PRO & CON) and answer (PRO). Rule #9 was only ever invoked outside of this scope. Since neither used rule #9 appropriately, I focused on the only argument not requiring it: ideas. Pro correctly noted the difference between ideas of things and things, so point to Pro.