The Instigator
shift4101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
7 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 20312
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

shift4101

Pro

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.
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, CON wins.
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. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.
10. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
THEBOMB

Con

(that's much better....it should work now.)

1. Are you alive?

2. Do you move from location to location?

3. Are you human?

4. Do the laws of time and space apply to you?

5. Can you travel in time?

6. Do you have two parents?

7. Do you live on the planet Earth?

8. Do you have an animal?

9. Do you like sports?

10. Have you sustained any serious injuries?
Debate Round No. 1
shift4101

Pro

1. Are you alive?

Yes

2. Do you move from location to location?

(This question doesn't make any sense. I ask you reword it next round and post it after your initial 10 questions. If you refuse, my answer is this:) Yes

3. Are you human?

Yes

4. Do the laws of time and space apply to you?

Yes

5. Can you travel in time?

Unless you are refering to the natural flow of time in which I participate, No.

6. Do you have two parents?

Yes

7. Do you live on the planet Earth?

Yes

8. Do you have an animal?

Yes

9. Do you like sports?

Yes

10. Have you sustained any serious injuries?

Yes
THEBOMB

Con

1. You are human correct?


2. When you look at a solid object laying on the floor, does it move?


3. Have you ever touched a beaver?


4. Are horses always dangerous?


5. Is it possible for 1=0?


6. Do you have a beard?


7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States?


8. Do semantics matter in this debate?


9. Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?


10. Have you ever worn a top-hat?


And rephrase of q. 2 as my opponent asked


2. Do you walk or otherwise transport yourself from place to place?
Debate Round No. 2
shift4101

Pro

1. You are human correct?

Yes

2. When you look at a solid object laying on the floor, does it move?

Yes

3. Have you ever touched a beaver?

No

4. Are horses always dangerous?

No

5. Is it possible for 1=0?

So as long as both numbers are equal in terms of what they define, yes.

6. Do you have a beard?

No

7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States?

No

8. Do semantics matter in this debate?

Yes

9. Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?

(This is not in the form of a yes or no question. Ask an additional question next round or forfeit.)

10. Have you ever worn a top-hat?

Yes

And rephrase of q. 2 as my opponent asked


2. Do you walk or otherwise transport yourself from place to place?

Yes
THEBOMB

Con

I would like to point out a broken rule. Rule number 2. My opponent failed to answer this question with a yes or no answer because the question can be answered with a yes or no. I asked "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematical law?" My opponent could say "yes" implying everything provable can follows scientific or mathematical law. Or he could say "no" everything provable by science and mathematics does not follow scientific or mathematical law.

I also want to point out a couple contradictions:

"3. Have you ever touched a beaver? No"
and
"10. Have you ever worn a top-hat? Yes"

Top-hat, according to dictionary.com, means a tall, cylindrical hat, worn by men.
Beaver, according to dictionary.com, can mean to be a top hat. Therefore, my opponent has touched a beaver.

"4. Are horses always dangerous? No"
and
"7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? No"

Horse, according to dictionary.com, is slang for heroin.
Heroin is a substance illegal in the United States.
Therefore, I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States.

Furthermore, there is a contradiction in question 4 itself.
Horse is slang for heroin. Heroin is always directly dangerous to people if consumed and indirectly dangerous to people because of the marketing and the gang activity involved around the selling of heroin.
Therefore, horses are always dangerous.

Now ten more questions,

1. Just to further clarify, you are human, correct?

2. Do you emit waste?

3. Have you ever worn a visor?

4. Do you read?

5. Do you like mathematics?

6. Se li posib pou ou pou w konprann sa a?

7. Does a woodchuck chuck wood?

8. Can you understand foreign languages?

9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous?

10. Are you telepathic?
Debate Round No. 3
shift4101

Pro

My opponent asked me this question: "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematical law?" But this, as I have said, is not a yes or no question. It asks me to specify if scientific law verifies science or mathmatics or if mathmatical law verifies science or mathmatics. This violates rule 1.

Or my opponent was asking me 4 different questions, cleverly hiddin within a single sentence.

Does everything provable by science follow scientific law?
Does everything provable by science follow mathmatical law?
Does everything provable by mathmatics follow scientific law?
Does everything provable by mathmatics follow mathmatical law?

This also violates rule 1. You are allowed to ask a total of 10 questions, not a total of 10 senteneces. Since you did not revise the question and instead challenged me, you do forfeit the debate.


As for his other his other contradictions, they are not conclusive at all. According to dictionary.com, horse being used as slang for heroin falls all the way to the bottom of the chart, at number 17. The charts are ordered in sequence of frequency, so I most likely did not contradict myself when asked about horses. [1] The same applies for beavers. [2]

1. Just to further clarify, you are human, correct?

Yes

2. Do you emit waste?

Yes

3. Have you ever worn a visor?

Yes

4. Do you read?

Yes

5. Do you like mathematics?

Yes

6. Se li posib pou ou pou w konprann sa a?

Wi

7. Does a woodchuck chuck wood?

No

8. Can you understand foreign languages?

Yes

9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous?

No

10. Are you telepathic?

No

(Let it be noted my answer to #6 means yes)

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
THEBOMB

Con

I did not violate rule number one. Even if I was asking 4 different question hidden in a single question. The key word here is "single question", I only asked 1 question which implied 4 different things. There is no rule against this. Therefore, because my opponent refused to answer the question with a yes, no, or explanation why neither is totally correct he is in violation of rule number 2.

Also, my opponent still is contradicting himself. Even though the definitions may be at the bottom of the list. They are still definitions of the term. They still apply to the term, depending on the context. In this case, the contradictions, I pointed out above (1, 2, 3), are still valid as defining the beaver as a top hat and the horse as heroin still make sense in the context of their respective questions. The frequency in which they are used is irrelevant as my intent was to define beaver as top hat and horse as heroin. I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States, heroin. Heroin is always dangerous (3). My opponent has touched a beaver (1). Therefore, my opponent is contradicting himself.

(1--a contradiction) "3. Have you ever touched a beaver? No"
and
"10. Have you ever worn a top-hat? Yes"

Top-hat, according to dictionary.com, means a tall, cylindrical hat, worn by men.
Beaver, according to dictionary.com, can mean to be a top hat. Therefore, my opponent has touched a beaver.

(2--another contradiction) "4. Are horses always dangerous? No"
and
"7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? No"

Horse, according to dictionary.com, is slang for heroin.
Heroin is a substance illegal in the United States.
Therefore, I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States.

(3--the third contradiction) Furthermore, there is a contradiction in question 4 itself.
Horse is slang for heroin. Heroin is always directly dangerous to people if consumed and indirectly dangerous to people because of the marketing and the gang activity involved around the selling of heroin.
Therefore, horses are always dangerous.

Furthermore, I now want to show another contradiction present in my opponents answers.

"9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous? No"

Dangerous is defined by dictionary.com as "able or likely to cause physical injury." Able is defined as "having necessary power." A substance is defined by dictionary.com as "physical matter or material." My opponent here is stating that matter which has the power to cause injury does not always have the power to cause injury. A dangerous substance is always dangerous because it has the potential to cause injury.
Debate Round No. 4
shift4101

Pro

I am saddened that none of these contradictions are legitimate.

There are two ways to percieve my opponents question "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?"

Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?
Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?


So we have 3 conclusions, that my opponent wanted me to specify whether science or mathmatics follow scientifc or mathmatical law, whether science or mathmatics follow scientific or mathmatical law, or that his sentence doesn't make any sense.

Given the first conclusion, his question is not yes/no
Given the second conclusion, his question is not yes/no
Given the third conclusion, his question is about as strong as "Does everything provable by Y or X follow W or Z?" If you said yes, what would you be saying yes to, exactly? It wouldn' be an appropriate answer. Therefore, this isn't a logical sentence.

All of my opponents contradictions based on a single definition from dictionary.com is silly. First of all, he is appealing to authority, (Why not ask "do you like milk?" and say later that the question meant "Is the answer to this question no?") and even then the authority is weak. The definitions are listed in order of frequency and are used most commonly according to where they place on the list. You did not specify what you were talking about, so I was left to assume. Given that, I was most likely talking about the horse as in animal rather than the horse as in heroin. The same can be said about beavers. I most likely did not contradict myself.

As for my opponents claim about dangerous substances, I will use an example rather than a definition. Is heroin a dangerous substance? Yes, it is. (Plus it is a key point to one of my opponents definitions) Is heroin in a world where no life exists dangerous? No. Therefore, dangerous substances are not always dangerous.
THEBOMB

Con

My opponent could still have answered the question. Because as the rules say, "PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." He did none of the above and therefore, my opponent did not answer the question by stating "why neither answer would be completely correct" which he obviously had the ability to do, just look at his explanation why he didn't answer the question in rounds 4 and 5. It still is a single question even with the implied extras.

Furthermore, a definition is a definition, is a definition. Either definition was correct in the context, therefore, either definition could be used in the context. Just because my opponent believes I was talking about the animal does not mean I was. Obviously his assumption was wrong or he would not have contradicted himself in the first place. Seeing as he never talked about the horse or the beaver and only answered with a yes/no and I was the one talking about the horse or beaver. His objection is irrelevant as it relies on "frequency" but, why does this matter? It still IS definition. No where in the rules does it state that I have to specify which definition I will be utilizing.

Heroin even in a world where no life exists stills has the "potential to cause injury" because life can exist on that planet at a later time. It has this potential because it is heroin which is dangerous.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"I have not :-)"

O.O :(
Posted by shift4101 4 years ago
shift4101
Whatever. This was silly, and not what I had intended. The point of this is to get me to say things that contradict themselves, not use obscure meanings. Really, how would this be fun if I had to go to every credible dictionary source on the internet and make sure that every word in every question he asked couldn't be used against me in a negative way? It is silly, and I did not enjoy this.
Posted by watcha 4 years ago
watcha
I have not :-)
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Watcha, have you read any other of the "I will not contradict myself" debates?
Posted by watcha 4 years ago
watcha
'Wow, Cons good, Nice job Con! I never would have guessed the hat and horse thing.'

This is exactly why it is a silly argument.
Posted by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
Wow, Cons good, Nice job Con! I never would have guessed the hat and horse thing.
Posted by watcha 4 years ago
watcha
We're defining dangerous, sorry typo on my part.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Just out of curiosity how can the definition of danger be "causing danger" when your trying to define danger by using danger....your defining the word by using the word which you are trying to define.....
Posted by watcha 4 years ago
watcha
Furthermore, 'potential to cause injury' is not the definition of danger, as you state.

If that were true, every single item in the world would be included within that definition, so the word dangerous would come to mean nothing.

Definition is defined as 'able or likely to cause physical injury' - and able is defined as 'having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications'.

Nowhere within those definitions is the word 'potential' raised. An object may have the 'potential' to be dangerous, or the 'potential' to do harm - but not yet be dangerous, because in the absence of something to act on, it is not 'able or likely' to cause physical injury. More accurately, it does not have the 'necessary resources' - one of the required resources being some life form to present the danger to.

Finally, the first definition of danger is 'causing danger' - note the present tense, which backs up every other conclusion I reached.
Posted by watcha 4 years ago
watcha
Dunno which people voted for Con - probably friends or family, because to ask a question about a Horse and then imply that the other guy should have known that you were using an obscure meaning of the word, is ridiculous. It's your job, as the communicator, to convey a message in a way that can be understood. If your question was interpreted using common meanings of the words, it means that you failed to ask it correctly - and it's your responsibility to correct that.

Furthermore, your whole arguments about 'danger' being ever-present are nonsense (and I say ever-present because that would necessarily have to be the case for you to be correct). An object is only able to do harm, or has power to do harm, when there is something there to harm. If something vulnerable to the danger later comes within range, then the object once again becomes dangerous, but anything ever is only dangerous when considering its context, and that context includes time. By your logic, an atom inside a pillow on the moon which was used to cushion a space landing is dangerous because it was once hurtling through space in a comet. Danger isn't permanent, and as such Heroin isn't always dangerous. To clarify, the definition of danger does not include the words 'potential to become dangerous at a later date'. If there is no life which can be placed in danger, the object is not dangerous, regardless of whether or not life later returns. Even if it does, it may not be dangerous if the new life form is unaffected by heroin and again it would not be dangerous at that point in time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
shift4101THEBOMBTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated the rules when he not only refused to answer Con's 10 questions in round 4 but in addition refused to answer his question about the provability of science and math (a question with multiple implications is still a single question and can be answered with 'yes' or 'no'). Pro also does poorly against Con's arguments; arguing that the definition is a minor one does not eliminate its validity....Sorry, Pro, but Con wins automatically....
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
shift4101THEBOMBTied
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: I think Pro did indeed contradict himself. While Con did use obscure definitions to prove his point that was the point of the debate wasnt it? For Con to attemtp to trick Pro into losing? Well it worked. Con wins.