The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
8 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...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 22225
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

InVinoVeritas

Pro

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.

Best of luck!
DakotaKrafick

Con

1. Do you believe in God?
2. If yes, do you believe God is all-loving?
3. Are you neither attracted to females nor males?
4. Do you believe some actions are objectively morally wrong?
5. Do you love anyone besides yourself?
6. Do you believe the death penalty is morally acceptable?
7. Do you believe it is morally acceptable to kill in self-defense?
8. Do you believe it is morally acceptable to steal food for survival?
9. Do you believe abortion is morally acceptable?
10. Do you believe euthanasia is morally acceptable?
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. No
2. Not applicable, because answer to #1 was "no."
3. No.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
7. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
8. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
9. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
10. Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.
DakotaKrafick

Con

1. Should people be punished for their crimes?
2. Prior to answering this question, have you chosen to answer "yes" to at least one previous question?
3. Can someone be forced to genuinely love someone else?
4. Is morality subjective?
5. Can someone form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter?
6. Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?
7. Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?
8. Is anarchy better than government?
9. Does free will exist?
10. Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?

Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.
8. No.
9. Yes.
10. No.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Questions

1. Do you like apple pie?
2. Was there ever a time you didn't enjoy sexing another man?
3. Should "In God We Trust" be removed from US currency?
4. Is it easy being green?
5. Aren't you gay?
6. Is the answer to this question "no"?
7. Which word appears first in a dictionary: "yes" or "no"?
8. Do you support freedom of speech?
9. Does a solipsist reality undermine human ethics on the basis of absolute determinism?
10. You know I'm only asking these questions so as to follow all the rules in the instigation, right?

Contradictions

1. Opinions on Subjective Morality

Round 2, Question 4: "Is morality subjective?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 5: "Can someone form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")

Therefore, it can be deduced that my opponent must believe it is possible to form an opinion on matters of morality. However...

Round 1, Questions 6-10: "Do you believe [random thing] is morally acceptable?" (ANSWER: "Neither yes nor no, because I don't believe in objective morality.")

I didn't ask "IS [random thing] morally acceptable"; I asked "Do you believe [random thing] is morally acceptable". I was asking for his subjective opinion on a subjective matter. However, he showed an inability to form a conclusive opinion on the matter due to the fact it was a subjective matter (as shown by the "because I don't believe in objective morality").

2. Yes, Yes, No

This one is just too darn simple.

Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 10: "Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?" (ANSWER: "No.")

What do you mean "no"? Of course you did! I didn't say "only one"; I just said "one". He answered "yes" to two of them, which obviously means he answered "yes" to one of them.
Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Neither. Ask Kermit.
5. Yes.
6. Neither. Nice trick.
7. No.
8. Yes.
9. No.
10. No.

re: Contradictions:
1.
What does "It is possible to form a subjective opinion on a subjective matter" entail? It means that it is POSSIBLE, NOT that from ALL subjective matters (e.g., morality) a subjective opinion can be deduced. Based on the phrasing of "Can someone...?", there is no contradiction here.

2.
"Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?"
I did not answer "yes"... I answered "Yes." Capitalization, my friend.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Disappointing defense there, Pro.

Contradictions

2) "I did not answer "yes"... I answered "Yes." Capitalization, my friend."

Capitalization, huh? Well, let's look back at the questions...

Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")

Oops. Looks like you actually didn't answer "yes" to either question. Thanks for pointing that out.
Debate Round No. 4
InVinoVeritas

Pro

Contradiction 1: Dropped by opponent. It was explained that the phrasing of the question allowed for my given answer to be logical.

Contradiction 2: You're welcome, Con.

Thank you. Vote Pro.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Incredible. Pro, you didn't even bother defending yourself from your own contradiction (not that I blame you... I mean, it's pretty cut-and-dry, but c'mon...).

Contradiction 2: "You're welcome, Con."

That's all my opponent has to say about his contradiction: "You're welcome". Not much of a defense there. Let's review his contradiction:

Round 2, Question 6: "Is your answer to question 7 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 7: "Is your answer to question 6 "yes"?" (ANSWER: "Yes.")
Round 2, Question 10: "Did you answer "yes" to one of the questions 6 or 7?" (ANSWER: "No.")

This is a clear contradiction, whether capitalization matters or not, so let's look at both scenarios.

Capitalization does not matter

He says he didn't answer "yes" to one of the previous questions when he clearly did.

Capitalization does matter

This would save him from the contradiction of question 10, but it creates a new contradiction. He said in both questions (6 and 7) that he answered "yes" to each other, when he really answered "Yes".

Conclusion

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You contradicted yourself, whether capitalization matters or not, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!


Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Correct.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Um, okay, then that rule was kind of pointless lol
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"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."

It says nothing about whether I have to accept or decline. :)
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I'm a little confused, why did you decline the challenge I sent? I thought I was supposed to according to rule 12?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
InVinoVeritasDakotaKrafickTied
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: Pro's "capitalization" defense was weak, Con wins.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
InVinoVeritasDakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Con for proving that he wins even if Pro's unusual capitalization argument is accepted.