The Instigator
AshleysTrueLove
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
ATHOS
Con (against)
Losing
6 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...
AshleysTrueLove
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 24749
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

AshleysTrueLove

Pro

Ok RULES:
1. You may only ask political or moral questions.
2.You may not ask paradox question or question that can be presumed to have no answer.
3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.
4.If I contradict my position, then I lose, if I don't you lose rather simple.
5.Post first questions in round one or automatic forfeit.
6.Its short argumentation time to keep us on our toes :)
ATHOS

Con

Thanks Pro, for offering an interesting and challenging debate.


I would like to add a definition for clarity.


Moral:

1. involving right and
wrong:
relating to issues of right and wrong and to
how individual people should behave

http://www.bing.com...


Questions:

1.)
Do you consider yourself a moral person?

2.) From where are your morals derived?

3.) Could your morals be compromised due to a situation or event?

4.) Is your definition of 'moral' different from the one I provided? (if yes, explain)
Debate Round No. 1
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

1.)Yes.
2.)I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God. How I interpret these morals are in a framework of Ethical Naturalism with a belief in utility in regards to violating proper function. Will elaborate on request.
3.) Define compromised. If you mean changed, no. If you mean make me act abnormally according to morality yes.
4.) No.
ATHOS

Con

1st question was answered -yes- you consider yourself a moral person (according to the definition I provided).

2nd question was answered 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.'


Questions:

5.)
Which god? (be specific, provide a definition)

6.)
Is there *empirical evidence* for the existence of 'god'? (if no go to conclusion./if yes provide evidence and answer question 7.)

7.)
How has 'god's' morality been demostrated?




































Conclusion if the 6th question was answered with 'NO':

You have answered 'NO', which clearly indicates a contradiction. Allow me to explain. You claim your morals are derived from God. There is no evidence for God. You said '...morals are absolute and come from God.' When the source of the morals are negated, the morals must logically follow. I am in no position to judge your morality, and I have no doubt that you have them, but, your morals were not derived from God. Your morals were most likely derived from family, upbringing and the conditions of the society you live in.
Our morals are derived from where we are and what we do with our lives. A child who is loved and nurtured their entire life will most likely become a loving nurturing parent in the future; whereas a child who is abused runs a higher risk of being abusive toward their children in the future. Think about it, our parents are our first guidance in life, before a person even knows about God, they knew who Mom and Dad were.


I claim victory: You have clearly contradicted yourself. I await your rebuttal.

Your only way out of this dilemna is answering questions 6. and 7..
Debate Round No. 2
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

Point of dispute on contradiction:
First point, Even if the Question 6 is answered with a no, I have not indicated a contradiction. "no evidence" does not amount to "no empirical evidence". I would introduce a principle of rationalism to my naive friend, the fact is through The Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis, and the Innate Concept thesis we can develop the The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If this thesis is so then certain knowledge isn't obtainable by Empirical evidence alone.
However even should your objection stand and rationalism fall, relatively nothing of importance happens. A contradiction has not occurred, I stated not "Morals are absolute and Come from God." I stated "I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God. " Key word being belief needn't be rational and wouldn't necessitate a contradiction. A irrational belief is a irrational belief saying I believe anything per se doesn't indicate contradiction though it may very well be wrong. Saying I believe in unicorns may be wrong, yet it isn't contradictory. The only way my opponent could catch me in a contradiction is if I made proposition with no evidence behind it that the source of which was question. I was making a statement about personal belief which is therefore unable to be contradictory.

5. A Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. This is the god I believe in. This is the morality I follow defended by methodological naturalism.
6.No.
7. A couple of differant ways but I will point to the proper functioning of organisms and their respective organs.
ATHOS

Con



I realize this is just a fun debate, but right now you're just using semantics to try and clear up a contradiction. I asked you 'From where are your morals derived?' you stated 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' Whether you said believe or not is irrelevant.




Morals can't be derived from God. Morals are derived from our experiences of the society we live in.




Then you say: 'The only way my opponent could catch me in a contradiction is if I made proposition with no evidence behind it that the source of which was question.'



This is exactly what you did. You made the proposition 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' and you made this proposition 'with no evidence behind it that the source of' which was question.'





Well, anyways let's move on...Oh, and BTW the term isn't 'for all intensive purposes' which is absolutely meaningless, it's 'For all intents and purposes' LOL. Just the fact that you got the phrase wrong, and have never read it in it's proper form leads me to believe that you have no idea what you're even saying. Let's get back to the debate.




Questions:

8.) Is The Bible the Word of God?

9.) Does the Bible contain contradictions?

10.) How does God demonstrate what is moral?
Debate Round No. 3
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

Well my opponent fail to answer to the other two objections therefore agrees it isn't contradiction.(no evidence doesn't equal no empirical evidence and the Indispensability of Reason Thesis)
8.)Yes.
9.)No. At least not in a more complex sense.
10.) See question 7.

Now I will show Athos violated terms of debate:
1. political or moral questions.
He asked quite a few religious questions that didn't have to do with morality.
and
2.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.
Quite a few question were how or from, these questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.

Because of these violations Athos should lose the debate.
ATHOS

Con

'Now I will show Athos violated terms of debate:
1. political or moral questions.
He asked quite a few religious questions that didn't have to do with morality...'

How is that possible? My first 4 questions all contained the word 'moral' thus, they were questions concerning morals.



Concerning 'religious' questions. You brought up the topic of religion when you answered Q2 'I believe for all intensive purposes morals are absolute and come from God.' God equates to religion. Rule '1. political or moral questions.' If God is the source of your morals, the source can also be questioned. If morals come from God, God can be questioned. Therefore, Q 5-10 are completely valid. You failed to answer Q's 5-10.



'2.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.
Quite a few question were how or from, these questions cannot be answered with a yes or no.'

I did not violate rule '3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but may be answered more complexly.'

This rule is actually not a rule at all, it's a 'non-rule", as it provides no guidance with regard to answer form. As stated, It is ineffectual. It would be no different if the rule were stated: Questions that require a yes/no are applicable, and also questions requiring a more complex answer.

Are there any other ways to answer a question besides "yes/no" or 'answered more complexly.'?




//Note: How many 'I will not contradict myself' debates have you seen on DDO where Pro actually admitted to a contradiction? This was pretty fun, I think I'll create a debate like this one in the near future. It'll probably be more challenging for me, being that I'm a walking contradiction.//
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tkubok 4 years ago
tkubok
Really. No response to the fact that you replied to his question #2, or the fact that you admit that God is your moral authority and therefore questions about God is relevant to morals?
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Truely he did. even if rule about questions wasn't yes or no was.
Posted by tkubok 4 years ago
tkubok
Athos didnt violate any rules. If you believe that God is the author of your morality, questions on God directly have to do with your morality. And you opened the floodgates when you said "BUT may be answered more complexly". For this reason, question #2, is not a strictly yes or no, yet you failed to mention anything in the second debate round, and after having answered the question, brought it up as a violation at the very last round. Sounds like a tactic to escape losing the argument.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
10-20 doesn't matter really long as it fits in the limit :)
Posted by ATHOS 4 years ago
ATHOS
How many questions am I allowed to ask?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
AshleysTrueLoveATHOSTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and conduct to pro. Questions 2, 5, 7 and 10 all blatantly violated rule 3 and con also asked allot of non moral or political questions. Very poor conduct by con. Con's accusations were stupid. Saying he's wrong isn't saying he's contradicting himself. He could have even said 2 2=5 and not contradicted himself. Also countering hitchslaps source and conduct points.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
AshleysTrueLoveATHOSTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro set up the debate for only political and moral, he did inquire about God, thus creating an opening for ATHOS. Furthermore, answers seemed more dodging and contradicting as ATHOS showed thus he won.