The Instigator
Logician
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
3 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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 899 times Debate No: 12574
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Logician

Pro

As I've liked these debates when they've cropped up on this site, I've decided to do one of my own.

Here are the 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.
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 CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses.
6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses.
7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
9. 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.
10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
11. 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...
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank Logician for starting this debate.

1. A man cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the man cut his own hair?

2. Is the answer to this question negative?

3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"?

4. Is it appropriate for anybody to discriminate based on who a person wishes to share a life with, if anybody?

5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party?

6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government?

7. Is Barack Obama usually right?

8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to restrict the rights of the working class?

9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually [more often than not] right?

10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
Debate Round No. 1
Logician

Pro

I'd like to thank mongeese for accepting this debate, and I'm sure with him here it is guaranteed to be a good one. So without further ado, my answers:

1. A man cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the man cut his own hair?

If by "hair" you mean "the hair on top of the head", then no. The man is bald.

2. Is the answer to this question negative?

Neither answer would be completely correct here. If I answered "yes", then I would have to change my answer to "no", and vice versa. This circularity makes it impossible to answer accurately.

3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"?

No. I've been meaning to re-edit it for a while now.

4. Is it appropriate for anybody to discriminate based on who a person wishes to share a life with, if anybody?

The question is imprecise. If you mean, "Is it appropriate for people to discriminate for whatever reason they choose", then no.
If you meant to ask, "Is it ever appropriate...", like in question 5, then yes.

5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party?

Yes.

6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government?

No.

7. Is Barack Obama usually right?

No.

8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to restrict the rights of the working class?

No.

9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually [more often than not] right?

No.

10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence?

There are a number of ideas expressed in the Declaration, some of which are superfluous to the main purpose of the independence of the USA, but expressed nonetheless. Can you detail, in an extra question in the next round, exactly which ideas you had in mind?
mongeese

Con

Logician, your answer to Question 1 is inadequate. If by hair, I do not mean "the hair on top of the head" (which I don't), what is your real answer?

Question 10 is supposed to be an all-or-nothing. You either agree with all of the ideas, or you don't. Please re-answer the question.

11. Do you have to win this debate?

12. Do you believe that the government should enforce a mandatory minimum hourly wage?

13. Is complete democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified?

14. Does the omnipotence paradox disprove the Christian god?

15. Do you base all of your beliefs on reason?

16. Is it ever appropriate for the government to regulate actions between two consenting adults in the bedroom?

17. Is an income tax justified?

18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government?

Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread":
http://www.brawlinthefamily.com...

19. Does the following image appear in the thread?
http://img510.imageshack.us...

20. Does the following image appear in the thread?
http://i37.photobucket.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Logician

Pro

=== Responses to mongeese's comments on my first ten answers ===

"Logician, your answer to Question 1 is inadequate. If by hair, I do not mean "the hair on top of the head" (which I don't), what is your real answer?"

That, almost certainly, neither answer would be completely correct in that circumstance. For unless the man has had all of his bodily hair artificially removed, by electrolysis or other similar means, then he either has or will regain hair on some part of his body. This means that if I answered "yes" I would have to change it to "no", and vice versa. This circularity would make it impossible to answer accurately.

And if the man, for whatever reason, actually had artificially and permanently removed all of his bodily hair, then my answer would be no, for he wouldn't have any hair on his body to cut.

"Question 10 is supposed to be an all-or-nothing. You either agree with all of the ideas, or you don't. Please re-answer the question."

Thank you for that clarification. In that case, my answer to question 10 is no.

=== My answers to the second batch of questions ===

11. Do you have to win this debate?

When combined with the word "to" (as in the sentence, "I have to do this"), Merriam-Webster defines "have" as "to be compelled, obliged, or required" and "to feel obligation in regard to" http://www.merriam-webster.com...

As I type this answer, no, I do not have to win this debate. For as I type this answer, it remains a possibility that I'll contradict myself in a later round. If that were to happen, then I would not win this debate.

12. Do you believe that the government should enforce a mandatory minimum hourly wage?

No.

13. Is complete democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified?

No.

14. Does the omnipotence paradox disprove the Christian god?

No.

15. Do you base all of your beliefs on reason?

No.

16. Is it ever appropriate for the government to regulate actions between two consenting adults in the bedroom?

No.

17. Is an income tax justified?

If you are referring to an income tax levied by a government, then no.
If you are referring to an income tax levied by another company or individual, then maybe. It depends on the individual or company levying the tax, and on the individual or company from whom the tax money is being taken.

18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government?

No.

Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread":
http://www.brawlinthefamily.com...

19. Does the following image appear in the thread?
http://img510.imageshack.us...

As I type this answer, yes it does.

20. Does the following image appear in the thread?
http://i37.photobucket.com...

As I type this answer, yes it does.
mongeese

Con

21. Do you believe that the government should enforce minimum working conditions?

22. Do you have to answer questions that I ask in this debate correctly?

23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction?

24. If a group of people unanimously vote for their government to levy an income tax upon them, then is it justified?

25. Should the government ban slavery in all cases?

26. Are you an anarchist?

27. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in this debate correctly?

28. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction?

29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread?

30. Can a person own an animal's hair?
Debate Round No. 3
Logician

Pro

21. Do you believe that the government should enforce minimum working conditions?

No.

22. Do you have to answer questions that I ask in this debate correctly?

Merriam-Webster defines "correctly" as "conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth". http://www.merriam-webster.com... I also invoke the definition of "have to" put forward in my answer to question 11.

My answers have to be internally consistent with each other, and in this sense must conform to logic. There is nothing in the rules that says that my answers must agree with "fact...or known truth".

23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction?

I once again invoke the definition of "have to" originally mentioned in my answer to question 11.

There are provisions within the rules of this debate for you to ask 30 questions, all of which I have to answer without contradiction. There is no specific provision for what would happen were you to ask extra questions outside of this 30.

Rule 8, however, says that: "If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses." The best answer possible, therefore, is yes.

24. If a group of people unanimously vote for their government to levy an income tax upon them, then is it justified?

No. For one member (or more) of that group might later change their mind. If they were to do so, then the majority would be forcing them to pay income tax, rather than them voluntarily paying income tax.

25. Should the government ban slavery in all cases?

No.

26. Are you an anarchist?

Merriam-Webster defines an anarchist as "a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power." http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I contend that governmental authority is not justified, and so in that sense I agree with anarchist belief. When it comes to other authorities or established orders, etc., it depends on the specific authority, etc., in question. It would therefore not be accurate to label me comprehensively as an anarchist.

27. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in this debate correctly?

I invoke the definition of "have to" put forward in my answer to question 11, and the definition of "correctly" put forward in my answer to question 22.

My answers have to be internally consistent with each other, and in this sense must conform to logic. There is nothing in the rules that says that any of my answers must agree with "fact...or known truth".

28. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction?

I once again invoke the definition of "have to" originally mentioned in my answer to question 11.

There are provisions within the rules of this debate for you to ask 30 questions, all of which I have to answer without contradiction. There is no specific provision for what would happen were you to ask extra questions outside of this 30.

Rule 8, however, says that: "If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses." The best answer possible, therefore, is yes.

29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread?

Question 18 was: "Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government?" No thread was referred to in that question.

30. Can a person own an animal's hair?

No.
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank Logician for answering my questions. Now, I have spotted two contradictions:

Contradiction 1: "Have To"

"11. Do you have to win this debate?
"When combined with the word 'to' (as in the sentence, 'I have to do this'), Merriam-Webster defines 'have' as 'to be compelled, obliged, or required' and 'to feel obligation in regard to'
"As I type this answer, no, I do not have to win this debate. For as I type this answer, it remains a possibility that I'll contradict myself in a later round. If that were to happen, then I would not win this debate."

"23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction?
"I once again invoke the definition of 'have to' originally mentioned in my answer to question 11.
"There are provisions within the rules of this debate for you to ask 30 questions, all of which I have to answer without contradiction."

First, my opponent claims that he does not have to win the debate. However, he then claims that he has to answer all thirty questions without contradiction. There is no reason to have to answer all thirty questions without contradiction, except for to have to win the debate, answering the thirty questions without contradiction being the requirement to winning the debate. Essentially, my opponent does not have to win the debate, and yet he has to win the debate. Contradiction.

Contradiction 2: "The Thread"

"Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as 'the thread'..."

"29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread?
Question 18 was: ... No thread was referred to in that question."

Question 18 refers to a thread as "the thread," and yet in never referenced any thread. Contradiction.

I will now leave my opponent to defend these contradictions.
Debate Round No. 4
Logician

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for a very well-thought out debate, and for presenting what he alleges to be two contradictions in my answers. I will now show how they are, in fact, not contradictions.

1) "Have to"

In saying that I had to answer all questions without contradiction, I was following through on a desire to win this debate. This is why I was under an obligation to answer all questions without contradiction. My opponent pointed this part out very well. Back when I answered question 11, however, I did not know whether this in fact would be the case - this is why I specifically used the phrase, "As I type this". It was still, at that time, possible for me to accidentally contradict myself in my later answers, thereby losing the debate.

It is not a contradiction to put oneself under an obligation to do something, and to express the fact that it may later prove impossible to fulfil that obligation. A desire to win a debate does not necessarily entail that one actually will win the debate.

2) "The thread"

In round 2, my opponent wrote that: "Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread": http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... "

Clearly, this means that instead of my opponent typing out the URL every time, it would be referred to in the shortened phrase of "the thread". In other words, readers are directed that whenever they see the phrase "the thread", they should mentally substitute "http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... ".

Question 18, once again, was: "Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government?" It featured no reference to "the thread". However many times my opponent insisted, therefore, that question 18 would refer to the brawlinthefamily.com thread as "the thread", it in fact never did so. I was therefore correct to say, in my answer to question 29, that no thread was referred to in question 18. It was referred to in questions 19 and 20, and in an external statement, but never in question 18 itself.

Thank you. Vote PRO!
mongeese

Con

1) "Have to"

My opponent claims that when he answered Question 11, he did not know whether or not he had a desire to win this debate - "I answered question 11, however, I did not know whether this in fact would be the case...". However, the correct answer to Question 11 would then be that he did not know whether or not he had to win the debate. I also highly doubt that my opponent had no desire to win this debate at the start of this debate. Is a desire to win not what motivated my opponent to answer the questions in the first place?

My opponent also acknowledges that the desire to win and the impossibility to lose are separate. This is true. However, there always remained a possibility that my opponent would contradict himself, at both Question 11 and Question 23. There remains no reason for the different answers and obligations. Hence, contradiction.

2) "The thread"

My opponent is correct in everything he says. However, there is a slight flaw: I am not the only one who said that Question 18 referenced a thread. He also made the claim. And he didn't just quote me; he would have used quotation marks. He restated and reaffirmed it. Perhaps I need to expand my quotation to make myself more clear:

"18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government?
No.
Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as 'the thread'..."

My opponent's defense is literally worthless due to his assumption that I quoted myself. He has nothing to defend the most blatant of all possible contradictions. By giving no reasonable defense, he has in effect dropped the contention, conceding the debate.

Thank you, Logician, for this debate, and good luck with your future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
RFD = Reason for Decision. More specifically, it's an explanation for why one voted in a certain way, popularized by The Cleaners to combat vote-bombing.

Currently, your reasons for your vote are unknown, given that you just acknowledged that your prior reasons were a mistake. Care to fill us in on your new reasons, Dylan?
Posted by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
RFD= Report for Deletion?

I see no reason to do so, as I've already corrected myself. Also, that would be an "abuse" of the report feature. It is not meant to be used just because I said something incorrect, especially since I already corrected it.

If you wish to report it, however, feel free. No hard feelings. Just know that I will not be doing so.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Can you at least give a new RFD, then, given that the entire reasoning behind your first one, the ambiguity, doesn't exist?
Posted by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
Oh dear, a vast miscalculation on my part. I did not see where you linked to the thread you were referring to. Sorry about that. I rescind my comments regarding that. Either way, none of my voting would have changed.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Wait, how was "the thread" ambiguous in any way?
Posted by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
The fact that Con gave neither a definition nor location for "thread" led me to my almost down-the-line vote in Pro's favor.

While this could be considered a debate in which trickery is understandable, Con gave Pro a question that could not be adequately answered due to the ambiguity of the noun, " the thread", and the lack of a definition for the same. As Con attempted used this ambiguity to his advantage, there wasn't much of a chance for Pro to remain 100% consistent in his answers, because the definition of "thread" was up to Con to decide.

Even in the face of such a deceptive opponent, Pro gracefully addressed the concerns as best as possible.

It is for these reason that I feel it appropriate to vote in Pro's favor.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
I actually used that to my advantage in Round 3.
Posted by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
FAIL on mongeese's part. Question 18 mentions no thread.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
LogicianmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
LogicianmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60