The Instigator
Thaddeus
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
21 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: 2/22/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,456 times Debate No: 14839
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Thaddeus

Pro

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no.
2.When Pro answers with a Yes or a No, he can, but is not obliged to, give an explanation for this answer or a clarification.
3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he must give us his reasons for this decision.
4. Con may ask only ten questions per round.
5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction.
6. In round 5 Pro will defend Cons accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. He may not make new arguments or present any contradictions in this round.

NB
Con can only use the information from this debate. Only what I say in this debate counts and can be used against me.
feverish

Con

Hi Thaddeus, thanks for the opportunity to take part in this game/debate. I've had fun with these before, so let's begin.

Questions:

1. Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions?
2. Is Thaddeus your real name?
3. Are you really Rastafarian?
4. Do you believe in God?
5. Do you think the Christian faith prescribes good moral values?
6. Do you agree with Noam Chomsky about everything?
7. Are you a Libertarian?
8. Do you agree with Karl Marx about anything?
9. Is the sky blue?
10. Do you like living in Kent?

Thanks again. I eagerly await my opponent's responses and will have more questions next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Thaddeus

Pro

1. Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions?
No. I would remind my opponent that any statement made here which contradicts information on my profile is not a valid contradiction.

2. Is Thaddeus your real name?
People on this site and my close friends call me by that name, however I was not christened that. I shall allow you to decide what constitutes a "real" name.

3. Are you really Rastafarian?
I may unwittingly agree with some of their principles, but to my knowledge of Rastafarianism I am not.

4. Do you believe in God?
I am agnostic to the possibility of a God

5. Do you think the Christian faith prescribes good moral values?
Some good values, some bad values. Overall? Possibly, however I am not familiar enough with the bible and the christian faith to say for certain.

6. Do you agree with Noam Chomsky about everything?
It is very unlikely. I don't know all his opinions on all things. For example he may like the prequel star wars trilogy, I didn't.

7. Are you a Libertarian?
I am a moderate Libertarian.

8. Do you agree with Karl Marx about anything?
I am very sure I do. He probably agreed with me that it is preferable to be alive, rather than dead.

9. Is the sky blue?
Sometimes what is colloquially reffered to as the sky reflects blue light.

10. Do you like living in Kent?
Most of the time.
feverish

Con

Many thanks to my honourable opponent and kudos to him for answering nine out of ten yes/no questions without using the words "yes" or "no".

Here's some more:

1. Did you like Attack Of The Clones more than The Phantom Menace?
2. Would you rather be killed instantly than be hideously tortured for the rest of your natural life?
3. Are you in the military?
4. Are you a liar?
5. Are you a member of any political party?
6. Do colours exist objectively (rather than varying according to individual perception)?
7. Are you peaceful?
8. Do you know the difference between reflection and refraction?
9. Do you dislike living in Kent?
10. Are contradictions always contradictory?

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Thaddeus

Pro

Your criticism is reasonable. I shall try and be fairer this round.

1. Did you like Attack Of The Clones more than The Phantom Menace?
No.

2. Would you rather be killed instantly than be hideously tortured for the rest of your natural life?
No. I am too afraid of death.

3. Are you in the military?
Yes. Not in the sense you might be expecting though.

4. Are you a liar?
Yes, if a liar means that I sometimes lie, no if it means I always lie.

5. Are you a member of any political party?
Not officially.

6. Do colours exist objectively (rather than varying according to individual perception)?
The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. However, I am not other people so I don't how their brain interprets the signals, and therefore don't know whether that is objective or not.

7. Are you peaceful?
No

8. Do you know the difference between reflection and refraction?
No

9. Do you dislike living in Kent?
No.

10. Are contradictions always contradictory?
If this question means does a contradiction always has to be a logical incompatability between two or more propositions, then yes. If not then I would appreciate clarification on what the question means.
feverish

Con

Thanks Thaddeus. Last ten questions:

1. Can light reflect off something that is not solid?
2. "Red can be blue", do you agree?
3. "Right can be wrong", do you agree?
4. Are you a liberal?
5. Are you a democrat?
6. Do you ever leave the house?
7. Do you have no feelings about living in Kent, one way or the other?
8. Are all living beings conscious?
9. You are driving a bus that you cannot allow to slow down without killing yourself (as in the movie Speed) and you come to a fork in the road, you see that one route leads off the edge of a cliff and the other doesn't and seems safe. Do you take the safe route?
10. Do dogs get sad?
Debate Round No. 3
Thaddeus

Pro

Thaddeus forfeited this round.
feverish

Con

Thaddeus accidentally forfeited the last round, so here are his answers as posted in the comments section. I've resisted the urge to cheat by editing them.

1. Can light reflect off something that is not solid?
Yes
2. "Red can be blue", do you agree?
No. The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. A wave cannot have two different values at once.
3. "Right can be wrong", do you agree?
The political right can be =D
But right (as the opposite of wrong) can't be wrong.
4. Are you a liberal?
Yes (to a certain extent)
5. Are you a democrat?
Yes, I believe democracy is the best political system we are aware of.
6. Do you ever leave the house?
Yes
7. Do you have no feelings about living in Kent, one way or the other?
Sometimes.
8. Are all living beings conscious?
I don't know. I am not "all living beings"
9. You are driving a bus that you cannot allow to slow down without killing yourself (as in the movie Speed) and you come to a fork in the road, you see that one route leads off the edge of a cliff and the other doesn't and seems safe. Do you take the safe route?
Yes.
10. Do dogs get sad?
I don't know, they appea to have that emotional capacity, but I am not a dog so I wouldn't no for certain.


Thaddeus has contradicted himself numerous times in this debate While many of these are clear contradictions, some are merely implied contradictions, that can be logically inferred from Thad's statements. I will present five of each type. These are just the ones I spotted, there may well be many more.

Clear contradictions:
(Where there is an explicit logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.)

1. In R2, Thaddeus answered "no" to the question: "Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions?" However he contradicts this with answers to other questions which are accurately reflected by his profile. http://www.debate.org... For example, he confirms that he is in the military, that he lives in Kent etc.

Note that the issue is not that he contradicts his profile but that he claims it doesn't reflect his personal information accurately when it clearly does to a certain extent. Although relevant information is on his profile, the contradiction is internal to the debate.

The fact that this is the only R2 answer that Thad gives a straight yes/no to is telling. In every other answer here, he has clearly differentiated between the absolute and the partial ("most of the time" etc.), Since he didn't qualify this answer by saying his profile reflected only some of his information, it is clear that he is saying none of the information is true, which he then contradicts by confirming that some of it is in his other answers.

2. In the same answer, Thad claims that "any statement made here which contradicts information on my profile is not a valid contradiction."

In his R3, he contradicts this by confirming that "a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions" is always contradictory. Even if a contradiction does not apply to this game/debate, it still exists as a valid contradiction.

3. In his 7th answer in R2, Thad claims he is a "Libertarian". Note the use of capitals. Now anyone who has strong beliefs in personal liberties might describe themselves as a libertarian, but only a member of the Libertarian Party would describe themselves as a Libertarian. In the same way I might say I am a socialist, but I am not in any Socialist party, so I am not a Socialist and there are many libertarians on this site, but few Libertarians.

Thad demonstrates his understanding of the distinction implicit in this use of capitalisation in his last round of answers, he doesn't infer the Democrats from Q5, nor any Liberal party from Q4. This statement of being a Libertarian contradicts his R3 answer that he is "not officially" a member of any political party.

4. In his last set of answers Thad says that Red cannot be blue, however in answering another question he admits that dogs "appear to have that emotional capacity" to get sad. Since he can believe that dogs get sad, it is contradictory to insist that my dog Red http://www.debate.org... cannot be blue. http://www.usingenglish.com...

5. Also in that final set of answers copied from the comments section and pasted above, Thaddeus clearly claims that as right is the opposite of wrong, it can never be wrong. Careful to cover his back, Thaddeus mentions politics, showing that he is referring to right only in the sense of being correct, as well of course as the standard directional sense of the word.

As we all know, left can sometimes be a better choice than right, making right wrong. Thaddeus apparently knows this as well, indicating that if driving a runaway bus he would not take a turning that led over the edge of a cliff no matter which direction it lay (he is deathly afraid of death after all). Thaddeus clearly believes that right can sometimes be wrong, despite his assertions to the contrary.

Implied contradictions: (Where a contradiction may not seem explicit, but can be logically inferred.)

1. In R2 Thaddeus says "I was not christened that" when discussing his name, this strongly implies that he was Christened by some other name, else he would not mention it. In the same round he claims he is "not familiar enough with the bible and the christian faith to say for certain" whether they prescribe good moral values. The idea that he would know so little of the faith he was baptised in to seems contradictory to me.

2.
In R3 Thaddeus confesses to a crippling fear of death, one that is so intense that he would rather stay alive being hideously tortured for many years than be killed instantly. One would logically infer from this that the everyday hazards of the modern world would discourage Thad from ever leaving his residence. Apparently not, his answers in R3 and also in the last set confirm that not only does he in fact leave his house but he is also a member of the military and leads a far from peaceful life. This surely contradicts the extent of the fear of death that he describes.

3. Also in R3, Thad reveals a gaping hole in his knowledge of basic physics, confessing he has no comprehension of the difference between reflection and refraction. This level of scientific naivety however, does not seem to prevent him from confidently explaining the nature of one of these processes on more than one occasion. I call contradiction.

4. In his final answer of the debate, Thaddeus says "I wouldn't no for certain". Since this does not make grammatical sense (there being no verb "to no"), we must attempt to logically infer what Thad means here. He has already answered the question "I don't know" which demonstrates that he has no difficulty spelling the word "know" so this couldn't possibly be a simple spelling error.

The only logical conclusion is that Thaddeus is using some unusual idiomatic version of the word "no" which can surely only mean something like "reply in the negative". Thaddeus is saying he certainly wouldn't say "no", ever, or so it would seem. This would clearly contradict the numerous times he has said "no" in this debate.

5. Lastly, it s somewhat surprising to see that Thad's forfeit of a round does not directly contradict the rules he laid out. However I think a contradiction can still be logically inferred from this as he set out to post in every round and then didn't.

Over to you Thaddeus.
Debate Round No. 4
Thaddeus

Pro

Firstly I'd like to thank Con for his gracious behaviour in the face of my rude failure to keep to the deadline.
Now to defending myself;

Clear contradictions: (Where there is an explicit logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.)

I shall be using this as the accepted definition of contradiction.

1. I see no contradiction in deciding not to explicitly state that some of it was true. You may infer a contradiction, but there is no explicit contradiction. Referring to the behaviour in which I typically answered the questions has no relevance.
Proposition one; I live in Kent
Proposition two; My profile info is not accurate.
It would be illogical to assume that not being accurate means that its entirety is inaccurate, as only one piece of false information on my profile would render it inaccurate.

2.
The important word here is Valid. When I state the contradiction as not being valid I mean that it cannot be used for the purpose of the debate.
The contradictions you note between what I say and my the info on my profile are indeed contradictory, but they are not valid for the purpose of the debate.

3. I occasionally accidently capitalize things which ought not to be and don't capitalize things which ought to be. Purely error, no contradiction. This is assumption of my behaviour. Again not a contradiction.

4.
"No. The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. A wave cannot have two different values at once."
I clearly state what colour is in relation to the question in my answer, thus barring the possibility for red to be defined as your dog, or blue as a state of mind. furthermore, I only state that they appear to have that capacity, and therefore I still don't know if the your dog Red is sad for certain.

5.
It is false to assume that I meant the directional right. The propositions are compatible as it is possible to take a single definition of right. As the propositions are compatible, they are not contradictory.

----
It is interesting to note that you have made assumptions about my behaviour to constitute contradictions, however this would contradict (lol) the definition of contradiction as these statements are easily compatible if your antecedent assumptions about my behaviour are wrong.

----
1.
Obviously no contradiction. It is not unusual for people to have religious parents but are not religious in any way themselves.
2.
It is illogical to assume that I would be afraid of ordinary life. My fear of death stems from my love of life.
3.
You are correct in that I evidently have a gaping hole in my knowledge of basic physics. However, not all scientific knowledge is requires pre-requisite knowledge of other areas in the science. It is easily possible for me to be knowledgeable in one area and ignorant in another.

4.
A typo is not a contradiction. You are making antecedent assumptions about my behaviour which are false, rendering your conclusion that I have contradicted myself, as incorrect.

5.
Evidently no contradiction. Deviation from behaviour is not a contradiction. Just in this case bad manners.

I would like to thank Con for an entertaining debate, and again apologize for my rude forfeit.
feverish

Con

Summary:

Thanks Thaddeus, for a fun debate, may it be the first of many for you on the site. Please don't lose any sleep over the forfeit which was a simple and honest mistake.

I don't think Thad's rebuttals in his final round adequately defend his contradictions. The crux of them seems to be that most of his contradictions were mere errors that shouldn't count against him. This holds no weight with me. Obviously one would not expect someone to make a debate as Pro for the resolution "I will not contradict myself" and then contradict themselves intentionally. Of course his contradictions were all errors, this doesn't make them any less contradictory.

As Pro and instigator, Thad clearly bears a heavy burden of proof in this debate, but has not even denied my R4 contention that "there may well be many more" contradictions I did not manage to spot. By dropping this point he apparently concedes that there may well be more contradictions, a clear failure to fulfil his burden of proving that he has not contradicted himself.

In many cases my R4 accusations pre-empted Thad's defense of his contradictions. Rather than addressing the logic I have used to prove his statements contradictory, he merely glosses over my points, deciding what is and isn't "valid" in a most arbitrary fashion.

My supposed "assumptions of behaviour" all stem logically from the information Thad has provided in this debate. Information that I have demonstrated to be contradictory in many instances.

Thanks again to my worthy opponent Thaddeus and to anyone else who happens to read this.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I've written up a response. My head is fairly fuzzy right now so I am going to check and post it in the morning.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
Sure. If I run out of room, you can always put 'em in yours.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
If you have room in your response could post my answers in your round?
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
No probs, seems a shame not to finish once we've got this far. The forfeit does mean that it won't show up on the front page when we're done though so probably won't get any votes, but c'est la vie.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I appreciate that.
1. Can light reflect off something that is not solid?
Yes
2. "Red can be blue", do you agree?
No. The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. A wave cannot have two different values at once.
3. "Right can be wrong", do you agree?
The political right can be =D
But right (as the opposite of wrong) can't be wrong.
4. Are you a liberal?
Yes (to a certain extent)
5. Are you a democrat?
Yes, I believe democracy is the best political system we are aware of.
6. Do you ever leave the house?
Yes
7. Do you have no feelings about living in Kent, one way or the other?
Sometimes.
8. Are all living beings conscious?
I don't know. I am not "all living beings"
9. You are driving a bus that you cannot allow to slow down without killing yourself (as in the movie Speed) and you come to a fork in the road, you see that one route leads off the edge of a cliff and the other doesn't and seems safe. Do you take the safe route?
Yes.
10. Do dogs get sad?
I don't know, they appear to have that emotional capacity, but I am not a dog so I wouldn't no for certain.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
Probably be fairer if you answer them here in the comments and then we carry on as planned, but up to you.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
These things happen I guess. Do you want to answer the questions here in the comments and we can still finish it off?
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I could answer the questions and you get to accuse a contradiction without me being able to defend myself?
Its your call.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Sorry. I messed up. I thought I had 12 hours more than I did. All votes to Con as I failed to adhere to the rules.
My sincere apologies.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
What the hell is up with the forfeit Thad? You were posting in the games section of the forum three minutes before the timer ran out. Is this an admission of defeat or just bad manners?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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's ff, he contradicted himself
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the retard, sorry for spamming your updates thaddy, qopel is on a votebombing rampage :-/
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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: Stop it qopel.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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: CVB
Vote Placed by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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: I think PRO was way ahead on the vast majority of contradictions. The only one I found compelling was the #1 about profile accuracy. While I thought the absolute/partial differentiation made by CON was very counter-intuitive, I didn't see it clearly answered by PRO.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
ThaddeusfeverishTied
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: I found Pro's contradictions regarding the accuracy of his profile and his political affiliation valid.